,,calvinistic ,,controversy3 ,,embracing ,a ,,sermon ,,on ,,predestination ,,and ,,election1 ,,and ,,several ,,numbers1 ,,formerly ,,published ,,in ,,the ,,christian ,,advocate ,,and ,,journal4 ,,by ,,rev4 ,,wilbur ,,fisk1 ,d4 ,d4 ,,new-,,york1 ,,published ,,by ,b4 ,,waugh ,,and ,t4 ,,mason1 ,for the ,methodist ,episcopal ,church at the ,conference ,office1 #bjj ,mulberry-street4 ,j4 ,collord1 ,printer4 #ahce4 ,entered according to ,act of ,congress1 in the year #ahce1 by ,b4 ,waugh and ,t4 ,mason1 in the ,clerk's ,office of the ,district ,court of the ,southern ,district of ,new-,york4 ,,contents4 ,advertisement ,sermon on ,predestination and ,election ,i4 ,reply to the ,christian ,spectator ,,ii4 ,a proposition to ,calvinists ,,iii4 ,indefiniteness of ,calvinism ,,iv4 ,brief sketch of the past changes and present state of ,calvinism in this country ,v4 ,same subject continued ,,vi4 ,predestination ,,vii4 ,predestination1 continued ,,viii4 ,moral agency and accountability ,,ix4 ,moral agency and accountability1 continued ,x4 ,moral agency as affected by the fall1 and the subsequent provisions of grace ,,xi4 ,same subject continued ,,xii4 ,objections to gracious ability answered ,,xiii4 ,regeneration ,,xiv4 ,regeneration1 continued ,,xv4 ,regeneration1 continued ,,advertisement4 ,the numbers following the sermon on predestination and election1 were written at different times1 and in some instances at quite distant intervals from each other4 ,this will be received1 it is hoped1 as an apology for any want of connection or uniformity of style1 which the reader may notice4 ,and if any farther apology be necessary1 it may be found in the fact1 that the entire contents of the volume as it is now presented1 were written in the midst of other pressing duties4--,and the same reason has prevented my giving the work such a thorough revision1 as it should have had1 before it was presented to the public1 in the more set and imposing form of a book4 ,such a form was not originally thought of--and now that this is called for1 the author is well aware that the public might expect a careful revision and correction of the whole4 ,from this however1 he must1 of necessity1 be excused4 ,he has been able to do little more than correct the typographical errors4 ,if the public have it1 therefore1 it must go with all its imperfections on its head4 ,only let it be understood1 that ,i do not send it out4 ,the publishers say it is called for2 and ,i consent that it may go4 ,the doctrines ,i believe1 will stand the test of reason and ,scripture1 although some of the arguments by which they are defended may be found defective4 ,it was my original design to have added one or two numbers on election2 but upon farther reflection1 it appeared to me that enough had been said in the sermon on that point2 and that at any rate1 if ,calvinian predestination1 and the ,calvinistic views of moral agency and regeneration1 were found to be fallacious1 the whole superstructure must fall of course4 ,on these points therefore1 we may safely rest the entire question between us and the ,calvinists4 ,w4 ,fisk4 ,wesleyan ,university1 ,april #bh1 #ahce4 ,a ,,discourse ,,on ,,predestination ,,and ,,election4 ,according as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world1 that we should be holy and without blame before him in love4 ,having predestinated us unto the adoption of children1 by ,jesus ,christ1 to himself1 according to the good pleasure of his will1 ,ephesians i1 #d1 #e4 ,in this passage1 the kindred doctrines of predestination and election are brought into view4 ,to discuss them1 to notice some errors respecting them1 and to exhibit what is believed to be the ,scriptural and rational view of these doctrines1 is the proposed object of the present discourse4 ,in doing this1 much that is new cannot be expected4 ,the whole ground of this controversy has been examined and re-examined2 and the various arguments1 on both sides1 have been urged and opposed1 by the most able polemics in philosophy and theology4 ,the most1 therefore1 that can now be expected1 is to give a concise view of the subject1 in a form and manner suited to the present state of the controversy1 and to the circumstances of the present congregation4 ,it is hoped1 at least1 that the subject may be investigated in the spirit of ,christianity2 and that there will be no loss of brotherly and ,christian candour1 if there be no gain1 on the side of truth4 ,yet1 in a desire to give no offence1 ,i must not suppress the truth1 nor neglect to point out1 as ,i am able1 the absurdity of error1 and its unprofitable influences on the minds of those who propagate or receive it4 ,the truth should be spoken1 but it should be spoken in love4 ,neither the subject1 nor the age1 nor the occasion1 will admit of temporizing4 ,with these views1 we come to our subject1 by examining1 ,i4 ,predestination in general2 ,,ii4 ,predestination1 in its particular relation to the doctrine of election4 ,i4 ,by predestination1 we understand an efficient predetermination to bring about or accomplish any future event4 ,but as ,god alone has knowledge to comprehend futurity1 and power to direct and control future events2 predestination1 in a proper and strict sense1 can only be used in reference to him4 ,and with respect to ,god1 predestination is that efficient determination which he has maintained from eternity1 respecting the control1 direction1 and destiny of the laws1 events1 and creatures of the universe4--,that ,god hath a predetermination of this kind1 there can be no doubt2 and therefore1 on this fact1 there can be no dispute4 ,but the ground of controversy is1 the unlimited extent to which some have carried this idea of predestination4 ,calvin1 on this subject1 says1 ,every action and motion of every creature is governed by the hidden counsel of ,god1 so that nothing can come to pass1 but was ordained by him4 ,the ,assembly's ,catechism is similar3--,god did1 from all eternity1 unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass4 ,and ,mr4 ,buck defines predestination to mean1 ,the decree of ,god1 whereby he hath1 for his own glory1 foreordained whatever comes to pass4 ,with these definitions1 which1 it is seen1 are the same in substance1 agree all the ,calvinistic divines in ,europe and ,america4--,to this view of predestination1 others1 and we confess ourselves of that number1 have objected4 ,we believe that the character and acts of intelligent beings1 so far at least as their moral accountability is concerned1 are not definitely fixed1 and efficiently produced1 by the unalterable purpose and efficient decree of ,god4 ,here therefore we are at issue4 ,we believe1 with the rigid predestinarians1 that ,god hath fixed the laws of the physical and moral world1 and that he hath a general plan1 suited to all the various circumstances and contingencies of his government2 but that it is no part of this plan1 efficiently to control and actuate the human will4 ,so far1 therefore1 as these ultra-predestinarians go beyond us1 they affirm what we deny2 and of course the burden of proof falls upon them4 ,we shall first1 then1 hear and answer the arguments in defence of their system1 and then bring up our arguments against it4#a ,the supporters of this system endeavour to establish their views by a threefold argument--the foreknowledge of ,god--the necessity of a plan--and ,scripture testimony4 #a4 ,the first argument is founded on foreknowledge4 ,it is sometimes contended that predestination and foreknowledge are the same4 ,this1 however1 by the more judicious1 is not now insisted on4 ,for it is self-evident1 that to know1 and to decree1 are distinct operations2 and to every one acquainted with the common definition of the terms1 they must convey distinct and different ideas4 ,and if these are distinct operations in the human mind1 they must be also in the ,divine mind1 unless it can be shown that these terms1 when applied to ,god1 have an entirely different meaning from that by which they are understood among men4 ,and as this cannot be pretended1 the more common and plausible argument is1 that the foreknowledge of ,god necessarily implies predestination4 ,for how1 they ask1 can an action that is really to come to pass1 be foreseen1 if it be not determined8 ,god foreknew every thing from the beginning2 but this he could not have known1 if he had not so determined it4 ,god1 says ,piscator1 foresees nothing but what he has decreed1 and his decree precedes his knowledge4 ,and ,calvin says1 ,god therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass1 because he has decreed they shall come to pass4 ,but to this idea there are insuperable objections4 ,prescience is an essential attribute of the ,divine nature4 ,but a determination to do this or that1 is not essential to the ,divine nature4 ,for aught we can see1 ,god might determine to make a particular planet or not to make it1 and in either case the perfection of his nature is not affected4 ,but to know1 is so essential to him1 that the moment he ceases to know all that is1 or will be1 or might be1 under any possible contingency1 he ceases to be ,god4 ,is it not absurd1 then1 to say the least1 to make an essential attribute of ,deity depend upon the exercise of his attributes8--the ,divine prescience depend upon his decrees and determinations8 ,it would seem1 by this argument1 that1 if not in the order of time1 at least1 in the order of thought1 and in the order of cause and effect1 the exercise of an attribute preceded the attribute itself2 and1 in short1 the attribute must be exercised1 as a cause1 to bring it into existence6 ,to this monstrous conclusion we are led by following out this argument4 ,and connected with it is another1 equally monstrous and absurd4 ,if ,god must predetermine events in order to know them1 then1 as the cause is in no case dependent on the effect1 the decrees of ,god must be passed and his plan contrived1 independently of his knowledge1 which only had an existence as the effect of these decrees4 ,what must be the character of that plan1 and of those decrees1 which were formed and matured without knowledge1 we will not stop to examine1 for the idea borders too closely upon the ludicrous to be dwelt upon in a serious discourse4 ,and yet ,i cannot see how this conclusion can be avoided1 reasoning from such premises4 ,it seems to us1 therefore1 altogether more consistent to consider that1 in the order of cause and effect1 the exercise of the ,divine attributes is consequent upon their existence2 and that the plan of the ,almighty is the result of his infinite knowledge2 and that the decrees of his throne flow forth from the eternal fountain of his wisdom4 ,this idea1 moreover1 accords with the ,scriptures3--,for whom he did foreknow1 he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his ,son4 ,elect according to the foreknowledge of ,god the ,father4 ,in these passages predestination and the decree of election are most clearly founded on foreknowledge4 ,this1 therefore1 must settle the question3 ,god foreknows in order to predestinate2 but he does not predestinate in order to foreknow4#b ,but foreknowledge is pressed into this argument in another form4 ,the foreknowledge of ,god1 it is said1 is tantamount to a decree2 because1 inasmuch as ,god cannot be in a mistake1 whatever he foreknows must take place--his knowledge makes it certain4 ,this is indeed shifting the argument2 for if ,god's knowledge makes an event certain1 of course it is not his predetermination4 ,but1 according to this notion1 every thing contained in the idea of predestination is implied in foreknowledge1 which is only throwing the subject back on the ground first glanced at1 that knowledge and decree are both one1 which is obviously absurd4 ,beside1 such an idea would make the scriptures that represent ,god's foreknowledge as distinct from his decree and antecedent to it1 worse than unmeaning3 ,whom he did foreknow1 them he did predestinate1 would mean1 whom he did predestinate1 them he did predestinate--and1 ,elect according to the foreknowledge of ,god1 would only mean1 that the decree of election was according to the decree of election6 the absurdity of which is too apparent to need comment4 ,and it may be urged1 farther1 in reply to this argument1 that knowledge or foreknowledge cannot1 in the nature of things1 have the least possible influence in making an event certain4 ,it is not at all difficult to conceive how the certainty of an event can beget knowledge2 but if any one thinks that knowledge is the cause of certainty1 let him show it--to me such a connection is inconceivable4 ,whatever ,god foreknows or foresees1 will undoubtedly come to pass4 ,but the simple question is1 ,does the event take place because it is foreknown1 or is it foreknown because it will take place8 ,or1 in other words1 ,does ,god know an event to be certain because it is certain1 or does his knowing it to be certain make it certain8 ,the question thus stated1 at once suggests the true answer2 for he would be considered a fool or a madman who should seriously assert that a knowledge of a certainty produced that certainty4 ,according to that1 a certainty must exist in order to be foreknown2 and it must be foreknown in order to exist6 ,from all which it appears that foreknowledge can have no influence in making a future event certain4 ,since1 therefore1 foreknowledge is not predestination2 and does not1 according to ,scripture or reason1 follow predestination as a consequence1 and has no possible influence in making an event certain1 no proof can be drawn from the ,divine prescience in favour of the doctrine that ,god hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass4 #b4 ,but predestination is argued from the necessity of a ,divine plan4 ,it cannot be conceived1 it is said1 that ,god would leave things at random1 and have no plan4 ,but no alteration of his plan can take place upon condition that his creatures act in this or that way4 ,but this argument is easily answered1 at least for the present4 ,for it assumes what ought to be proved2 and what has not1 to my knowledge1 ever been proved1 viz4 that to deny ,calvinian predestination1 is to deny that ,god has a perfect plan4 ,we acknowledge and maintain that ,god has a plan1 one part of which is1 to govern his responsible subjects1 without controlling their will1 by a fixed decree--to punish the incorrigible1 and save those who repent and believe4 ,does such a plan imply the necessity of a change1 on condition that his creatures act in this or that way8 ,if1 indeed1 it was necessary for ,god to decree an event1 in order to foreknow it1 this inference might be just4 ,but as this is seen to be false1 it follows that a perfect ,god1 whose eye surveys immensity and eternity at a glance1 and who necessarily knows all possibilities and contingencies2 all that is1 or will be1 can perfectly arrange his plan1 and preclude the possibility of a disappointment1 although he does not1 by a decree of predestination1 fix all the volitions and acts of his subjects4 ,even in human governments1 where the rulers can have no knowledge of the individuals who will transgress1 or of the nature and extent of the transgressions1 the principles and plan of government undergo no change to accommodate themselves to the contingent acts of the subjects4 ,how absurd1 then1 to suppose that the all-wise ,ruler of the universe will be subject to disappointment1 unless he predestinate the transgressions of sinners1 and the obedience of his saints6 ,the truth is1 in my view1 this idea detracts from the wisdom of ,god2 for the perfection of his plan1 as they maintain it1 is predicated on the imperfection of his attributes4 ,but our view of the ,divine plan accords well with our idea of his infinite nature4 ,over the universe1 and through eternity1 he throws his all-pervading knowledge--as he is in every point of wide immensity1 so he is in every moment of long eternity--and can such a ,god be disappointed8 #c4 ,but1 say the advocates of this system1 supposing there are difficulties in this subject1 the ,scriptures abound with passages which at once prove the doctrine4 ,if this is true1 then indeed we must submit4 ,but the question is1 where are these passages8 ,after such a strong assertion1 it would probably appear surprising to one unacquainted with this subject1 to learn that there is not a single passage which teaches directly that ,god hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass4 ,yet this is the fact4 ,if this doctrine is taught in ,scripture1 it is in an indirect manner4 ,nor will it follow1 because ,god hath predestinated some things1 that he hath1 therefore1 decreed all things4 ,all those passages then which have been so frequently quoted as proof of this doctrine1 which only go to prove1 that ,god hath predetermined certain events1 are not proof in point4 ,where are the passages that say he hath decreed all things8 ,we know of many which say of certain events that have come to pass1 that ,god did not command them1 nor will them2 so that the abundant ,scripture proof seems altogether on the other side of the question4 ,it is argued1 however1 that certain acts of moral agents1 even those acts for which they are held responsible1 are1 according to the ,scriptures1 the results of ,god's predetermination1 and therefore it is reasonable to infer that all are4 ,this general conclusion1 however1 is not contained in the premises2 nevertheless1 if the premises are true1 if it can be proved from ,scripture that ,god holds his creatures responsible for the results of his own decrees1 such ,scripture proofs would be strong arguments to ward off the objections that are brought against this system4 ,for if it is consistent with a righteous ,god to make a moral agent responsible for one event which was the result of a ,divine decree1 upon the same principle1 perhaps1 he might make him responsible for all1 though all were decreed4 ,let us then look at those scriptures1 ,as for you1 says ,joseph to his brethren1 speaking of their injustice to him1 ye thought evil against me1 but ,god meant it for good4 ,now without stopping here to inquire whether ,joseph was inspired to utter this sentiment1 we are ready to acknowledge1 that there are a number of similar scriptures which teach that1 in the results of the wicked acts of wicked men1 ,god had a design and a controlling influence1 and thereby made them subservient to his own purposes4 ,he hath wisdom and power to make the wrath of man praise him1 and to restrain the remainder of wrath4 ,but does he therefore decree the wrath itself8 ,and is this wrath necessary to the accomplishment of his purposes8 ,as well might it be said1 that because a government1 in quelling a rebellion1 replenished its exchequer from the confiscated estates of the rebels1 therefore that government decreed the rebellion1 and was dependent upon it for the prosperity of the nation4 ,let it be distinctly understood then1 that to overrule and control the results of an act is altogether different from making the act itself the result of an overruling and controlling power4 ,again it is said1 ,the ,lord hath made all things for himself1 yea1 even the wicked for the day of evil4 ,that the ,lord hath made all things for his own glory1 is a proposition easily understood1 and doubted1 ,i trust1 by none2 and this is evidently the meaning of the former member of this passage4 ,the latter clause1 if it helps the cause for which it is quoted at all1 must mean1 that the ,lord has predestinated men to be wicked1 that he might make them miserable4 ,but it is not necessary to make the text speak this shocking sentiment4 ,we should do the text no violence to explain it thus--,the ,lord hath destined the wicked for the day of evil1 and this shall be for his glory4 ,but there is another class of passages like the following3--,he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven1 and among the inhabitants of the earth4 ,he worketh all things after the counsel of his will4 ,i will do all my pleasure4 ,but these passages establish nothing1 in opposition to our views1 unless it should first be proved1 by other passages1 or in some other way1 that it is ,god's will and pleasure to work all things1 even wickedness1 in the wicked4 ,these scriptures prove that all ,god's works are in accordance with his own will and pleasure2 and that he will accomplish them in spite of the opposition of sinners4 ,if it pleases him to form his moral government1 so as to leave the responsible acts of his subjects unnecessitated by his decree1 this he will do1 for he will do all his pleasure4 ,but there is still another class of texts1 which are supposed to favour the doctrine we are opposing1 more than any others1 viz4 those passages which seem to represent ,god as bringing about and procuring the wickedness of the wicked4 ,like the following3--,and ,i will harden ,pharaoh's heart1 that he should not let the people go4 ,now therefore the ,lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets4 ,he hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts4 ,him1 being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of ,god1 ye have taken1 and by wicked hands ye have crucified and slain4 ,on these and similar passages it may be remarked1 that ,god blinds men and hardens their hearts judicially1 as a just punishment for their abuse of their agency4 ,and for this act of his1 in blinding and hardening them1 he does not make them responsible4 ,but he holds them responsible for that degree of wickedness which made it just and necessary to give them over to this hardness of heart and blindness of mind4 ,and since there are wicked men and lying spirits1 they become fit instruments in deceiving and tormenting each other2 and therefore ,god gives them power and liberty to go abroad1 deceiving and being deceived4 ,but how does this prove that ,god hath decreed sin8 ,the idea that ,god hath made sin and wicked spirits the instruments of hardening and tormenting the incorrigible sinner1 and finally of shutting the door of hope against him1 has no kind of affinity to the idea1 that he decreed the sin which occasioned this hardness1 or ordained the wickedness of this lying spirit4 ,as to the passage from the ,acts1 none of us deny but that ,jesus ,christ was delivered up to suffer and die1 by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of ,god2 but it is most emphatically denied1 that this or any other scripture proves1 that the taking and slaying of ,jesus ,christ by wicked hands1 was the result of the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of ,god4 ,if any think otherwise1 let them prove it4 ,having stated and1 as our time would permit1 examined the arguments in favour of the sentiment we are opposing1 we are prepared to urge against this doctrine1 not only that its arguments are unsound and insufficient1 but also that the system itself is liable to the most serious and formidable objections4 #a4 ,this doctrine of predestination makes ,god the author of sin4 ,some acknowledge this1 and expressly assert1 that ,god is the efficient cause of sin4 ,others affirm it in fact1 while they deny it in word4 ,take for instance the words of ,calvin4 ,i will not scruple to own1 he says1 that the will of ,god lays a necessity on all things1 and that every thing he wills1 necessarily comes to pass4 ,in accordance with this1 ,piscator1 ,dr4 ,twiss1 ,peter ,martyr and others tell us1 that ,god procures adultery1 cursings1 and lyings--,god is the author of that act1 which is evil--,god1 by his working on the hearts of the wicked1 binds them and stirs them to do evil4 ,they deny1 however1 that ,god is the author of sin1 because they say1 ,god necessitates them to the act1 and not to the depravity of sin3 or1 that ,god does not sin when he makes men sin1 because he is under no law1 and therefore cannot sin4 ,but these are miserable shifts4 ,has not the deformity of sin come to pass8 ,then ,god has decreed this deformity4 ,to deny this1 is to give up the doctrine4 ,but to acknowledge it1 is to own that ,god is as much the author of the deformity1 as he is of the act4 ,again1 ,god doubtless decreed that sin should be sin1 and not holiness2 and it came to pass as sin1 because it was so decreed4 ,is he not then the direct procuring cause8 ,a thousand turns of this kind1 therefore1 are nothing but evasions4 ,the fiat of ,god brought forth sin as certainly as it made the world4 ,we are often told1 when we quote ,calvin and his contemporaries1 that these are old authors2 that modern ,calvinists do not hold thus1 and that they ought not to be accountable for these writers4 ,but the fact is1 we make them accountable only for the logical consequences of their own doctrine4 ,the whole system turns on this hinge1 ,god foreordains whatsoever comes to pass4 ,for he that1 by his will and decree1 produces and causes sin1 that makes sin a necessary part of his plan1 and is the author of the very elements and materials of his own plan1 must be the proper and sole cause of sin1 or we have yet to learn the definition of common words1 and the meaning of plain propositions4 ,the distinction therefore1 of ancient and modern1 of rigid and moderate ,calvinists1 is more in word1 than in reality4 ,and it would add much to the consistency of this system1 if all its advocates would acknowledge1 what is evidently deducible from the premises1 that ,god is the efficient cause of sin4 #b4 ,this doctrine of predestination destroys the free agency1 and of course the accountability of man4 ,that it destroys free will was seen and acknowledged by many predestinarians of the old school4 ,and the opposers of ,mr4 ,wesley and ,mr4 ,fletcher violently assailed them on this subject4 ,mr4 ,southey informs us1 in his ,life of ,wesley1 that the ,calvinists called this doctrine of free will1 a cursed doctrine--the most ,god-dishonouring and soul-destroying doctrine of the day--one of the prominent features of the beast--the enemy of ,god--the offspring of the wicked one--the insolent brat of hell4 ,others1 and the greater part of the ,calvinists of the present day1 endeavour to reconcile the ideas of necessity and free agency4 ,man1 they say1 sins voluntarily1 because he chooses or wills to sin2 therefore he is a free agent4 ,hence they exhort sinners to repent1 and tell them they can repent if they will4 ,by which they mean1 the only impossibility of their repenting1 is in their will--their cannot is their will not4 ,this has led many to think that there is no difference1 between their preachers and the ,arminians4 ,but let us look at this subject a little1 and see if there is not some sophistry concealed in this dexterous coil of words4 ,god1 according to this doctrine1 secures the end as well as the means1 by his decree of predestination4 ,and therefore1 as ,calvin says1 every action and motion of every creature is governed by the hidden counsel of ,god4 ,the will1 therefore1 in all its operations1 is governed and irresistibly controlled by some secret impulse1 some fixed and all-controlling arrangement4 ,it is altogether futile1 then1 to talk about free agency under such a constitution2 the very spring of motion to the whole intellectual machinery is under the influence of a secret1 invincible power4 ,and it must move as that power directs1 or it is the hand of ,omnipotence that urges it on4 ,he can act as he wills1 it is true1 but the whole responsibility consists in the volition1 and this is the result of ,god's propelling power4 ,he wills as he is made to will--he chooses as he must choose1 for the immutable decree of ,jehovah is upon him4 ,and can a man1 upon the known and universally acknowledged principles of responsibility1 be accountable for such a volition8 ,it is argued1 ,i know1 that man is responsible1 because he feels that he acts freely1 and that he might have done otherwise4 ,to this ,i reply1 that this is a good argument1 on our principles1 to prove that men are free--but on the ,calvinistic ground1 it only proves that ,god hath deceived us4 ,he has made us feel that we might do otherwise1 but he knows we cannot--he has determined we shall not4 ,so that1 in fact1 this argument makes the system more objectionable4 ,while it does not change the fact in the case1 it attributes deception to the ,almighty4 ,it is logically true1 therefore1 from this doctrine1 that man is not a free agent1 and therefore not responsible4 ,a moral agent1 to be free1 must be possessed of a self-determining principle4 ,make the will any thing short of this1 and you put all the volitions1 and of course the whole moral man1 under foreign and irresistible influences4 #c4 ,another strong objection to the doctrine we oppose1 is1 it arrays ,god's secret decrees against his revealed word4 ,god commands men not to sin1 and yet ordains that they shall sin1 ,in his word1 he sets before them1 in striking relief1 motives of fear and of hope1 for the express purpose1 as he informs us1 that they sin not2 but by his predestination and secret counsel1 he irresistibly impels them in an opposite course1 for the express purpose1 as this doctrine informs us1 to secure their transgression4 ,his rule of action is in direct opposition to our rule of duty4 ,and yet he is the author of both6 ,is ,god at war with himself1 or is he sporting and trifling with his creatures8 ,or is it not more probable than either1 that the premises are false8 ,when or where has ,god ever taught us1 that he has two opposing wills8 ,a character so suspicious1 to say the least of it1 ought not1 without the most unequivocal evidence1 to be attributed to the adorable ,jehovah4 ,in his word1 we are taught1 that he is of one mind--that his ways are equal2 and who can doubt it8 ,we are told1 it is true1 to relieve the difficulty1 that this seeming contradiction is one of the mysteries of ,god's incomprehensible nature4 ,but it is not a seeming contradiction1 it is a real one2 not an insolvable mystery1 but a palpable absurdity4 ,god prohibits the sinful act--,god ordains and procures the sinful act--,god wills the salvation of the reprobate1 whom he has from all eternity irreversibly ordained to eternal death6 ,when ,i can embrace such opposite propositions by calling them mysteries1 ,i can believe that two and two are more than four1 that all the parts are less than the whole1 and that a thing may be made to exist and not exist at the same time and explain them by a reference to the mystery of ,god's incomprehensible nature4 #d4 ,in close connection with the foregoing objection1 it may be added1 that this system mars1 if it does not destroy1 the moral attributes of ,god4 ,if he holds men responsible for what is unavoidable--if he makes laws and then impels men to break them1 and finally punishes them for their transgressions--if he mourns over the evils of the world1 and expostulates with sinners1 saying1 ,how can ,i give thee up--my heart is melted within me1 my repentings are kindled together1--,o ,jerusalem6 ,jerusalem6 how oft would ,i have gathered you1 and ye would not1--and still he himself impels the will of men1 to all this wickedness--if ,i say ,god does all this1 where is his veracity8 ,where is his mercy8 ,where is his justice8 ,what more could be said of the most merciless tyrant8 ,what1 of the most arrant hypocrite8 ,what1 of ,satan himself8 ,what does this doctrine make of our heavenly ,father8 ,i shudder to follow it out into its legitimate bearings4 ,it seems to me1 a belief of it is enough to drive one to infidelity1 to madness1 and to death4 ,if the supporters of this system must adhere to it1 ,i rejoice that they can close their eyes against its logical consequences1 otherwise it would make them wretched in the extreme1 or drive them into other dangerous theoretical and practical errors4 ,indeed1 in many instances it has done this--which leads to another objection to this doctrine4 #e4 ,it puts a plea into the mouth of sinners to justify themselves in their sins1 and leads to ,universalism and infidelity4 ,they reason thus3 ,whatever ,god decrees is according to his will1 and therefore right4 ,and ,god will not punish his creatures for doing right4 ,whatever ,god decrees is unavoidable1 and ,god will not punish his creatures for what is unavoidable4 ,but every action and motion of every creature is governed by the hidden counsel of ,god4 ,therefore ,god will not punish any of his creatures for any of their acts4 ,now1 who can point out any fallacy in this reasoning8 ,if therefore predestination be true1 ,universalism is true1 according to the universally acknowledged principles of justice4 ,and it is a notorious fact1 that modern ,universalism1 which is prevailing so generally through the country1 rests for its chief support on the doctrine of predestination4 ,others having seen1 as they thought1 that the ,scriptures would not support the doctrine of ,universalism1 and that matter of fact seemed to contradict the above reasoning1 inasmuch as men are made to suffer1 even in this life1 for their sins1 have leaped over all ,scriptural bounds into infidelity and philosophical necessity4 ,i have personally known numbers who have been driven1 by the doctrine we object to1 into open infidelity4 ,and it is well known1 that the doctrine of fate1 which is closely allied to ,calvinian predestination1 is the element in which infidelity lives and moves and has its being4 ,and can this be the doctrine of the ,bible8 ,how much is it to be regretted1 that our worthy pilgrim fathers should have sowed this ,geneva seed in our happy country6 ,the evils done to the ,church are incalculable4 ,these1 candid hearers1 are some of the objections we have to this doctrine--objections so serious1 and1 as we think1 so obvious1 that you may well ask1 ,what has induced good men to advocate it so long8 ,it is1 doubtless1 because it stands connected intimately with the doctrine of unconditional election1 and what have been called by ,calvinists the doctrines of grace4 ,but for unconditional election1 predestination would not be desired1 even by those who now hold to it2 and but for predestination1 unconditional election could not be maintained4 ,hence these have very properly been called twin doctrines1 and must stand or fall together4 ,let us pass then to the next proposition4 ,,ii4 ,we come to examine predestination in its particular relation to election4 ,several kinds of election are spoken of in the ,scriptures4 ,there is an election of individuals1 to perform certain duties appointed by ,god3--thus ,christ was ,god's elect1 for the redemption of the world2 and ,cyrus was elected by him to rebuild the temple4 ,there is an election of whole communities and nations to the enjoyment of certain peculiar privileges1 political and ecclesiastical1 relating of course to this life3--thus ,jacob and his descendants were ,god's chosen people1 to the enjoyment of religious and national privileges1 from which ,esau and his descendants1 together with the whole ,gentile world1 were excluded2 and thus1 too1 subsequently1 the middle wall of partition1 made by the former decree of election between ,jew and ,gentile1 being broken down1 the ,gentiles became equal sharers with the ,jews in the privileges of the new covenant1 called the election of grace4 ,this election is unconditional1 and is believed to be the one spoken of in our text1 and many other passages of ,scripture4 ,of these1 however1 ,i shall speak more particularly in another place4 ,there is a third election--an election unto eternal life1 and this is the one which has given rise to the great controversy in the ,church4--,those who contend for predestination1 as objected to by us1 maintain that1 ,by the decree of ,god1 for the manifestation of his glory1 some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life1 and others foreordained to everlasting death4 ,those of mankind that are predestinated unto life1 ,god1 before the foundation of the world1 hath chosen in ,christ1 unto everlasting glory1 without any foresight of faith or good works4 ,others1 and this also is our doctrine1 hold that ,god did decree from the beginning1 to elect1 or choose in ,christ1 all that should believe unto salvation1 and this decree proceeds from his own goodness1 and is not built on any goodness of the creature2 and that ,god did from the beginning decree to reprobate all who should finally and obstinately continue in unbelief4 ,thus it is seen1 from the statement of the two doctrines1 that ours is an election of character1 and so far as it relates to individuals1 it relates to them only as they are foreseen to possess that character2 whereas the other relates directly to individuals1 without any reference to character4 ,it is an absolute act of sovereignty--,god elects them for no other reason or condition than because he chooses4 ,he makes no account of man's agency or responsibility in this decree of election1 but it precedes and is entirely independent of any knowledge of the character of the elect4 ,our views of election1 on the contrary1 make it conditionally dependent on the responsible agency of man4 ,in the one case1 the sinner is made to receive ,christ1 because he is elected2 and in the other1 he is elected1 because he receives ,christ4 ,from this difference1 too1 proceed other differences4 ,the ,calvinistic election1 to be consistent with itself1 requires that1 as the end is arbitrarily fixed1 so the means must be also--hence the doctrines of irresistible grace1 effectual calling1 and infallible perseverance4 ,calvinian election1 therefore1 stands intimately allied to ,calvinian predestination2 and the whole forms a chain of doctrines differing materially from ours4 ,and here we acknowledge we have a position to prove as well as our opponents4 ,we assert that election to eternal life is conditional2 they1 that it is unconditional4 ,we will first attempt to prove our position--then state and answer the arguments in favour of unconditional election--and finally1 urge some objections against unconditional election and reprobation4 #a4 ,our first argument in favour of conditional election to eternal life1 is drawn from the position already established1 that the decrees of ,god are predicated on his foreknowledge4 ,and especially1 that the decree of election to salvation1 according to the ,scriptures1 is founded on the ,divine prescience4 ,elect according to the foreknowledge of ,god1 through sanctification of the ,spirit unto obedience1 and sprinkling of the blood of ,jesus ,christ4 ,whom he did foreknow1 he also did predestinate1 to be conformed to the image of his ,son4 ,these scriptures seem to us decisive1 that the decree of election rests on foreknowledge1 and that this election is made1 not according to the arbitrary act of ,god1 but on the ground of sanctification and obedience4 ,the doctrine1 therefore1 that men are predestinated to eternal life1 without any foresight of faith or good works1 must be false4 #b4 ,the rewardableness of obedience1 or the demerit of disobedience1 can only exist in connection with the unnecessitated volitions of a free moral agent4 ,the ,scriptures abundantly teach1 that to be saved1 man must believe and obey2 and hence they command and exhort men to believe and obey1 and promise them the reward of eternal life if they do this1 and criminate them1 if they neglect it4 ,but1 according to the doctrine of free agency already explained1 man's obedience or disobedience1 if it has any just relation to rewards and punishments1 must rest1 in its responsible character1 upon the self-determining principle of the will4 ,and if this view of the will be correct1 there is an utter impossibility of an unconditional election4 ,for the very act of ,god1 imparting this self-determining principle to man1 renders it impossible1 in the nature of things1 for the ,almighty himself to elect a moral agent1 unconditionally4 ,the argument stands thus--,the ,scriptures make man a responsible moral agent2 but this he cannot be1 if his will be controlled by foreign and unavoidable influences1 therefore it is not so controlled3 that is1 man has within himself a self-determining principle1 in the exercise of which he becomes responsible4 ,this being established1 we argue again--,the doctrine of unconditional election necessarily implies irresistible grace1 absolutely impelling and controlling the will4 ,but this would be to counteract ,god's own work1 and to destroy man's accountability2 therefore there is no such irresistible grace1 and1 of course1 no such unconditional election4 ,and since there is an election to eternal life1 spoken of in the ,scriptures1 it follows conclusively1 if the foregoing reasoning be sound1 that this election is conditional4--,hence we may bring forward1 in one overwhelming argument1 all the numerous and various ,bible conditions of salvation1 as so many ,scripture proofs of a conditional election4 #c4 ,the cautions to the elect1 and the intimations of their danger1 and the possibility of their being lost1 are so many ,scripture proofs of a conditional election4 ,why should the saints be exhorted to take heed lest they fall8 lest there be in them an evil heart of unbelief1 in departing from the living ,god8 lest a promise being left of entering into rest1 any should come short8 lest they should also be cut off8 ,why should ,st4 ,paul fear lest1 after having preached to others1 he should be a castaway8 ,either there is1 or is not1 danger of the elect's being lost4 ,if not1 then all these passages are not only without meaning1 but savour very strongly of deception4 ,they are false colours held out to the elect1 for the purposes of alarm and fear1 where no fear is4 ,will it be said1 that possibly some of those addressed were not of the elect1 and were therefore deceiving themselves1 and needed to be cautioned and warned8 ,i answer1 they had then nothing to fall from1 and no promise of which to come short4 ,besides1 to warn such to stand fast1 seems to imply1 that the ,holy ,spirit cautioned the reprobates against the danger of becoming the elect1 which idea1 while it intimates a very ungracious work for the ,spirit of grace to be engaged in1 clearly indicates1 that there was danger of breaking the decree of reprobation6 ,we ask again1 therefore1 ,what do these scriptures mean8 ,will it be said1 as some have argued1 that these warnings and cautions are all consistent1 because they are the very means by which the decree of election is made sure8 ,but let it be understood1 that the end is fixed1 before the means2 because ,calvinism tells us1 that this election is independent of any faith or good works foreseen1 and that ,god's decree lays a necessity on all things1 so that every thing he wills necessarily comes to pass1 and is therefore sure1 because he has decreed it4 ,the moment1 therefore1 ,god decrees an event1 it becomes sure1 and to talk of danger of a failure in that event1 implies either a falsehood1 or that ,god's decree can be broken4 ,but ,calvinists1 ,i presume1 will not allow that there is any danger of counteracting or frustrating the plan of the ,almighty4 ,hence there is no danger of the elect's coming short of salvation4 ,all the exhortations1 cautions1 and warnings therefore1 recorded in the ,scriptures1 are false colours and deceptive motives4 ,they are like the attempts of some weak parents1 who undertake to frighten their children into obedience1 by superstitious tales and groundless fears4 ,god knows1 when he is giving out these intimations of danger1 that there is no such danger2 his own eternal1 unchangeable decree had secured their salvation before the means were planned--all this if election is unconditional4 ,but far be this from a ,god of truth4 ,if he exhorts his creatures to make their election sure1 he has not made it sure4--,if he teaches them to fear1 lest they fail of the grace of ,god1 there is doubtless real danger4 ,the conclusion therefore is irresistible1 that ,cod hath suspended his decree of election to eternal life1 on conditions2 ,he that believeth3 shall be saved4 #d4 ,this accords also with ,christian experience4 ,what is it that produces much fear and trembling in the mind of the awakened sinner8 ,why does he feel that there is but a step between him and destruction8 ,is it fancy1 or is it fact8 ,if it is imagination merely1 then all his alarm is founded in deception1 and he has either deceived himself1 or the ,spirit of ,god hath deceived him4 ,in either case1 this alarm seems necessary1 in order to lead him to ,christ4 ,that is1 it is necessary for the conversion of one of the elect that he be made to believe a lie4 ,but if it be said1 that it is no lie1 for he is really in danger1 then we reply again1 the decree of ,god hath not made his election sure1 and of course1 therefore1 it is conditional4 #e4 ,express passages of ,scripture teach a conditional election4 ,we have time only to notice a few of them4 ,matt4 xxii1 #ad1 ,for many are called1 but few are chosen4 ,this passage1 with the parable of the wedding that precedes it1 teaches that the choice was made subsequently to the call1 and was grounded on the fact1 that those chosen had actually and fully complied with the invitation1 and had come to the wedding duly prepared4 ,john xv1 #ai1 ,if ye were of the world1 the world would love you1 but because ye are not of the world1 but ,i have chosen you out of the world1 therefore the world hateth you4 ,this passage teaches that ,christ's disciples were once of the world1 and that he had chosen them out of the world1 and this choice evidently refers to that time when they became of a different character from the world2 for then it was1 and in consequence of that election1 that the world hated them4--#b ,thess4 ii1 #ac1 ,because ,god hath from the beginning1 chosen you to salvation1 through sanctification of the ,spirit and belief of the truth4 ,here is a condition plainly expressed4 ,this is not an election unto sanctification1 but an election through or by sanctification and faith unto salvation4 ,from the whole then it appears1 that the ,holy ,scriptures1 the ,divine attributes and government1 and the agency of man1 stand opposed to an unconditional1 and are in favour of a conditional election4 ,in opposition to these arguments1 however1 and in favour of unconditional election1 our opponents urge various scriptures1 which1 as they think1 are strong and incontrovertible arguments in favour of their system4 ,and as these scriptures are their strong and only defence1 it is proposed that they should be noticed4 ,the limits of this discourse1 however1 will admit of but a short notice1 and that not of individual texts1 but of classes of texts4 #a4 ,the first class of passages that we will now examine1 which are supposed to favour the idea of unconditional election1 is those that speak of a predestination unto holiness4 ,our text is one of the strongest instances of this kind1 ,he hath chosen us from the foundation of the world1 that we should be holy--having predestinated us unto the adoption of sons1 c4 ,see also ,rom4 viii1 #bi1 ,for whom he did foreknow1 he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his ,son1 and whom he did predestinate--he called--justified--and sanctified4 ,the argument upon these and similar passages is1 that the decree of predestination could not be founded on their faith or holiness2 because they were predestinated to become holy--the decree of predestination had their holiness for its object and end4 ,but if these passages had an allusion to a personal election to eternal life1 they would not prove unconditional election1 because1 to use the language of another1 it would admit of being questioned1 whether the choosing in ,christ1 before the foundation of the world here mentioned1 was a choice of certain persons as men merely1 or as believing men1 which is certainly the most rational4 ,this exposition must necessarily be given to the passage from the ,romans1 since those who were the subjects of predestination1 were first foreknown3 foreknown1 not merely as existing1 for in this sense all were foreknown1 but foreknown1 as possessing something which operated as a reason why they should be elected1 rather than others3 foreknown doubtless as believers in ,christ1 and as such1 according to the plan and decree of ,god1 they were to be made conformable to the image of ,christ's holiness here1 and glory hereafter4 ,and according to the same ,divine plan1 the order of this work was1 #a4 ,the call2 #b4 ,justification2 #c4 ,glorification4 ,and this interpretation1 which so obviously upon the face of it is the meaning of the passage from ,romans1 would also be a good meaning to the passage in ,ephesians1 if that passage should be understood in reference to personal election4 ,but ,i do not so understand it2 and ,i think any unprejudiced reader1 by looking at the context1 and especially from the #ith to the #aath verses inclusive1 in this chapter1 and at most of the #b;d chapter1 will perceive that the apostle is here speaking of that general plan of ,god1 which had been fixed from the beginning1 of admitting the ,gentiles as well as the ,jews to the privileges of the covenant of grace1 on equal terms and conditions4 ,thus the middle wall of partition was to be broken down between ,jew and ,gentile2 and this was the mystery which was concealed for ages1 not being understood even by the ,jews themselves1 but then by the ,gospel was brought to light4 ,according to this plan1 the ,ephesians and all other ,gentiles were chosen or elected to these ,christian privileges1 the very design and purpose of which were to make them holy2 and in the improvement of which1 according to the prescribed conditions of faith in ,christ1 and repentance toward ,god1 they should become his adopted children4 ,this fore appointing of the ,gentiles to the privileges of the gracious covenant1 is the election most spoken of in the ,new ,testament4--,and the reason why it was so often introduced1 especially in the writings of ,paul1 who was the chief apostle to the ,gentiles1 was1 because the ,jews so uniformly and earnestly opposed this feature of ,christianity4 ,they could not be reconciled to the idea1 that the peculiar and distinctive character of their theocracy and ecclesiastical policy should be so changed1 or that the dealings of ,god with the world should be explained in such a manner as to give them no superior claims1 in the privileges of the ,divine covenant1 over the ,gentiles4 ,they considered themselves to be ,god's elect and favourite people1 but the ,gentiles were reprobates4 ,the apostles felt themselves under the strongest obligations to oppose these notions1 not only because1 if allowed1 they would operate as a barrier to the diffusion of the ,gospel among the heathens1 and thus the designs of ,divine mercy to the world would be thwarted1 but also because these ,jewish sentiments were in direct opposition to the grace of ,god4 ,they implied1 that the original design of ,god in favouring the ,jews1 was founded1 not upon his mere mercy and grace1 but upon some goodness in them or their fathers4 ,hence they not only limited the blessings of the ,gospel1 but they also corrupted its gracious character1 and thereby fed their own ,pharisaic pride1 and dishonoured ,god4 ,this will open the way for explaining many other scriptures which the ,calvinists press into their service4 #b4 ,especially will it assist in explaining those passages which speak of election as depending solely on the sovereign will of ,god4 ,the strongest of these are in the ninth chapter of the ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,this portion of revelation is the strong hold1 as is supposed1 of ,calvinism4 ,whereas1 we humbly conceive that there is not one word in the whole chapter1 of unconditional and personal election to eternal life4 ,it is only necessary to read that epistle carefully1 to see that the apostle is combatting that exclusive and ,pharisaic doctrine of the ,jews1 already alluded to1 and is proving in a forcible strain of argumentation1 from reason and ,scripture1 that the foundation of the plan of salvation for sinners1 was the goodness and unmerited love of ,god--that all1 both ,jews and ,gentiles1 were sinners1 and therefore stood in the same relation to ,god--all equally eligible to salvation1 and must1 if saved at all1 be saved on the same terms4 ,to prove this1 he argues strenuously1 that ,god's favour to the ,jews1 as a nation1 was not of any goodness in them1 but of his own sovereign will and pleasure1 so that his covenant of favour with the ,hebrews1 and his covenant of grace which embraced the ,gentiles1 was not of works1 lest any man should boast1 not of him that willeth1 nor of him that runneth1 but of ,god that showeth mercy4 ,the apostle shows them1 too1 that the covenant made with ,abraham was not for circumcision1 nor for the works of the law1 so far as it affected him or his posterity1 because it was made while ,abraham was in uncircumcision1 and on the condition of faith4 ,he argues farther1 that this election of the ,jews to the enjoyment of these national and ecclesiastical privileges1 was not because they were children of ,abraham1 for ,ishmael was a child of ,abraham1 and yet he and his posterity were rejected2 nor yet because they were the children of ,abraham through ,isaac1 because ,esau and his posterity were reprobated from these national privileges1 while ,jacob and his posterity were the chosen seed--not chosen to eternal life1 because many of them perished in sin and unbelief1 but to the peculiar privileges of ,god's covenant people4 ,and all this because it was the good pleasure of his will4 ,and as a sovereign1 he had the same right to elect the ,gentiles to the enjoyment of the covenant of mercy1 and upon the same conditions of faith4 ,the apostle concludes this reasoning by an argument which cuts off entirely the idea of unconditional personal election and reprobation4 ,he informs us1 that the reason why the unbelieving ,jews did not attain to personal righteousness1 was because they sought it not by faith1 but as it were by the works of the law2 and the ,gentiles attained to personal righteousness1 because they sought it by faith4 ,hence1 those that were not his people1 became his people1 and those that were not beloved1 became beloved--and these1 not of the ,jews only1 but also of the ,gentiles4 ,whereas1 if the doctrine we oppose be true1 the elect were always his people1 and always beloved1 and that because he pleased to have it so4 ,that portion of ,scripture1 therefore1 on which ,calvinism leans for its greatest support1 not only affords it no aid1 but actually teaches a different doctrine4 ,there is indeed something of mystery hanging over the providence of ,god1 in bestowing peculiar advantages on some1 and withholding them from others4 ,but on this subject much light is cast from various considerations which we have not time to enlarge upon2 but especially from that wholesome and consistent ,scripture doctrine1 that it is required of a man according to what he hath1 and not according to what he hath not4 ,this removes at once all complaint of ,jew and ,gentile1 and authorizes the reply1 so often misapplied1 ,who art thou that repliest against ,god8 ,as a sovereign1 ,god has a right to make his creatures differ in these things1 so long as he requires only as he gives4 ,but this differs as widely from the ,calvinistic idea of sovereignty1 as justice from injustice1 as equity from iniquity4 ,in fact1 ,god no where in the ,scripture1 places the election of individuals to eternal life1 solely on the ground of his sovereignty1 but uniformly on the ground of their complying with the conditions of the covenant of grace4 ,hence his people are a peculiar people--his sheep hear his voice and follow him--they are chosen out of the world--they are in ,christ1 not by an eternal decree of election1 but by faith--for if any man be in ,christ1 he is a new creature--and of course1 he is not in him1 until he is a new creature--then1 and not before1 they become his1 and he seals them as such1 ,in whom1 after that ye believed1 ye were sealed with the ,holy ,spirit of promise4 ,but if they were elected from eternity1 they would be his when they did not hear his voice1 and were not new creatures4 #c4 ,from what has been said1 we can easily answer a third class of scriptures which the ,calvinists dwell upon to support their system --viz1 those which declare salvation to be of grace and not of works4 ,of these there is evidently a large catalogue of very express and unequivocal passages4 ,take two or three for an example of the whole1 ,even so then1 at the present time1 there is a remnant1 according to the election of grace1 and if it be by grace then it is no more of works1 otherwise grace is no more grace2 but if it be of works1 then it is no more grace1 otherwise work is no more work4 ,by grace ye are saved4 ,having predestinated us unto the adoption of his children1 c1 to the praise of the glory of his grace4 ,not by works of righteousness which we have done1 but according to his mercy he saved us1 by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,now we profess to believe these scriptures as unqualifiedly and as cordially as the ,calvinists2 and we think them perfectly in accordance with our views of election4 ,for we believe1 as has been already stated1 that ,god's plan for saving sinners originated entirely in his love to his undeserving creatures4 ,there was nothing in all the character and circumstances of the fallen family1 except their sin and deserved misery1 that could claim the interposition of ,god's saving power4 ,the way of executing his gracious plan1 and rendering it available in any case1 he of course1 as a sovereign1 reserved to himself4 ,and if he saw that a conditional election was best suited to the principles of his government1 and the responsibility of man1 shall it be said1 this cannot be1 for it destroys the idea of grace8 ,cannot a conditional election be of grace8 ,let the intelligent and candid answer4 ,even many of the ,calvinists acknowledge that salvation is conditional1 and yet it is of grace2 for by grace ye are saved4 ,now if salvation is conditional and yet of grace1 why not election8 ,let ,calvinists answer this question4 ,but that our doctrine of election is of grace1 will appear evident1 ,i think1 from the following considerations4 #a4 ,it was pure unmerited love that moved ,god to provide salvation for our world4 #b4 ,the ,gospel plan1 therefore1 with all its provisions and conditions1 is of grace4 ,not a step in that whole system1 but rests in grace1 is presented by grace1 and is executed through grace4 #c4 ,even the power of the will to choose life1 and the conditions of life1 is a gracious power4 ,a fallen man1 without grace1 could no more choose to submit to ,god than a fallen angel4 ,herein we differ widely from the ,calvinists4 ,they tell us man has a natural power to choose life4 ,if so1 he has power to get to heaven without grace6 ,we say1 on the contrary1 that man is utterly unable to choose the way to heaven1 or to pursue it when chosen1 without the grace of ,god4 ,it is grace that enlightens and convinces the sinner1 and strengthens him to seek after and obtain salvation1 for without ,christ we can do nothing4 ,let the candid judge between us1 then1 and decide which system most robs our gracious ,redeemer of his glory1 that which gives man a native and inherent power to get to heaven of himself1 or that which attributes all to grace4 #d4 ,finally1 when the sinner repents and believes1 there is no merit in these acts to procure forgiveness and regeneration1 and therefore1 though he is now1 and on these conditions1 elected1 and made an heir of salvation1 yet it is for ,christ's sake1 and not for works of righteousness which he has done4 ,thus we bring forth the top stone with shouting1 crying grace1 grace1 unto it4 ,having gone over and examined the arguments in favour of unconditional election1 we come to the last part of our subject2 which was to urge some objections against this doctrine4 #a4 ,the doctrine of the unconditional election of a part1 necessarily implies the unconditional reprobation of the rest4 ,i know some who hold to the former1 seem to deny the latter2 for they represent ,god as reprobating sinners1 in view of their sins4 ,when all were sinners1 they say ,god passed by some1 and elected others4 ,hence1 they say the decree of damnation against the reprobates is just1 because it is against sinners4 ,but this explanation is virtually giving up the system1 inasmuch as it gives up all the principal arguments by which it is supported4 ,in the first place1 it makes predestination dependent on foreknowledge2 for ,god first foresees that they will be sinners1 and then predestinates them to punishment4 ,here is one case then1 in which the argument for ,calvinian predestination is destroyed by its own supporters4 ,but again if ,god must fix by his decree all parts of his plan1 in order to prevent disappointment1 then he must fix the destiny of the reprobates1 and the means that lead to it4 ,but if he did not do this1 then the ,calvinistic argument in favour of predestination1 drawn from the ,divine plan1 falls to the ground4 ,once more3 this explanation of the decree of reprobation destroys all the strongest ,scripture arguments which the ,calvinists urge in favour of unconditional election4 ,the passages1 for instance1 in the ninth of ,romans1 which are so often quoted in favour of ,calvinian election1 are connected with others1 equally strong1 in favour of unconditional reprobation4 ,when it is said1 ,he will have mercy on whom he will have mercy1 it is said also1 ,whom he will he hardeneth4 ,he that makes one vessel unto honour1 maketh another unto dishonour4 ,he that says1 ,jacob have ,i loved1 says also in the same manner1 ,esau have ,i hated4 ,now if these relate to personal election to eternal life1 they relate also to personal reprobation to eternal death4 ,but if there is any explanation1 by which these are showed not to prove unconditional reprobation to eternal death1 the same principle of explanation will1 and must show1 that they do not prove ,calvinistic election4 ,from henceforth1 therefore1 let all those ,calvinists who profess not to believe in unconditional reprobation1 cease to urge1 in favour of their system1 any arguments drawn from the foreknowledge of ,god1 or the necessity of a ,divine plan1 or from those scriptures that are most commonly quoted in favour of their doctrine4 ,but when they do this1 their system must necessarily fall2 for all its main pillars will be removed4 ,but ,i have not done with this objection yet4 ,whoever maintains that ,god hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass1 must also hold to unconditional reprobation4 ,does it come to pass1 that some are lost8 ,then this was ordained4 ,was sin necessary1 as a pretence to damn them8 ,then this was ordained4 ,from these and other views of the subject1 ,calvin was led to say1 that election could not stand without reprobation1 and that it was quite silly and childish to attempt to separate them4 ,all1 therefore1 who hold to the unconditional election of a part of mankind to eternal life1 must1 to be consistent with themselves1 take into their creed1 the horrible decree of reprobation4--,they must believe that in the ages of eternity ,god determined to create men and angels for the express purpose to damn them eternally6 ,that he determined to introduce sin1 and influence men to commit sin1 and harden them in it1 that they might be fit subjects of his wrath6 ,that for doing as they were impelled to do1 by the irresistible decree of ,jehovah1 they must lie down for ever1 under the scalding phials of his vengeance in the pit of hell6 ,to state this doctrine in its true character1 is enough to chill one's blood--and we are drawn by all that is rational within us1 to turn away from such a ,god with horror1 as from the presence of an ,almighty ,tyrant4 #b4 ,this doctrine of election1 while it professes to vindicate free grace and the mercy of ,god1 destroys them altogether4 ,to the reprobates1 there is certainly no grace or mercy extended4 ,their very existence1 connected as it necessarily is with eternal damnation1 is an infinite curse4 ,the temporal blessings which they enjoy1 the insincere offers that are held out to them1 and the ,gospel privileges with which they are mocked1 if they can be termed grace at all1 must be called damning grace4 ,for all this is only fattening them for the slaughter1 and fitting them to suffer1 to a more aggravated extent1 the unavoidable pains and torments that await them4 ,hence ,calvin's sentiment1 that ,god calls to the reprobates1 that they may be more deaf--kindles a light1 that they may be more blind--brings his doctrine to them1 that they may be more ignorant--and applies the remedy to them1 that they may not be healed1 is an honest avowal of the legitimate principles of this system4 ,surely1 then1 no one will pretend1 that1 according to this doctrine1 there is any grace for the reprobate4 ,and perhaps a moment's attention will show1 that there is little or none for the elect4 ,it is said1 that ,god1 out of his mere sovereignty1 without any thing in the creature to move him thereto1 elects sinners to everlasting life4 ,but if there is nothing in the creature to move him thereto1 how can it be called mercy or compassion8 ,he did not determine to elect them because they were miserable1 but because he pleased to elect them4 ,if misery had been the exciting cause1 then as all were equally miserable1 he would have elected them all4 ,is such a decree of election founded in love to the suffering object8 ,no3 it is the result of the most absolute and omnipotent selfishness conceivable4 ,it is the exhibition of a character that sports most sovereignly and arbitrarily1 with his ,almighty power1 to create1 to damn1 and to save4 ,some indeed pretend that1 at any rate1 salvation is of grace1 if election is not1 because ,god saves miserable1 perishing sinners4 ,but who made them miserable perishing sinners8 ,was not this the effect of ,god's decree8 ,and is there much mercy displayed in placing men under a constitution which necessarily and unavoidably involves them in sin and suffering1 that ,god may afterward have the sovereign honour of saving them8 ,surely the tenderest mercies of this system are cruel--its brightest parts are dark--its boasted mercy hardly comes up to sheer justice1 even to the elect2 since they only receive back what ,god had deprived them of1 and for the want of which they had suffered perhaps for years2 and to obtain which1 they could do nothing even as a condition1 until ,god by his sovereign power bestowed it upon them4 ,and as for the reprobates1 the ,gospel is unavoidably to them1 a savour of death unto death4 ,to them ,christ came1 that they might have death1 and that they might have it more abundantly4 ,thus1 turn this system as you will1 it sweeps away the mercy and goodness of ,god1 destroys the grace of the ,gospel1 and in most cases1 transforms even the invitations and promises into scalding messages of aggravated wrath4 #c4 ,the doctrine we oppose makes ,god partial and a respecter of persons2 contrary to express and repeated declarations of ,scripture4 ,for it represents ,god as determining to save some and damn others1 without reference to their character1 all being precisely in the same state4 ,to deny this1 is to acknowledge that the decree of election and reprobation had respect to character1 which is to give up the doctrine4 ,some indeed pretend1 that the decree of election was unconditional1 but not the decree of reprobation4 ,but this is impossible2 for there could be no decree of election1 only in view of the whole number from which the choice was to be made2 and the very determination to select such a number1 and those only1 implied the exclusion of all the rest4 ,if it be said1 as the ,sublapsarians contend1 that the decree of election did not come in until all were fallen1 or viewed in the mind of ,god as fallen2 and therefore since all might have been justly damned1 there was no injustice to those who were left1 though some of the guilty were taken and saved2 we reply1 ,that even this would not wholly remove the objection of partiality4 ,but we need not dwell here1 because we have a shorter and more decisive way to dispose of this argument4 ,the truth is1 it does not cover the whole ground of our objection4 ,had ,god nothing to do with man until his prescient eye beheld the whole race in a ruined state8 ,how came man in this state8 ,he was plunged there by the sin of his federal head4 ,but how came he to sin8 ,adam sinned1 says ,calvin1 because ,god so ordained4 ,and so every one must say1 that believes ,god foreordained whatsoever comes to pass4 ,taking all the links together1 they stand thus3--,god decreed to create intelligent beings--he decreed that they should all become sinners and children of wrath--and it was so4 ,he then decreed that part of those whom he had constituted heirs of wrath1 should be taken1 and washed1 and saved1 and the others left to perish2 and then we are told there is no unjust partiality in ,god1 since they all deserve to be damned6 ,what a singular evasion is this6 ,god wishes to damn a certain portion of his creatures1 and save the rest2 but he cannot do this without subjecting himself to the charge of partiality4 ,to avoid this1 he plunges them all into sin and ruin1 and forthwith he declares them all children of wrath1 and heirs of hell4 ,but in the plenitude of his grace1 he snatches some from the pit of ruin1 and leaves the rest in remediless wo6 ,is such a supposition worthy of our righteous ,god8--,does it accord either with his justice or wisdom8 ,reason1 with half an eye1 can see through the flimsy veil1 and discover the weakness of the device4 ,i know an attempt has been often made to charge these consequences upon our system1 as well as upon the ,calvinistic doctrine4 ,for if it is acknowledged that man is born depraved1 and this depravity is damning in its nature1 does it not follow1 it is asked1 that all deserve to perish8 ,and therefore ,god may elect some and justly pass by the rest4 ,i answer--,although all moral depravity1 derived or contracted1 is damning in its nature1 still1 by virtue of the atonement1 the destructive effects of derived depravity are counteracted2 and guilt is not imputed1 until by a voluntary rejection of the ,gospel remedy1 man makes the depravity of his nature the object of his own choice4--,hence1 although abstractly considered1 this depravity is destructive to the possessors1 yet through the grace of the ,gospel1 all are born free from condemnation4 ,so the ,apostle ,paul1 ,as by the offence of one1 judgment came upon all men to condemnation1 so by the righteousness of one1 the free gift came upon all men1 unto justification of life4 ,in accordance with these views also1 the ground of condemnation1 according to the ,scriptures1 is not our native depravity2 but the sinner is condemned for rejecting ,christ1--for refusing to occupy upon the talents given1--for rejecting light1--for quenching the ,spirit1--for unbelief4 ,here then is the difference on this point between the ,calvinists and us4 ,they hold that ,god1 by his decree1 plunged ,adam and all his race into the pit of sin1 from which none of them had the means of escape2 but by an omnipotent act of partial grace1 he delivers a part1 and the remainder are left unavoidably to perish4 ,we1 on the contrary1 believe that by ,adam's unnecessitated sin he1 and in him all his posterity1 became obnoxious to the curse of the ,divine law4 ,as the first man sinned personally and actively1 he was personally condemned2 but as his posterity had no agency or personal existence1 they could only have perished seminally in him4 ,by the promise of a ,saviour however1 our federal head was restored to the possibility of obtaining salvation1 through faith in the ,redeemer4 ,and in this restoration1 all the seminal generations of men were included4 ,their possible and prospective existence was restored2 and their personal and active existence secured4 ,and with this also1 the possibility of salvation was secured to all4 ,to such as never come to a personally responsible age1 this salvation was secured unconditionally by ,christ2 to all those who arrived to the age of accountability1 salvation was made possible1 on equal and impartial conditions4 ,thus1 while on our principle1 there is not the slightest ground for a charge of partiality2 on the ,calvinistic principle1 the charge seems to lie with all its weight4 ,it makes ,god1 in the worst sense of the terms1 partial1 and a respecter of persons4 #d4 ,this doctrine is objectionable1 because1 contrary to express and repeated passages of ,scripture1 it necessarily limits the atonement4 ,it will surely not be expected1 that we should attempt to prove that ,christ tasted death for every man--that he gave himself a ransom for all--that he died for all--that he became a propitiation for the sins of the whole world--because1 these are so many express ,scripture propositions1 and rest directly on the authority of ,god4 ,and while these stand1 the doctrine of particular and unconditional election must fall1 for the two doctrines are incompatible4 ,that particular election and partial redemption must stand or fall together1 has been acknowledged1 and is still maintained by most ,calvinists2 and therefore they have endeavoured to explain away those passages1 which so clearly declare that ,christ died for all4 ,but in this work they have found so many difficulties1 that others1 and among them most of the ,calvinistic clergy in ,new-,england1 have acknowledged a general redemption1 and have undertaken to reconcile with it the doctrine of particular election and reprobation4 ,but this reconciliation is as difficult as the other4 ,to say nothing now of the utter uselessness of making an atonement for the reprobates1 unless for the purpose of making their unavoidable damnation more aggravated1 we would ask1 ,what is the object of the atonement8 ,let these very ,calvinists themselves answer4 ,they tell us1 that its object was1 to open the way1 by which it might be possible for sinners to be saved4 ,but has the atonement made it possible for the reprobates to be saved8 ,if so1 then perhaps they will be saved1 and therefore the idea of unconditional election and reprobation is false4 ,but if the atonement has only made it possible for the elect to be saved1 then it was made only for the elect4 ,let the supporters of this system choose which horn of this dilemma they please2 either will destroy their doctrine4 ,for as it is absurd to talk about redeeming grace and ,gospel provisions1 sufficient to save those who are eternally and effectually excluded from these blessings1 so it is idle to talk about a redemption for all1 which includes provisions sufficient only to save the elect4 ,not even the fiction of a natural ability in all men to serve ,god and get to heaven1 will help this difficulty4 ,for allowing1 in the argument1 that the reprobates have ability to serve ,god and gain heaven1 without grace1 and in spite of ,god's decree1 still1 as this is called a natural ability1 it is plain it is not the fruit of the atonement4 ,it is equally irrelevant to argue that the atonement may be said to be universal1 because it contains enough to save the whole world1 if they would or could embrace it1 and it is only their excessive depravity which renders it impossible for them to receive the atonement4 ,for this is the same as to say1 that a physician has an efficient remedy to heal his patient1 only he is so sick he cannot take it4 ,this excessive weakness is that for which the physician should prescribe1 and to which the medicine should be applied4 ,and if it does not come to this it is no medicine for this case4 ,so the atonement1 if it is not a remedy for man's extreme depravity1 it is no provision for him4 ,if it does not give a gracious power to all sinners to embrace salvation1 it has accomplished nothing for the depraved reprobate4 ,since1 therefore1 according to ,calvinism1 the atonement provides for the reprobate neither natural nor moral ability to serve ,god1 nor makes it possible for him to be saved1 it follows1 that the atonement is made only for the elect4 ,but as this is contrary to the word of ,god1 the doctrine that leads to this conclusion must be false4 #e4 ,if time would permit1 ,i might here notice at some length several objections to this doctrine3--,such as that it takes away all motives to repentance1 by giving the sinner just cause to say1 ,if ,i am to be saved1 ,i shall be1 do what ,i may2 and if ,i am to be damned1 ,i must be1 do what ,i can2--it leads to the idea of infant damnation--it weakens the zeal and paralyzes ,the efforts of devotion and benevolence--it destroys the end of punishment1 the original design of which was to prevent sin1 but which1 according to this doctrine1 was designed merely for the glory of ,god2 and sin was ordained for the purpose of giving ,god an opportunity of glorifying himself in punishing it4 ,these and others might be dwelt upon with effect2 but passing them all1 ,i hasten to the conclusion of my arguments1 by urging only one more objection to the system ,i am opposing4 #f4 ,we are suspicious of this doctrine1 because its advocates themselves seem studious to cover up and keep out of sight many of its features1 and are constantly changing their manner of stating and defending their system4 ,a little attention to the history of the controversy between predestinarians and their opposers1 will show the truth and force of this objection4 ,the charge that ,calvinism covers up and keeps out of sight some of its most offensive features1 does not lie so much against its advocates of the old school1 as those of the modern4 ,with the exception of some logical consequences1 which we think chargeable upon the system1 and which they were unwilling to allow1 these early defenders of unconditional election came out boldly and fearlessly with their doctrine4 ,if modern ,calvinists would do the same1 we should need no other refutation of the system4 ,but even the early supporters of ,calvinism1 when pressed by their opponents1 resorted to various forms of explanation and modes of proof1 and also to various modifications of the system itself4 ,goodwin1 in his work entitled1 ,agreement of ,brethren1 c1 says3--,the question1 as to the object of the decrees1 has gone out among our ,calvinistic brethren into endless digladiations and irreconcilable divisions1 and then goes on to mention nine of these irreconcilable divisions that prevailed at his day4 ,at the present day these school subtleties are not so prevalent1 but numerous changes of a more popular cast1 and such as are suited to cover up the offensive features of the system1 are now introduced4 ,the modern defence of this doctrine consists chiefly in the dexterous use of certain ambiguous technicalities which1 in this theology1 mean one thing1 and in common language another4 ,and this is carried to such an extent1 that it is now a common thing to hear parishioners contend strenuously that their pastors do not hold to predestination1 when it is well known to some1 at least1 that they do2 and that they are exerting themselves to spread the sentiment4 ,this is a subject1 permit me here to say1 on which ,i touch with more reluctance than upon any other point involved in this controversy4 ,to represent the thing as it is1 seems so much like accusing our brethren of insincerity and duplicity1 that nothing but a regard to truth would induce me to allude to it4 ,whether this arises from an excessive but honest zeal for their system1 or whether it is supposed the cause is so important1 and at the same time so difficult to be sustained1 that the end will justify what1 in other cases1 would be judged questionable policy1 and hardly reconcilable with the spirit of a guileless ,christianity1 is certainly not for me to decide4 ,with respect to their motives1 they will stand or fall by the judgment of ,him that trieth the reins4 ,but the course1 at any rate1 seems very reprehensible4 ,take one instance3--,all sinners1 we are told1 may come to ,christ if they will2 and therefore they are criminal if they do not4--,now this mode of speech corresponds very well with ,scripture and reason4 ,and who1 that had not been specially instructed in the dialect of this theology1 would understand that this mode of speech1 according to ,hopkinsian technics1 implied an inability and an impossibility of obtaining salvation8 ,and yet this is the fact3 for though1 according to this system1 if we have a will to come to ,christ1 we may1 yet by a ,divine constitution it is as much impossible to have this will as it is to break the decree of ,jehovah1--,hence all such modes of speech are worse than unmeaning2 they have a deceptive meaning4 ,they mean one thing in this creed1 and another thing in popular language4 ,it never occurs to the generality of mankind1 when they are told they may do thus and thus1 if they will1 that there is a secret omnipotent influence impelling and controlling the will4 ,they suppose these expressions1 therefore1 mean that1 independent of all irresistible foreign influences1 they have1 within themselves1 the power to choose or not to choose3 and yet the real meaning of the speaker differs as much from this1 as a negative differs from an affirmative4 ,in perfect accordance with the foregoing1 is the common explanation that is given to the doctrine of election and reprobation4 ,reprobation is kept out of sight2 and yet it is as heartily believed by modern ,calvinists1 as it was by ,john ,calvin himself4 ,it is taught too2 but it is taught covertly4 ,and yet when we quote old-fashioned ,calvinism1 in its primitive plain dress1 we are told these are old authors2 we do not believe with them3 if we had lived in the days of our fathers1 we would not have been partakers with them in their errors1 and yet they are witnesses unto themselves1 that they are the children of them who taught these errors4 ,they recommend their writings1 they garnish their sepulchres1 they teach their catechisms to the rising generation2 they say1 even in their ,church articles of faith1 ,we believe in the doctrines of grace1 as held and taught by the fathers and reformers in the ,church1--and especially do they hold to that root and foundation of the whole system1 ,god hath1 from all eternity1 foreordained whatsoever comes to pass4 ,since ,i have alluded to ,church articles1 it will be in support of this objection to say that the written creeds of ,churches partake of this same ambiguous character4 ,they are either expressed in texts of ,scripture1 or in doubtful and obscure terms2 so that different constructions can be put upon them1 according to the faith of the subscriber4 ,and instances have been known1 in which articles of faith have been altered1 again and again1 to accommodate scrupulous candidates4 ,and yet their candidates for holy orders1 and for professorships1 in their theological institutions1 are required to subscribe to a rigid ,calvinistic creed4 ,in this way it is expected1 doubtless1 that the doctrine will be maintained and perpetuated1 though in other respects public opinion should be accommodated4 ,how would honest ,john ,calvin1 if he could be introduced among us1 with the same sentiments he had when on earth1 frown upon the ,churches that bear his name6 ,he would not only call them silly and childish1 but he would1 doubtless1 in his bold1 blunt manner1 charge them with disingenuousness and cowardice1 if not with downright duplicity1 for thus shunning and smoothing over and covering up the more repulsive features of their system4 ,how would he chide them for shifting their ground1 and changing their system1 while they nevertheless pretend to build on the same foundation of predestination6 ,he would1 we believe1 sternly inquire of them what they meant by saying1 all sinners1 not excepting reprobates1 may come to ,christ and be saved8--why they pretended to hold to election1 and not to reprobation8--how they could reconcile general redemption with particular election8--and especially would he frown indignantly upon that new doctrine1 lately preached and defended1 in what has been supposed to be the head quarters of orthodoxy in ,new -,england1 by which we are taught that derived depravity is not any taint or sinful corruption of our moral constitution1 but consists1 exclusively and entirely1 in moral exercise6 ,but probably he would get little satisfaction from those who profess his creed and bear his name4 ,they would tell him that the old forms of this system were so repulsive1 the people would not receive them2 and that1 being hard pressed by their antagonists1 they had thrown up these new redoubts1 and assumed these new positions1 not only to conceal their doctrine1 but if possible to defend it4 ,and as he could get little satisfaction of them1 he would get less from us4--,could we meet the venerable reformer1 we would thank him for his successful zeal and labour in the ,protestant cause2 but we would expostulate with him for giving sanction and currency to his horrible decree4 ,we would tell him he had committed to his followers a system so abhorrent to reason1 and so difficult to be supported by ,scripture1 that they had been driven into all these changes in hope of finding some new and safe ground of defence2 and that1 while we considered this as a striking and convincing argument against the doctrine itself1 we viewed it as auspicious of its final overthrow2 that these changes1 refinements1 and concealments1 were symptoms that the doctrine was waxing old1 and was ready to vanish away4 ,but ,i must conclude this discourse4 ,to your serious consideration1 ,christian brethren1 ,i commend the sentiments contained in it4 ,whatever you may think of the discourse itself1 ,i cannot fail1 ,i think1 of escaping censure4 ,those who accord with the sentiments here defended1 will of course approve2 and those who believe in predestination will of course be reconciled to the preaching because ,god hath decreed it4 ,it hath come to pass that ,i have preached as ,i have1 and therefore it is a part of the ,divine plan4 ,it hath come pass that ,arminianism exists1 and therefore this is a part of the ,divine plan4 ,we beg our brethren who differ from us1 not to fight against ,god's plan if they say it is right for us to fight against it1 because this also is decreed--,i answer1 ,this only confirms our objections against the system1 for it arrays the ,deity against himself4 ,from all such inconsistencies1 may the ,god of truth deliver us4 ,amen4 ,,number ,i4 ,,reply ,,to ,,the ,,christian ,,spectator4#c ,this sermon had been before the public almost two years before it received any notice1 so far as the author is informed1 from any of the advocates of predestination4 ,after the third edition was announced1 there were several passing acrimonious censures in some of the ,calvinistic periodicals1 which did not affect the merits of the question at issue between us and the predestinarians4 ,at length the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,tyler1 of this city1 7,middletown1 ,conn47 published a sermon which was evidently written in reference to the sermon on predestination4 ,this sermon of ,mr4 ,t4 might have been noticed2 but its general positions were so indefinite1 and its modes of illustration so vague1 it seemed hardly calculated to narrow the field of controversy or hasten a decision of the question at issue4 ,for example3 ,mr4 ,t4 defines election to be the eternal purpose of ,god to renew1 sanctify1 and save every man whom he wisely can1 and no others4 ,with such a proposition there certainly can be no controversy1 for it leaves the subject more vague1 and the point in dispute more confused than before a definition was attempted4 ,there are two errors1 the antipodes of each other1 which1 in all controversy1 and especially religious controversy1 ought to be carefully guarded against4 ,the one is an attempt to make the subjects of difference more numerous and consequential than they are in truth2 and the other is an attempt to cover up real differences under indefinite propositions and ambiguous terms4 ,both these errors may be the result of honest motives3 the former may arise from a jealous regard to the truth1 and the latter from a love of peace4 ,both1 however1 are injurious2 for neither does the one promote the cause of truth1 nor does the other secure a permanent peace4 ,indeed1 bringing antagonist principles into contact gives an additional impulse to their repellent forces1 so that a transient union produces1 in the end1 greater discord4 ,though the controversy in the ,church1 between ,calvinists and ,arminians1 has been long and injurious2 yet1 as an individual1 ,i never can sign a union creed of doubtful terms and ambiguous articles4 ,nor can ,i deem it worth my while to contend about such terms and articles4 ,i should fear the searching interrogatory of ,him who questioned ,job3 ,who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge8 ,in the present controversy there is danger of this ambiguity also from a less commendable principle than a love of peace1 viz4 an adherence to old symbols of faith to avoid the imputation of a change2 while1 at the same time1 to escape the force of unanswerable argument1 vague propositions1 ambiguous definitions1 and equivocal terms are made the bulwark of defence4 ,this principle was alluded to in the sermon on predestination2 and although it has given great offence to some of the ,calvinists1 and is represented by the author of the review which we are about to notice as being utterly unworthy of the attention of a person who is honestly inquiring after truth2 yet it seems to me he knows little of his own heart who thinks himself incapable of such a course4 ,nor does it seem utterly unworthy of an honest inquirer after truth to mark the effects of arguments upon systems1 since the changes effected in those systems1 by the arguments urged against them1 show the strength of the one and the weakness of the other4 ,if2 therefore1 ,i should undertake to answer ,mr4 ,tyler's sermon1 my strictures would consist chiefly in pointing out its indefiniteness and incongruity4 ,but this1 without convincing1 might give offence4 ,and although ,i see no way of continuing the controversy1 as the ,calvinists now manage it1 without alluding to this course of the advocates of predestination1 yet ,i am happy to say there is less of it in the review before us than is common in modern treatises on that subject4 ,though it is a laboured article of about forty-three pages1 yet it is generally in a manly style1 and sustained by a train of close and skilful argumentation4 ,it would afford me great pleasure to be able to equal the reviewer's ingenuity1 and still more to throw into my reply the serenity of his spirit4 ,i have little occasion1 however1 in the present case1 to dread his talents or lose my temper2 for if ,i understand the reviewer1 though his essay bears upon it1 if not the rugged1 at least the decided aspect of controversy with my sermon1 he is nevertheless in principle an ,arminian4 ,i allude now more especially to his views of predestination4 ,on election there is evidently a greater difference between us2 and yet it strikes me when a man discards ,calvinian predestination1 consistency would require that the peculiarities of ,calvinian election should be discarded also4 ,at any rate1 as the settling of the former question will have a very strong bearing upon the other1 ,i shall confine myself in this article to predestination4 ,i am not certain that ,i understand the reviewer2 but his candour authorizes me to believe that he will explain himself frankly1 and correct me if ,i misunderstand him4 ,if we are agreed on this point we ought to know it1 and give over the controversy4 ,if we are not1 let us know the precise ground of difference4 ,and in either case we shall be the better prepared to pursue the question of election4 ,the question in dispute is simply this3 ,what relation is there between the decrees or purposes of ,god and the responsible acts of man8 ,the ,arminian views on this question1 as ,i understand them1 are these3 ,god1 as a ,sovereign1 in deciding upon his works1 had a right to determine on such a system as pleased him2 but1 being infinitely wise and good1 he would of course choose1 in the contemplation of all possible systems1 to create such a one as1 all things considered1 would bring the most glory to himself1 and the greatest good to the universe4 ,in infinite wisdom he decided that such a system would be a moral government1 consisting of himself1 as the supreme and rightful ,governor1 and of intelligent subjects1 having full and unrestrained power to obey or disobey the mandates of their ,sovereign4 ,he foresaw that one of the unavoidable incidents of such a government would be the possible existence of moral evil2 and1 in glancing through the proposed system1 he foresaw that moral evil would certainly exist1 involving innumerable multitudes in its ruinous consequences4 ,he did not approve of the evil2 he did not decree that it should exist3 but still evil was a remote result of a decree of his3 for although he foresaw that if he made such free agents1 and governed them in the manner proposed1 they would certainly sin1 yet he determined1 notwithstanding this certainty1 to make these agents and govern them as proposed4 ,he determined1 however1 that they should be under no necessity of sinning1 either by his decree1 or by the circumstances in which they should be placed2 but if they sinned1 it should be their own free choice4 ,as he foresaw they would sin1 he also determined upon the plan he would pursue in reference to them as sinners1 and arranged1 in the counsels of his own infinite mind1 the extended concatenation of causes and effects1 so as to make the wrath of man praise him1 and deduce the greatest possible good from the best possible system4 ,such1 it is believed1 is ,arminianism--such is ,methodism--such is the doctrine of the sermon--and such are the dictates of the ,bible and of sound philosophy4 ,the next question is1 ,what is the doctrine of the reviewer8 ,he shall speak for himself4 ,on page #fab1 of the review1 he asks the question1 ,but in what sense are we to understand the position that he 7,god7 purposes the existence of sin8 ,he proceeds to answer3 ,not necessarily1 in the sense of his preferring its existence in his kingdom to its non-existence1 c4 ,in affirming the doctrine of predestination we affirm no more necessarily than that ,god1 with the knowledge that these beings would sin in despite of the best measures of providence and government he could take1 purposed to create them and pursue those measures1 not for the sake of their sin1 but for the good which he nevertheless saw it was possible to secure in his moral kingdom4 ,this would be a purpose with respect to the existence of sin1 a purpose to permit its existence1 rather than to have no moral system4--,again1 page #fac3 ,nothing more 7touching free agency7 is implied in the purpose spoken of than a ,,certainty foreseen of ,god1 that if he creates and upholds that being1 and pursues wise and good measures of providence1 he 7the being7 will at a given time1 fully choose in a given way4 ,in page #fab he says1 ,god confers on them 7mankind7 in their creation the powers of free agency1 and he uses no influence in his providence or government to procure their sin4 ,page #fad1 ,he 7,god7 most obviously has no will opposed to his law1 though with a foresight of their conduct he should purpose to permit their sin1 rather than dispense with the existence of a moral kingdom4 ,but it is useless to multiply quotations4 ,suffice it to say that the reviewer's whole ground of defence against the arguments of the sermon1 on the question of predestination1 is solely this ,arminian explanation of the doctrine of predestination4 ,he acknowledges1 nay boldly asserts1 in a strain of rugged controversy with his brethren who may differ from this view of the subject1 that there is no other explanation by which the arguments of the sermon can be avoided--that is1 as ,i understand it1 the only way to avoid the arguments against the doctrine of ,calvinian predestination is to give it up1 and assume the ,arminian sentiment on this subject4 ,if the reviewer does not mean this1 he will of course explain himself fully1 and point out the precise difference between his views and those of the ,arminians4 ,if1 on this subject1 the reviewer is an ,arminian1 he has too much candor1 ,i trust1 not to acknowledge it frankly1 and too much moral courage to be afraid of the name4 ,if he is not1 the cause of truth and his own consistency of character imperiously demand an explanation4 ,until this point1 therefore1 is decided1 farther arguments on the merits of the question in which we are supposed to be at issue1 are useless4 ,i am not1 however1 quite ready to dismiss the review4 ,i stated at the commencement it was difficult to pursue this controversy without alluding to the manner in which it had been conducted on the part of our ,calvinistic brethren2 but that there was less ground for objection in this article in the ,spectator than in most others4 ,there are some things in this article1 however1 that ,i cannot justify4 ,i will state them frankly1 though ,i trust in ,christian friendship4 ,i cannot approve of the reviewer's use of terms3 though1 to my understanding1 he has evidently given the doctrine of predestination not merely a new dress1 but a new character1 yet he more than intimates that it is the old doctrine with only a new method of explanation2 and seriously and repeatedly complains of the author of the sermon for confounding the fact of ,god's foreordaining the voluntary actions of men with this or any other solution of that fact or theory as to the mode in which it comes to pass4 ,and so confident is the reviewer that he still believes in the fact of predestination1 in the old ,calvinistic sense1 that in stating his sentiments on this subject he uses the same forms of expression which ,calvinists have used1 when their meaning was as distant from his as the two poles from each other4 ,he tells us1 for instance1 that ,god determined that the events which take place should take place in the very manner in which they do1 and for the very ends4 ,now if the writer mean what the words naturally imply1 then he believes that1 in the case of a finally impenitent sinner1 ,god predetermined that all his sins should take place in the manner they did1 and for the very end that he might be damned6 ,again he tells us1 ,god1 in his eternal purpose1 has predetermined all events4 ,and1 quoting from the ,assembly's ,catechism1 ,god1 from all eternity1 did freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass1 he tells us that this expresses essentially the views entertained by the orthodox ,congregationalists of ,new-,england1 among whom1 ,i suppose of course1 he would include himself4 ,now1 after what ,i have said of the reviewer's ,arminianism1 ,i doubt not but some of my readers will be startled at these quotations1 and be ready to accuse me of great credulity in the judgment ,i have formed of the writer's sentiments4 ,i shall exculpate myself1 however1 by saying1 in the first place1 that if there is any contradiction in the writer's sentiments or language1 it is not my fault1 but his2 and if ,i should attempt to reconcile them1 perhaps the reviewer would not thank me for my officiousness4 ,beside1 after what has been said1 ,i feel safer in understanding the reviewer in an ,arminian sense1 because he and some others take it very ill of me that ,i have represented them as ,calvinists4 ,but1 in fairness to the reviewer1 it is presumed that he will not consider himself justly chargeable with contradiction4 ,he has used these old terms1 it is true1 and thus has subscribed to the ,calvinistic creed as positively as the staunchest ,calvinist2 but then1 let it be understood1 he has explained that creed1 and defined the terms1 and protests against being held responsible for any other construction than his own4 ,hence by ,god's predetermining that sin should take place1 in the very manner1 and for the very ends it does--by ,god's foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass--he only means that ,god foresaw that sin would certainly take place1 and predetermined that he would not hinder it1 either by refraining from creating moral agents1 or by throwing a restraint upon them that would destroy their free agency4 ,in short1 that he would submit to it as an evil unavoidably incident to the best possible system1 after doing all that he wisely could to prevent it6 ,this is foreordaining sin66 ,this is predetermining that it should be666 ,i cannot but express my deepest regret that a gentleman of the reviewer's standing and learning should lend his aid and give his sanction to such a perversion of language--to such a confusion of tongues4 ,we do not complain of the doctrine contained in the explanation2 but we protest1 in the name of all that is pure in language1 in the name of all that is important in the sentiments conveyed by language1 against such an abuse of terms4 ,alas for us6 ,when will the watchmen see eye to eye6 when will the ,church be at peace6 while our spiritual guides1 our doctors in divinity1 pursue this course8 ,by what authority will the reviewer support this definition8 ,do the words predestinate1 or foreordain1 or decree mean1 in common language1 or even in their radical and critical definition1 nothing more than to permit--not absolutely to hinder--to submit to as an unavoidable but offensive evil8 ,the reviewer certainly will not pretend this4 ,much less do they mean this when used in a magisterial or authoritative sense1 to express the mind and will of a superior or governor toward an inferior or a subject4--,what is the decree of a king8 ,what is the ordinance of a senate8 ,what is the official determination of a legislative body8 ,let common sense and common usage answer the question4 ,not a man probably can be found1 from the philosopher to the peasant1 who would say these words would bear the explanation of the reviewer4 ,yet it is in this official and authoritative sense that theologians1 and our reviewer among them1 use these terms4 ,the ,assembly's ,catechism1 as quoted by himself1 says1 ,god1 from all eternity1 did1 by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will1 freely and unchangeably ordain1 c4 ,now it would be a gross insult to common sense to say of such language as this1 in the mouth of an earthly potentate1 that the sovereign meant by this nothing more than that he permitted the existence of certain unavoidable1 and in themselves1 highly offensive evils in his kingdom1 because he could not remove them without embarrassing the essential operations of his government4 ,there is not1 probably1 a clearer case in the whole range of philology4 ,but the use of these terms by those who believe as ,i understand the reviewer to believe1 is the more unjustifiable1 because they are used by most ,calvinistic authors in a different sense4--,why1 then1 should the reviewer1 believing as he does1 continue to use them in the symbols of his faith8 ,different persons might give different answers to such a question4 ,for one1 ,i would prefer he should answer it himself4 ,i cannot approve of the reviewer's censures upon my manner of treating the doctrine of predestination4 ,he accuses me of confounding the doctrine itself1 with modes of explanation4 ,he says they are perfectly distinct2 and though some may have been unfortunate in their modes of explanation1 and though he acknowledges my arguments bear against such1 yet the fact of the doctrine itself is not thereby affected4 ,his mode of explanation1 for example1 he thinks untouched by the arguments of the sermon4 ,but his mode of explanation1 as we have seen1 turns the doctrine into ,arminianism4 ,and it would1 perhaps1 be no difficult matter to show1 that any explanation of the doctrine1 short of doing it away1 would be exposed to all the weight of the arguments urged in the sermon4 ,but the sermon was never written to oppose those who hold to the decrees of ,god in an ,arminian sense4 ,why then does the reviewer complain of the sermon8 ,why does he so deeply regret that the author of the sermon should come before the public with an attack on the faith of a large part of the ,christian community1 conducted in a way so obviously erroneous and unjust8 ,the sermon was against ,calvinism1 not ,arminianism4 ,it is true1 the reviewer may say1 the sermon alludes1 in some parts1 to the ,calvinism of ,new-,england1 and therefore he felt himself implicated4 ,but he certainly was not unless he is a ,new-,england ,calvinist--unless he believes that ,god foreordains whatsoever comes to pass1 in the proper sense of those terms4 ,indeed1 it seems that ,calvinism1 in its proper character1 is as obnoxious to the reviewer1 as to the author of the sermon2 and the former seems to have taken this opportunity to show the nakedness of the system1 and bring into notice a better doctrine4 ,if so1 is it safe that the reviewer should still accord to them their old symbols of faith8 ,and is it just1 that the author of the sermon should be held the defendant on the record1 when the execution is issued against ,calvinism itself8 ,in answer to the former question1 ,i would say1 it is utterly unsafe1 and never will be approved of1 ,i believe1 by ,arminians4 ,with respect to the latter question1 if it is safer to attack ,calvinism in this indirect way1 ,i will not object1 though it may seem at present to my disadvantage4 ,but ,i cannot see that it would be safer--an open bold front always ends best4 ,what if it should subject the reviewer1 and the theological doctors in ,new-,haven generally1 to the charge of heresy8 ,still they ought not to shrink from their responsibilities--they occupy a commanding influence among the ,churches and over the candidates of their theological school1 and that influence should be openly and decidedly directed to discountenance error4 ,they should remove it1 root and branch4 ,especially should they discard those old symbols of faith1 which are not only in themselves1 in their true and proper meaning1 a reflection upon the clerical character1 and a black spot upon an otherwise orthodox creed1 but are also especially obnoxious1 because they are the very articles which the great body of the ,calvinists have maintained1 in a sense widely different from that of the reviewer4 ,at the head of these stands ,calvin1 the author of the system1 in the ,protestant ,church4 ,calvin1 who says1 ,i will not scruple to own that the will of ,god lays a necessity on all things1 and that every thing he wills necessarily comes to pass4 ,adam fell1 not only by the permission1 but also by the appointment of ,god4 ,he not only foresaw that ,adam would fall1 but also ordained that he should4 ,the devil and wicked men are so held in on every side1 with the hand of ,god1 that they cannot conceive or contrive or execute any mischief1 any farther than ,god himself doth not permit only1 but command--nor are they held in fetters1 but compelled also1 as with a bridle1 to perform obedience to those commands4 ,calvin1 it seems1 was far from thinking that appointment only meant permission1 or that to ordain only meant certainty foreseen4 ,in this he was correct3 in this he has been followed by a host of writers down to the present day1 and copied in numerous ecclesiastical symbols1 in different parts of ,christendom2 and does not the reviewer know that these terms are understood by ,hopkins and ,emmons1 and all the ,calvinists of that school1 in a sense widely different from his explanation1 and in a sense1 too1 much more in accordance with the proper meaning of the terms8 ,does he not know that a great majority of the ,calvinists of the ,united ,states1 and perhaps in ,new-,england1 even understand these terms1 as indeed they ought to be understood1 when used in reference to sin1 as expressing a preference of sin1 in that part of the ,divine plan where sin occurs1 to holiness in its stead8 ,indeed1 as ,i understand the reviewer1 from the days of ,john ,calvin down to the present hour1 there is1 on this point1 between the great body of ,calvinists and himself1 almost no likeness1 except in the use of words4 ,theirs is one doctrine--his another4 ,why1 then1 does he oppose the opposers of ,calvinism1 and thus keep error in countenance8 ,especially1 why does he hail from that party1 and hoist their signals1 and then1 alter seeming to get the victory1 by espousing the very cause of the assailed1 encourage the ,calvinists to triumph1 as if their cause had been successful8 ,is this justice to the author of the sermon8 ,is it the best way to promote truth8 ,but ,i forbear4 ,the reviewer's subsequent explanations may remove these difficulties4 ,at any rate1 the cause of truth will doubtless advance4 ,the appearance of this review has given additional strength to the sentiment1 ,calvinism is waxing old1 and is ready to vanish away4 ,the dogma that ,god has predetermined all events1 and elected 7in a ,calvinistic sense7 out of our guilty world all who shall be heirs of salvation1 withers at the touch of advancing truth1 and is fast losing credit in the ,christian ,church4 ,since writing the above1 ,i have seen an inquiry of a correspondent in one of the ,calvinistic papers1 in these words1 ,why do our ,calvinistic writers retain the words which seem so sadly to perplex our ,arminian brethren1 when it is certain that we do not attach the signification to them which they always pretend8 and then instances in the word foreordain4 ,the editor1 in reply1 gives as a reason for using these words1 that they are ,scriptural2 and seems to deem it necessary that they should persist in this use until we submit4 ,this reply of the editor reminded me of a remark of ,mr4 ,tyler1 in his sermon already alluded to3 ,the ,calvinist contends that ,god resolved1 from eternity1 to permit all the sins and miseries which were to take place2 and this he calls1 in the language of the ,bible1 foreordination4 ,now1 not to stop here1 to show that no true ,calvinist would ever call foreordination and permission the same thing1 for ,calvin has1 as we have seen1 clearly distinguished the two words from each other1 ,i beg the privilege of adding a thought or two on this idea of ,scripture authority for the use or these terms4 ,for if it is only because the ,scriptures use these words in this sense1 that they persist in using them1 ,i think we may easily settle this question4 ,let it be shown that the ,scriptures use foreordination1 or predestination1 in the sense of mere permission--not absolutely hindering4 ,again3 let one passage be shown in which it is said1 ,god predestinates all things1 or foreordains whatsoever comes to pass4 ,if this cannot be done1 how futile1 how more than absurd is it1 to talk about using these words1 because the ,scriptures use them6 ,to use ,scripture words out of the ,scripture sense1 and then appeal to ,scripture to sanction this use1 is as sad a perversion of the ,scriptures as it is of logic4 ,indeed1 to give such a meaning to the word predestinate1 is at once to take away the principal scriptures quoted by the reviewer1 and others1 to prove ,calvinistic election4 ,see ,eph4 i1 #e2 ii1 #aj2 ,rom4 viii1 #bi4 ,does predestination in these passages mean merely to permit1 or not to hinder8 and do these passages teach a personal election to eternal life8 ,is this all the ,calvinists mean by the election of sovereign grace1 not of man1 nor of the will of mans but of ,god8 ,alas6 for the elect6 ,if man does not elect himself1 and ,god only predestinates1 that is1 permits--does not hinder his election2 who1 we ask1 will elect him8 ,how does error destroy itself6 ,these gentlemen may take which ground they please2 they may either acknowledge that ,bible predestination means an efficient purpose of ,god to accomplish an object1 and then meet the sermon on the issue there proposed2 or they may interpret these words as the reviewer has1 and then give up those passages which they consider their strong hold1 in favour of ,calvinian election4 ,in either case their system must suffer serious loss4 ,nothing could be more unfortunate1 ,i think1 than this appeal to the ,bible to sanction such an abuse of terms4 ,as to the word foreordain1 ,i do not recollect that it occurs in our translation4 ,jude #d1 has before of old ordained1 c1 but it is in the original very different from the word rendered predestinate4 ,the allusion is to characters that were proscribed for their sins1 and designated for deserved punishment4 ,the original for predestinate1 proorizo1 is used in only one place1 so far as ,i can find1 with any direct reference to a sinful act1 ,acts iv1 #bh4 ,this passage is quoted by the reviewer4 ,but the determination here spoken of1 he himself informs us1 relates to the purpose of ,god to make an atonement for the sin of the world1 by means of the death of ,jesus ,christ4 ,hence the predetermination of ,god1 in this instance1 probably refers to the work of atonement1 without including therein any special decree in respect to the means of the suffering4 ,christ could have suffered1 even unto death1 in the garden without any human means4 ,but inasmuch as these men had the murderous purpose1 ,god chose to leave ,christ to their power1 c1 therefore decreed the atonement1 but permitted the means4 ,this seems to be the most rational construction4 ,but whatever ,calvinists may think of this passage1 the ,scriptural use of the word is clearly on the side of its proper meaning--an authoritative ordinance that the thing predestinated shall be4 ,i will avail myself of this opportunity to correct one or two errors of the reviewer1 respecting the sentiment of the sermon1 which had escaped my notice4 ,he says1 my view of predestination is a determination of ,god to produce a given result by his own immediate and efficient energy4 ,this is a mistake4 ,i said nothing about immediate energy2 this is an essential misrepresentation of the sermon4 ,again3 ,on ,dr4 ,fisk's principle1 it is impossible for ,god to use the voluntary agency of any creature1 to accomplish any valuable end in his kingdom1 and yet leave that creature accountable for his conduct4 ,this is so manifestly incorrect and unjust1 that ,i am sure ,i need only call the attention of the reviewer to it a second time1 to secure a correction from himself4 ,,number ,,ii4 ,a ,,proposition ,,to ,,calvinists4 ,the communication below contains a proposition from ,dr4 ,w4 ,fisk1 which1 however much we dislike theological controversies1 we believe is appropriate and interesting at this time4 ,such a discussion1 under such arrangements1 will give the merits of the controversy to both sides2 and will1 at least1 convince all of one truth--that the ,methodist ,episcopal ,church seeks not concealment from the world or her members1 as charged by her adversaries4 ,but it will develop a still more important truth1 and that is1 what are the settled and definite opinions of the old or the new school in the ,calvinistic ,churches4 ,it is known to all the world1 that there is great difficulty in ascertaining what are the theological opinions of those ancient ,churches of the land4 ,they seem to be as far apart from each other as they are from ,arminianism2 and their replies and rejoinders to each other are as severe as if directed against us4 ,the discussion must be interesting and profitable1 carried on by two such persons as ,dr4 ,fisk and his opponent1 and under the steady supervision1 as to temper and manner1 of third parties as proposed4--,eds4 ,i have just received a pamphlet of about forty-eight pages1 containing a series of letters1 in answer to my sermon on predestination and election4 ,these letters are written by the ,rev4 ,david ,metcalf1 of ,lebanon1 ,connecticut1 and purport to be an answer1 not only to the doctrinal part of the sermon1 but to the charges1 as the writer is pleased to call them1 contained in the sermon1 and published afterward in a specific form1 first in the ,connecticut ,observer1 and then in the ,christian ,advocate and ,journal4 ,it will be recollected by your readers1 that ,i pledged myself to vindicate my statements against any responsible person1 who1 with his own proper signature1 would come forward and deny them3 or if ,i failed to support them1 ,i would retract what ,i had written4 ,this pledge ,mr4 ,metcalf calls upon me to redeem2 not indeed by bringing forward my proofs1 or by making a reply2 but1 having thrown in his plea1 he supposes that the cause is decided1 and has himself made up the judgment1 and issued the execution1 and forthwith comes forward1 and claims his damage4 ,his words are--,of the author of the sermon we claim a public acknowledgment of his errors1 and make justice and equity the ground of our claim4 ,again1 ,if ,dr4 ,f4 makes no public retraction from the ground taken in his sermon--if after he shall receive these letters1 66 remembering also what is said in the ,christian ,spectator's review of his sermon1 he shall allow another copy of it to be printed1 ,i think he will find it difficult to convince any intelligent candid man1 that he is not guilty of breaking the ninth commandment1 c4 ,the intelligent reader1 who has studied human nature1 will know how to make suitable allowances for the dogmatical and premature decisions1 and high claims contained in the foregoing extracts4 ,it is not an uncommon thing1 that a zealous advocate succeeds in convincing himself of the truth of his cause2 but utterly fails with respect to all others4 ,i do not say1 that this writer will not gain his argument2 but it requires more foreknowledge than ,i am disposed to accord to him1 to affirm this as a certainty4 ,i demur against this hasty manner of making up the judgment4 ,i wish to be heard in defence of my statements1 and have objections also to bring against his statements1 and supposed proofs and arguments4 ,in the first place1 ,i object to him1 that he has not come out and joined issue specifically and directly on any one of my charges1 but talks for most part in general terms1 about the unfairness1 injustice1 and misrepresentations of the sermon4 ,this circumstance would1 of itself1 free me from any obligation to notice these letters1 on the ground of my pledge in the ,observer4 ,but yet1 as ,i feel the most perfect readiness to discuss this subject1 and as ,i hope the cause of righteousness may be served thereby1 ,i will willingly proceed in this controversy1 both as to doctrine and policy1 provided we can secure some suitable public medium1 through which to prosecute the discussion4 ,and on this point ,mr4 ,m4 complains bitterly of the former editors of the ,advocate and ,journal--for he had applied1 it seems1 for the privilege of having his letters inserted in that paper1 and was refused1 on the ground that the sermon was not published in the ,advocate1 and therefore justice did not require that its answer should be4 ,now1 since these letters are professedly an answer to the whole sermon1 the editors1 ,i think1 were perfectly consistent with their former statements1 in refusing to publish them4 ,if ,mr4 ,m4 had confined himself to the charges in the ,observer1 the editors would undoubtedly have given the subject a place in the columns of the ,advocate3 as it was1 however1 ,i think the charge of injustice and unfairness made against the editors by ,mr4 ,m4 is entirely gratuitous and unjustifiable4 ,if it was expected to produce an effect on the public1 by such a complaint1 ,i think such an expectation will be disappointed in all places where the subject is understood4 ,and that this was the expectation appears evident from another charge against ,methodist preachers1 in the following words3--,it is supposed to be the common sentiment1 if not 'the common talk in our land1' that the ,methodist preachers have a strong aversion against their hearers reading our writings4 ,the reason of this1 in part1 is supposed to be1 that they choose to have their people receive all their knowledge of our creed from their statements of it1 instead of ours2 lest they should be convinced1 by our arguments1 of the truth of our belief4 ,now this charge we wholly and positively deny1 and challenge the writer for the proofs of what we know to be1 not only an ungenerous1 but an unjust allegation4 ,nothing can be farther from the whole genius of ,methodism than this4 ,does not the reverend gentleman know1 that a great portion of our members in ,new ,england are those who were once members of ,calvinistic congregations8 ,does he not know that they were trained up in these doctrines from their infancy1 and have heard them explained and defended from their earliest recollections8 ,does he not know that ,methodism has made its way against the impressions of the nursery1 the catechetical instruction of the priest and the school master--the influence of the pulpit and the press1 and in maturer age against the still stronger influence of academies and colleges8 ,does he not know1 also1 that all this has been done in this generation8 ,and shall we now be told that ,methodists examine but one side of the question8 ,how astonishing such a charge1 from a man who can make any pretension to a knowledge of ecclesiastical matters in our country6 ,does not this writer know1 also1 that the editors of the ,advocate1 and others1 have called loudly1 and almost continually1 for information upon this subject1 that we might know what the ,calvinistic standards are1 and ascertain what ,calvinism is8 and shall we now be told1 that ,methodists are ignorant of the ,calvinistic faith1 and1 what is worse1 the preachers strive to keep them in ignorance1 and that with the base purpose of keeping them from a conviction of the truth6 ,we say1 if ,calvinism is essentially what it was from five to thirty years ago1 we know its character as well as we ever can know it4 ,if we do not understand it now1 it is either because we have not natural ability to understand it1 7and therefore4 ,calvinism itself being judge1 we are not criminal17 or it is because the teachers of ,calvinism have not had natural ability to make it plain4 ,but if ,calvinism is not essentially what it was1 we ask what it now is8 ,if it is changed in the hands of its supporters1 how much has it changed8 ,is it ,calvinism still1 or has it lost its identity8 ,in what does the identity of ,calvinism consist8 ,shall we take the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,metcalf's answer to these questions8 ,shall we take the ,christian ,spectator's answers8 ,mr4 ,m4 appears fully to agree with the ,spectator1 for he makes frequent reference to it1 with great apparent approbation4 ,and yet two numbers of this periodical have been issued since my reply to the review of my sermon in that work1 in which reply ,i stated my understanding of the reviewer's doctrine of predestination1 and requested to be informed if ,i was incorrect2 and neither my reply nor my request has been noticed4 ,and yet1 let it be understood1 that in the last number there is a very laboured article1 to show that ,dr4 ,taylor does not differ essentially from the orthodox ,calvinistic faith heretofore received4 ,it is also known1 that though ,drs4 ,woods1 ,griffin1 ,tyler1 ,green1 and various others1 come out and charge a portion of their brethren with a serious and dangerous dereliction from the ,calvinistic faith1 yet the accused1 in their turn1 strenuously maintain that they preserve the old landmarks unremoved1 and the essential principles of ,calvinism unimpaired2 and that it is a calumnious charge to say they have departed from the faith of the party4 ,how shall we judge in this matter8 ,if we think1 from our understanding of their writings1 that some of them have changed their views1 and we ask them if they have1 they are silent4 ,if their brethren charge them with changing1 they deny it2 and1 standing up before the world and before the ,churches1 and before their ,god1 pronounce deliberately and emphatically1 the old symbols of faith1 as a test oath to prove their orthodoxy4 ,should we doubt their repeated asseverations8 ,mr4 ,m41 or somebody else1 might write another pamphlet to screw us into repentance and confession1 for bearing false witness against our neighbour4 ,but if we hold them to the old doctrine1 which we have had a good opportunity of learning1 from our youth up1 we are accused of misrepresentation1 and of bearing false witness4 ,none but the advocates of the ,new-,haven divinity have1 to my knowledge1 taken a public stand against my sermon2 and they oppose it because they say it is a misrepresentation of their doctrine4 ,this1 therefore1 seems to us to be the state of the case with respect to these gentlemen--,we make a representation of ,calvinism as we have found it1 and have heretofore understood it--they object1 because this is not their belief1 and therefore we break the ninth commandment6 ,their own brethren charge them with a departure from the old doctrines1 and they deny it6 and charge them in turn with bearing false witness6 ,in the midst of our perplexity on this subject1 while we are looking every way for light1 up comes ,mr4 ,m4 and tells us1 we are unwilling our people should know what ,calvinists believe66 ,is this generous1 or just8 ,we repel the charge1 and demand proof4 ,and in the mean time1 as a farther proof that the charge is unfounded1 ,i will1 ,messrs4 ,editors1 with your consent and approbation1 make a proposition to ,mr4 ,metcalf4 ,it is certainly desirable1 that both ,calvinists and ,methodists should hear both sides4 ,mr4 ,m4 seems very desirous to enlighten the ,methodists4 ,this is very well4 ,but we also wish to enlighten the ,calvinists4 ,to accomplish this1 the discussion on both sides should be put into the hands of the people on both sides4 ,if1 then1 some reputable and extensively circulated ,calvinistic periodical will publish my sermon1 and the discussion which has arisen1 or may arise out of it1 on both sides1 the ,christian ,advocate and ,journal will publish ,mr4 ,m4's letters and the discussions which shall follow2 provided always1 that it shall be submitted to the respective editors1 whether the pieces are written in respectful and becoming style and language2 and provided also1 that the ,calvinistic editor shall1 by consenting to this arrangement1 he considered as thereby acknowledging1 that ,mr4 ,metcalf is a suitable man to manage the controversy in behalf of the ,calvinists1 and that you1 ,messrs4 ,editors1 by consenting to the arrangement1 will thereby consent that you are willing to trust the controversy in my hands1 to be managed in behalf of the ,methodists4 ,to give an opportunity for the ,calvinistic periodical to be prepared1 ,i shall wait a reasonable time1 when1 if the offer is not complied with1 ,i shall want the privilege1 perhaps1 of occupying the columns of the ,advocate1 by the insertion of a few numbers touching the present ,calvinistic controversy1 both as relates to their own differences1 and also as relates to the general question between them and us4 ,,number ,,iii4 ,,indefiniteness ,,of ,,calvinism4 ,,the readers of the ,christian ,advocate and ,journal will recollect the proposition1 made to the ,rev4 ,david ,metcalf1 in the #hth ,no4 of the present volume1 on the subject of his review of my sermon4 ,this proposition has not been complied with on the part of ,mr4 ,m41 and according to the following extract from the ,new-,york ,evangelist1 no compliance can be expected3-- ,we have seen1 says the editor of the ,evangelist1 in the ,advocate1 since ,mr4 ,metcalf's work was published1 a letter from ,dr4 ,f41 in which he shows his desire that the discussion shall still go forward4 ,there is one condition he exacts1 however1 which we think impracticable4 ,it is1 that some person should be designated1 by a sort of common suffrage1 as the champion of ,calvinism4 ,now the truth is1 ,calvinists1 as a class1 are rather remarkable for thinking for themselves2 and of course1 while there are great principles on which1 as a class1 they all agree1 there are many things which will be held or stated differently1 by different minds4 ,consequently1 we can1 each of us1 defend ourselves1 and defend ,calvinists as a class2 notwithstanding1 each one may think his fellow holds some errors1 and therefore1 in his contest with ,calvinism1 ,dr4 ,f4 must assume to himself the responsibility of selecting those doctrinal points and modes of statement which distinguish ,calvinists as a class4 ,and when he has found these principles1 we hope he will either confute or embrace them4 ,i have copied the above for the farther notice of the public1 not only as a remarkable paragraph in itself1 but also as having an important bearing on the present controversy4 ,there are several things in it worthy of special notice4 ,in the first place we see1 if other editors think with this one1 and that they do1 we are left to infer from their not offering their periodicals for the controversy1 there is no hope that my proposition will be accepted4 ,we then have the reason--because there is one impracticable condition4 ,but why impracticable8 ,the editor tells us1 ,dr4 ,f4 exacts that some person should be designated by a sort of common suffrage to be the champion of ,calvinism4 ,i cannot believe the editor means to misrepresent me2 and yet he has done it4 ,my words are1 ,provided that the ,calvinistic editor shall1 by consenting to this arrangement1 be considered as thereby acknowledging that ,mr4 ,metcalf is a suitable man to manage the controversy on the part of the ,calvinists4 ,here is nothing said about a sort of common suffrage4 ,in case of compliance by ,mr4 ,leavitt1 or any other editor1 the only vote to be polled and counted would be his own4 ,not a very extensive suffrage this6 ,and if ,mr4 ,l4 thinks the condition impracticable1 it must be owing to moral inability existing in his own mind1 growing out of the belief that ,mr4 ,metcalf is not a suitable person to manage this controversy4 ,hence it is well ,i took the precaution ,i did2 for ,mr4 ,m4 is a stranger to me2 and ,i do not wish to engage in a controversy on this subject with any man who is not1 by his class1 considered responsible4 ,perhaps ,mr4 ,leavitt knows of some one1 who would be suitable1 in his judgment1 and who would accept of the offer2 or perhaps he himself would be willing to engage in the discussion4 ,i do not wish to confine it to ,mr4 ,m42 nor do ,i wish to be considered in the light of a general challenger who is seeking an adventure4 ,the subject is an important one1 and ,i am willing to discuss it with any candid responsible man4 ,we were most unjustly1 as ,i believed1 accused of keeping our people in ignorance of ,calvinism1 and of preventing them from reading on the other side1 for the base purpose of preventing them from being convinced of the truth4 ,to render the subject fair and equal1 therefore1 and to wipe off this aspersion1 ,i made the proposal2 and if ,mr4 ,m4 is not a suitable man1 let some other be found4 ,but we are informed farther in this paragraph1 that one great difficulty in complying with my condition is1 that ,calvinists1 as a class1 are remarkable for thinking for themselves1 c4 ,if the editor designs to say1 as the natural construction would imply1 that the whole class are remarkable1 in their character as ,calvinists1 for thinking and believing differently and independently of each other1 then his proposition is a contradiction4 ,they1 as a class1 are remarkable for not being a class at all1 having no properties or qualities in common6 ,his argument also would require this construction1 because he is showing why no one could be the proper champion of the class1 for the reason that1 as a class1 they did not think alike4 ,if ,calvinism be a general term1 it includes1 in its extension1 all those individuals or sub-classes of individuals1 and only those1 that hold certain doctrines in common1 and it embraces all those doctrines1 and only those that are held in common by the class4 ,if1 therefore1 there is any such class1 then most certainly they think alike in all those things that constitute them a class2 and by consequence1 any one of the number1 otherwise competent1 would be qualified to represent and defend the class as such1 however much he might differ from many of his fellows1 in other things4 ,if1 therefore1 there is any force in the argument1 that it is impracticable for any one of the number bearing the name1 to become the champion of the class as such1 because they differ so among themselves1 it must arise from the fact1 that there are no great principles held in common among them1 and1 of course1 there is no class4 ,all the writer says afterward1 therefore1 about great principles in which they all agree1 is mere verbiage1 signifying nothing4 ,for if we give it any meaning1 it would be a contradiction of what he had stated before1 and a complete nullification of the only argument adduced as a reason for not complying with my proposal4 ,there is another reason why ,i think the above a fair view of this subject4 ,in the same paragraph it is said1 ,therefore1 in his contest with ,calvinism1 ,dr4 ,f4 must assume to himself the responsibility of selecting those doctrinal facts and modes of statement which distinguish ,calvinists as a class4 ,this is more unreasonable than the requisition of ,nebuchadnezzar1 when he commanded the wise men to make known the dream1 as well as the interpretation4 ,would an intelligent and ingenuous man1 such as we have a right to expect a religious editor to be1 give such an answer1 under such circumstances1 if he could have told us what ,calvinism is8 ,we have been accused1 not by ,mr4 ,metcalf only1 but by ,calvinists of the old school1 and the new school1 and all the schools1 that we misrepresent them1 that our preachers make it their business to misrepresent them1--that my sermon was a most scandalous misrepresentation1 and that we studied to keep our people ignorant of what ,calvinism is4 ,when this is replied to1 by entreating and conjuring those who bear the name of ,calvinism1 to tell us what it is2 and when we offer to discuss the subject1 in their own periodicals1 and give them an opportunity to discuss it in ours1 and to inform our people1 in their own way1 on this doctrine--a death-like silence on the subject reigns throughout the whole corps editorial2 until at length the ,evangelist speaks1--,we cannot comply2 we each and all1 as a class1 are so remarkable for thinking for ourselves1 it is impracticable for any one to state and defend those doctrinal facts which distinguish us as a class1 and therefore ,dr4 ,f4 must assume to himself the responsibility of selecting them66 ,if ,calvinists cannot agree in their own system1 and cannot trust any of their fraternity to state and defend it in behalf of the class1 why do they accuse us of willful misrepresentations1 in stating their system8 ,why1 in short1 do they not begin to doubt whether1 as a class1 they have any system8 ,it is time for those who bear the name to know1 and for the public to be distinctly informed1 whether there is any thing real represented by the term ,calvinism8 ,if there is1 then1 whether the term is a common or a proper noun8 ,if it is a common noun1 or a general name1 then1 what are the qualities1 the properties1 or doctrines designated by it8 ,if no one can tell1--if those who write about it1 and about it1 week after week1 think it impracticable to define or describe those doctrines for the class1 because they think so differently1 of course it follows1 if the name is retained1 it is not a general1 but a proper name1 and belongs only to individuals4 ,and though it has been assumed by many individuals1 yet it has in each case an individual definition1 which by no means enters into the definition of the term1 as assumed by any other individual4 ,and therefore it is as inconsistent to talk about the class of ,calvinists1 as it is to talk about the class of ,johns or ,joshuas1 and as absurd to infer that two men are in any of their real characteristics alike1 because each is called ,calvinist1 as to argue that the editor of the ,evangelist and ,joshua1 the son of ,nun1 belonged to the same class1 because both are called ,joshua4 ,and this appears to me to be very nearly the true state of the case4 ,calvinism1 as designating a class1 has always been rather vague and unsettled in its definition1 from the days of ,john ,calvin himself4 ,and this was one of the offensive objections brought against it in my sermon--an objection1 however1 that has been abundantly confirmed by recent events4 ,as ,i wrote and published of another doctrine some years since1 so ,i may say of ,calvinism now4 ,it is a proteus that changes its shape before one can describe it--an ignis fatuus1 that changes its place before one can get his hand on it4 ,and here ,i will stop to say1 ,it will avail nothing for any one to take offence at this statement4 ,it is not because ,i dislike men who are called ,calvinists1 that ,i thus speak4 ,i know many of them personally1 and esteem them highly1 but of their doctrine1 and their system1 and their name1 ,i must speak freely4 ,and the best refutation they can give1 is to come out if they can1 and define and explain their system4 ,i care not what shape it is presented in2 ,i am willing to meet it4 ,if it puts on an ,arminian character and dress1 like the review in the ,christian ,spectator1 ,i will only ask the privilege of baptizing it anew1 and giving it a legitimate name4 ,but as there seems now little hope of being permitted to meet it in the manner proposed1 it only remains that ,i proceed1 according to promise1 to occupy the columns of the ,advocate with a few numbers1 touching the present ,calvinistic controversy1 both as relates to their own differences1 and as relates to the general question between them and us4 ,i cannot but think this an important moment to look into this subject4 ,the signs of the times indicate that the spirit of inquiry is abroad1 and the old platforms are shaken4 ,in this breaking up of erroneous systems1 there is danger of extremes and extravagancies1 more to be dreaded1 perhaps1 than the old errors themselves4 ,hence1 the necessity for every man who has the truth to be on his guard against the currents1 new and unprovided for1 that may otherwise drive him from his safe moorings3 and hence the necessity also1 that he who has weighed anchor1 and is afloat upon the unexplored sea of philosophic speculation should be aware of the rocks and the quicksands on the opposite shore4 ,an abler hand than mine is certainly needed on this occasion2 such a one ,i hope may be found4 ,but in the mean time ,i will1 as ,i am able1 say a few things1 with the sincere prayer that ,i and my readers may be led into all truth4 ,,number ,,iv4 ,,sketch ,,of ,,the ,,past ,,changes ,,and ,,present ,,state ,,of ,,calvinism ,,in ,,this ,,country4 ,in the former ,no4 it was seen that the indefiniteness and mutability of the ,calvinistic system had thrown a kind of irresponsibility around it2 which renders this controversy1 in many respects1 extremely unsatisfactory4 ,this might1 at first1 lead to the conclusion1 that farther discussion would be useless4 ,on farther thought1 however1 it may appear1 that this very circumstance will render the controversy both easier and more promising4 ,this diversity of opinions has produced serious discussion among the predestinarians themselves1 and has thrown the system open to public view1 and driven its advocates to a clearer statement of their respective opinions4 ,the effervescence1 in short1 growing out of this excitement1 has led to a more distinct analysis of the system1 and of course to a clearer discovery of its constituent parts4 ,their arguments against each other1 and the logical consequences which they urge against each other's views1 are1 in many cases1 precisely the same that we should advance1 and have often urged1 in opposition to predestination4 ,much of the work1 therefore1 is prepared for us1 and brought forward in a way to produce an effect among ,calvinists themselves1 where we could not be heard4 ,to understand this subject however fully1 and to follow out this discussion advantageously1 it will be necessary to glance at the different changes and modifications of the ,calvinistic system2 and to take a brief survey of the present state of the parties4 ,the religious faith of our puritanical fathers is too well known to need a delineation here4 ,this faith was at an early day defined and formally recognized1 in the ,cambridge and ,saybrook platforms4 ,the first refinement 7improvement it can hardly be called7 upon this ancient faith1 was the metaphysical theory of ,dr4 ,hopkins4 ,the leading dogmas of this theory were1 that ,god was the efficient cause of all moral action1 holy and unholy2 and that holiness consisted in disinterested benevolence4 ,insomuch1 that the answer to the question1 ,are you willing to be damned8 was deemed a very good criterion by which to judge of a religious experience4 ,while the doctrine of predestination was in this manner going to seed1 and bearing its legitimate fruits1 in one direction1 it received a remarkably plausible modification in another4 ,the atonement1 which was formerly limited to the elect1 was now extended to all2 and the invitations of the ,gospel1 instead of being restrained1 as before1 to the world of the elect1 were extended to the world of mankind4 ,but as it would be useless to hold out invitations to those who could not accept of them1 another refinement was introduced1 and man was found to possess a natural ability to receive salvation1 although he laboured under an invincible moral inability1 which would for ever keep him from ,christ1 until drawn by irresistible grace4 ,this discovery led to other refinements in language1 so that a kind of technical nomenclature was formed1 out of words in popular use1 which words1 by an accompanying glossary1 were so defined as to correspond with the ,calvinistic system4 ,thus1 ,you can repent if you will1 meaning1 according to the technical definition1 ,you can repent when ,god makes you willing1 and so of the rest4 ,this theory1 sustained as it was by ,dr4 ,hopkins1 ,dr4 ,emmons1 and others1 gained many proselytes1 and seemed likely1 at one time1 to become the universal creed4 ,its metaphysical abstrusities and distinctions gave it an interest for the student2 and its plausible and commonsense terms gave it popularity with the people4 ,in the mean time1 however1 several causes conspired to introduce a great revolution in the religious sentiments of many1 which1 as it has had a very important influence in modifying ,calvinism itself2 ,i must here stop to notice2 ,i allude to the introduction of ,unitarianism and ,universalism4 ,the proximate causes of the introduction of these sentiments were1 among others1 probably the following4 ,the ,antinomian features of old ,calvinism had introduced into the ,churches a heartless ,christianity and a very lax discipline4 ,it was natural1 therefore1 when religion had come1 in point of fact1 to consist chiefly in external performances1 for its votaries to seek a theory that would accord with their practice4 ,unitarianism was precisely such a theory4 ,it is also to be noticed1 that the state of formality and spiritual death that prevailed1 was greatly increased by the withering alliance which then existed between the ,church and civil government4 ,this revolution was undoubtedly hastened also by the ultraism1 on the one part1 and the technical inconsistencies on the other1 of the ,hopkinsian theory4 ,the elements had been long in motion1 and at length they united in an array of numbers and influence that wrested the fairest portions of their ecclesiastical domain from the orthodox ,churches of ,mass41 and turned them over1 together with the richly endowed university of the state1 into the hands of the ,unitarians4 ,in ,connecticut1 ,unitarianism1 as that term is commonly understood among us1 has not prevailed4 ,there is1 ,i believe1 but one ,unitarian pastor1 properly so called1 in the state4 ,this sentiment1 however1 prevails very extensively in this and all the other ,new-,england states1 as well as in many other parts of the union1 under the name of ,universalism2 a sentiment which differs but little from ,socinianism1 and had its origin doubtless from the same source4 ,about half a century since1 a ,calvinistic clergyman1 as he was supposed to be to the day of his death1 left a posthumous work1 which was published1 entitled1 ,calvinism ,improved4 ,it was merely an extension of the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace to all instead of a part4 ,from the premises1 the reasoning seemed fair1 and the conclusions legitimate4 ,this made many converts4 ,and this idea of universal salvation1 when once it is embraced1 can easily be moulded into any shape1 provided its main feature is retained4--,it has finally pretty generally run into the semi infidel sentiments1 of no atonement--no ,divine ,saviour--no ,holy ,ghost1 and no supernatural change of heart2 as well as no hell--no devil--no angry ,god4 ,it may be a matter of some surprise1 perhaps1 to a superficial observer1 or to one not personally acquainted with the circumstances of the case1 why1 in leaving ,calvinism1 these men should go so far beyond the line of truth4 ,but in this we see the known tendency of the human mind to run into extremes4 ,the repulsive features of the old system drove them far the other way4 ,it ought to be remembered1 also1 that there were few1 if any1 who were stationed on the medium line1 to arrest and delay the public mind in its fearful recoil from the horrible decree4 ,had ,methodism been as well known in ,new-,england fifty years ago1 as it now is1 it is doubtful whether ,universalism or ,unitarianism would have gained much influence in this country4 ,late as it was introduced1 and much as it was opposed1 it is believed to have done much toward checking the progress of those sentiments4 ,and perhaps it is in part owing to the earlier introduction1 and more extensive spread of ,methodism1 in ,connecticut1 that ,unitarianism has not gained more influence in the state4 ,this is undoubtedly the fact in the states of ,vermont1 ,new-,hampshire1 and ,maine1 where ,methodism was introduced nearly as early as those other sentiments4 ,the result has shown that the foregoing supposition is corroborated by facts in those cases where the experiment has been tried4 ,these remarks may not now be credited1 but the time will come1 when the prejudices of the day are worn out1 that the candid historian will do the subject justice4 ,but to return--though ,unitarianism and ,universalism are believed to be dangerous errors1 yet1 as is often the case1 they have contributed much1 doubtless1 to detect the errors and modify the features of the opposite system4 ,simultaneously with them1 the ,methodists have engaged in opposing the ,calvinistic dogmas4 ,this close examination and thorough opposition1 with such other causes as may have cooperated in the work1 have driven some of the peculiarities of the ,hopkinsian theory into disrepute1 more suddenly even than they rose into credit4 ,the sublimated doctrine of disinterested benevolence was so like an airy nothing1 that even the speculative minds of the shrewdest metaphysicians could not find for it a local habitation1 in heaven or on earth2 and the almost blasphemous dogma1 that ,god was the efficient cause of sin1 was more abhorrent1 if possible1 than even the horrible decree of reprobation4 ,both1 therefore1 with the exceptions hereafter mentioned1 disappeared4 ,the former1 being of an ethereal character1 silently evaporated into thin air2 but the other1 being of a grosser nature1 and withal more essential to the system itself1 settled to the bottom1 and is now rarely visible1 except when the hand of controversy shakes up the sediment4 ,the doctrine of universal atonement1 however1 was retained1 and the theological vocabulary was not only retained1 but enlarged and improved4 ,so that from that day to this1 we hear but little of the doctrine of reprobation1 or of the decrees of ,god1 but much is said of ,god's electing love1 his ,divine sovereignty1 and gracious purposes4 ,by which is meant1 according to the glossary1 the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation1 and of absolute predestination4 ,the scriptures1 also1 which used to be quoted to prove the direct efficiency of ,god1 in producing sin and securing the condemnation of the reprobate1 receive a different explanation1 varying but little1 if any1 from the ,arminian interpretation of those passages4 ,it cannot be doubted1 ,i think1 but there has been quite a change in the views of the great body of the ,calvinists--and yet not so great and so thorough a change as appearances and terms might at first view seem to indicate4 ,it is not easy to eradicate old prejudices4 ,and it is often found that the mind will cling to the first principles of a favourite system1 even after the other parts are so modified as that the new principles would supplant the old1 if suffered to be carried out into a consistent whole4 ,in every such case1 much labour and argument will be spent in trying to unite the old with the new2 but in every instance the rent becomes worse4 ,this leads to a kind of vacillating policy1 and an ambiguous course of argument1 accompanied with reiterated complaints1 that the opposers of the system misunderstand and misrepresent it4 ,and it would be no wonder if the constant friction in the incongruous machinery should chafe the mind1 and lead to a dogmatic and an impatient spirit4 ,how far this corresponds with the existing facts1 in the ,calvinistic controversy1 others can judge4 ,in my own view1 the peculiar circumstances of the case1 connected with the known character of the human mind1 fully account for the apparent tergiversation and changing of argument1 in this controversy1 without criminating the motives of our predestinarian brethren1 as some have unjustly accused me of doing4 ,the different parts of the system have lost1 in a measure1 their original affinities1 and yet they have some partial and irregular attractions1 which lead them to unite in unnatural and grotesque forms4 ,and as there is no common consent and settled mode of operating among the many who are experimenting upon the materials1 there are various sectional and individual formations1 which are inconsistent with each other4 ,and their incongruity is the more apparent from the unanimous effort 7which ,i believe is the only work of union in the class7 to amalgamate each and every variety with the old substratum of the system1--,god foreordains whatsoever comes to pass4 ,the completion of this historical sketch1 together with a view of the present state of the ,calvinistic parties1 may be expected in the next number4 ,after which it is proposed to proceed to an examination of the doctrines in dispute4 ,,number ,v4 ,,same ,,subject ,,continued4 ,one modification of ,calvinism remains to be mentioned4 ,it is known by the name of the ,new ,divinity4 ,the theological doctors connected with ,yale college are the reputed authors of this system4 ,it is evident1 however1 that the tendency of the ,calvinistic theory has been in this direction for a number of years4 ,the ,new ,divinity1 so alarming to some of the ,calvinists1 is only the ripe fruits of the very plants which they have long cultivated with assiduous care4 ,and why should they start back at results which they have long laboured to produce8 ,this theory1 in the first place1 is an attempt to make the doctrine1 and the technical terms alluded to1 coincide4 ,in the second place1 it is designed1 by a new philosophy of predestination1 to get rid of the logical consequences that have always pressed heavily upon the old system4 ,finally1 it is a device to reconcile the doctrine of depravity with the former current sentiment1 that man has natural ability to convert himself and get to heaven without grace4 ,the two pillars of the new system are1 #a4 ,sin is not a propagated property of the human soul1 but consists wholly in moral exercise4 #b4 ,sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good2 or1 in other words1 ,sin is not preferable to holiness in its stead4 ,the ,calvinistic opposers of this theory tell us that these sentiments have been held and taught to some extent for the last ten years4 ,they were more fully and more openly announced1 however1 by ,dr4 ,taylor1 of the theological school belonging to ,yale ,college1 in a concio ad clerum preached ,sept4 #ajth1 #ahbh4 ,from the time of the publication of this sermon the alarm has been sounded1 and the controversy has been carried on4 ,the opposers of the new doctrine call it heresy2 and in a late publication they seem to intimate that ,dr4 ,t4 and his associates are nearly if not quite as heretical as the author of the sermon on predestination and election4 ,the doctor and his friends1 on the other hand1 strenuously maintain that they are orthodox2 and to prove it1 they repeat1 again and again1 ,we believe that ,god did1 for his own glory1 foreordain whatsoever comes to pass4 ,the ,christian ,spectator1 an ably conducted quarterly journal1 is devoted chiefly to the defence of this theory1 aided by the ,new-,york ,evangelist1 and several other minor periodicals1 and by a very respectable body of the clergy4 ,what proportion1 however1 have embraced this system is not known2 but many1 both in and out of ,connecticut1 have espoused the cause with great zeal4 ,the contest waxes warmer each year4 ,against the theory1 ,dr4 ,woods1 of the ,andover theological seminary1 ,dr4 ,griffin1 of ,williams college1 ,dr4 ,tyler1 of ,portland1 the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,hervey1 of ,connecticut1 and several others have entered the lists of controversy2 and last of all1 a pamphlet1 supposed to be the joint labour of a number of clergymen1 has been published1 in which the ,new ,divinity is denounced as heresy1 a formal separation of the ,churches is predicted1 and a withdrawal of patronage from ,yale college is threatened on the ground that ,yale will become in ,connecticut what ,harvard is in ,massachusetts4 ,it is uncertain1 however1 whether those ultra measures will be responded to by the great body of the clergy in ,new-,england4 ,there is a party which still adheres to the old--,i may say1 perhaps1 to the oldest modification of ,calvinism in this country4 ,this party are for maintaining the old landmarks at all hazards1 rightly judging that these palliations and explanations of the system will ultimate in its destruction4 ,they are not numerous1 but still respectable as to numbers and talents4 ,they are sustained in ,boston by the ,boston ,telegraph1 so called1 a weekly periodical1 which does not hesitate to go the whole length--logical consequences and all4 ,witness the following quotation from a review of my sermon1 in the number for ,jan4 #bc;d4 ,speaking of the charge in the sermon1 that ,calvinism makes ,god the author of sin1 the writer says3--,the word author is sometimes used to mean efficient cause4 ,now ,i am willing to admit that those scriptures which teach that ,god has decreed the sinful conduct of men1 do imply that he is the efficient cause of moral evil4 ,for his own glory and the greatest good he said1 ,let there be sin1 and there was sin666 ,the following is another specimen of ,calvinism from the same periodical4 ,if any man affirms that man really chooses1 and that his acts of will are caused by his own free1 voluntary1 and efficient mind1 then he is no ,calvinist4 ,in this last quotation1 as well as in the preceding1 there is the most direct opposition to ,dr4 ,taylor1 since he maintains1 if ,i understand him1 that man's is an independent agency--that the human mind is the originator of thought and volition4 ,thus are these two branches of the ,calvinistic family directly at variance with each other4 ,and1 in fact1 the ,telegraph and its supporters are not only at variance with the newest divinity1 but with all the different degrees of new1 newer1 newest1 and denounce them all as heresy4 ,the present advocates of predestination and particular election may be divided into four classes3--#a4 ,the old school ,calvinists4 #b4 ,hopkinsians4 #c4 ,reformed ,hopkinsians4 #d4 ,advocates of the ,new ,divinity4 ,by the reformed ,hopkinsians ,i mean those who have left out of their creed ,dr4 ,hopkins' doctrine of disinterested benevolence1 ,divine efficiency in producing sin1 c1 and yet hold to a general atonement1 natural ability1 c4 ,these constitute1 doubtless1 the largest division in the class in ,new-,england4 ,next1 as to numbers1 probably1 are the new school1 then ,hopkinsians1 and last1 the old school4 ,these subdivisions doubtless run into each other in various combinations2 but the outlines of these four sub-classes are1 ,i think1 distinctly marked4 ,the preceding sketch has been confined mostly to the theological changes in ,new-,england2 but it will apply1 to a considerable extent1 to other parts of the nation4 ,the ,presbyterian ,church1 by reason of its ecclesiastical government1 is more consolidated1 and of course less liable to change than the independent ,congregational ,churches of the eastern states4 ,but the ,presbyterian ,church has felt the changes of the east1 and is coming more and more under their influence4 ,it is now a number of years since the triangle1 as it was called1 was published in ,new-,york4 ,this was a most severe and witty allegory1 against the dogmas and bigotry of old ,calvinism4 ,from this work this old theory has obtained the epithet of triangular4 ,whenever a man advocates the doctrine of limited atonement1 imputed sin1 and imputed righteousness1 he is said to be triangular4 ,these old triangular notions are giving place very rapidly to modern improvements4 ,and although the most strenuous opposition has been made in the ,general ,assembly1 in different publications1 and elsewhere1 yet the votes in the last ,general ,assembly show1 ,i think1 that the whole ,church is yielding herself up to the resistless march of innovation4 ,it may be doubted whether the state of ,new-,york is not emphatically the strong hold of the ,new ,divinity1 so far as popular sentiment is concerned2 and whether1 indeed1 with the exception of ,new-,haven1 there is not the greatest moral influence enlisted there1 for the propagation of the new theory4 ,thus have ,i endeavoured to glance over the various modifications and present characteristics of that mode of ,christian doctrines called ,calvinism4 ,here a few suggestions present themselves1 which1 from their relation to the present controversy1 ,i will now set down4 ,it seems singular that1 differing as they profess to1 so materially1 on many points1 each individual of each sub-class should feel himself injured whenever ,calvinism1 under this common name1 is opposed in any of its features4 ,the sermon on predestination was against ,calvinism1 and lo6 all parties rise up against the sermon4 ,and yet1 whether it object to ,calvinistic policy or to ,calvinistic doctrine1 the different parties accuse their opponents of being guilty of the charge1 but they themselves are clear4 ,i cannot think of a single important position assumed by the sermon against predestination and election1 which is not sustained by ,calvinists themselves in opposition to some of their brethren2 nor yet of a single charge against their policy1 for their changes and ambiguous methods of stating and defending their doctrines1 which has not been reiterated by professed ,calvinists themselves against their brethren4 ,thus the sermon is sustained by the ,calvinists themselves1 and yet they all condemn it6 ,if some ,calvinists think that the objections of the sermon lie against some modifications of their system1 is it not possible that these objections have a more general application than any of them seem willing to acknowledge8 ,for example3 it is objected to predestination that it makes ,god the author of sin1 destroys free agency1 arrays ,god's decrees against his revealed word1 mars his moral attributes1 puts an excuse into the mouth of the impenitent sinner1 implies unconditional reprobation1 makes ,god partial and a respecter of persons1 necessarily limits the atonement1 c4 ,these charges1 say the ,calvinists1 are very unjust1 ungenerous--in fact1 they bear false witness against our neighbours4 ,this is said by ,mr4 ,metcalf1 and by others of the ,new-,haven school4 ,and yet what says the ,spectator1 the organ and oracle of that school8 ,it says of ,dr4 ,tyler1 and of others who oppose the peculiar views of ,dr4 ,taylor1 comprising1 as we have seen1 the great majority of ,calvinists1 that their views limit ,god in power and goodness--make the worst kind of moral action the best--if carried out in their legitimate consequences1 would lead to universalism1 to infidelity1 to atheism--they confound right and wrong1 and subvert all moral distinctions--according to these views1 mankind are bound to believe that they shall please and glorify ,god more by sin than by obedience1 and therefore to act accordingly--nothing worse can be imputed to the worst of men than this theory imputes to ,god666#d ,has the author of the sermon said more than this1 and worse than this1 of ,calvinism8 ,and shall he be accused by these very men of bearing false witness against his brethren8 ,and let it be observed farther1 in justification of the sermon1 that these charges in the ,spectator are made by men who have been brought up at the feet of the ,calvinistic doctors1 and have themselves grown up to the character and rank of doctors in theology4 ,they know the system thoroughly2 they have made it the study of their lives1 and have they testified to the truth respecting this theory8 ,so then has the author of the sermon4 ,such is the testimony on the one side2 and on the other we have decided predestinarians acknowledging1 as an article of their creed1 what in the sermon was urged as only a logical consequence4 ,according to this system1 says the sermon1 the fiat of ,god brought forth sin as certainly as it made the world4 ,hear the ,boston ,telegraph3--,god1 for his own glory and for the good of the world1 said1 ,let there be sin1 and there was sin6 ,now ,i beg the reader to look at this subject for a moment4 ,for brevity's sake we will call the ,boston ,telegraph and its supporters ,no4 #a2 the ,andover theological seminary and its supporters1 which constitute by far the larger body of predestinarians in ,new-,england1 ,no4 #b2 and the ,new-,haven divines and their supporters ,no4 #c4 ,the sermon charges predestination with making ,god the author of sin4 ,no4 #b says this is false3 ,i neither believe it1 nor is it to be inferred from my premises4 ,it is true1 says ,no4 #a3 ,i am willing to admit that ,god is the efficient cause of sin4 ,he said1 ,let there be sin1 and there was sin4 ,it is true1 responds ,no #c1 that all who hold and explain predestination as ,nos4 #a and #b explain it1 are exposed to the full force of the objections in the sermon--against such views the arguments of the sermon are unanswerable4 ,no4 #b1 in vindication1 says that ,no4 #a is on the old plan--very few hold with him in these days4 ,and as for ,no4 #c1 he is already a rank ,arminian2 and if he would be consistent1 he must give up unconditional election1 and embrace the whole ,arminian theory4 ,thus do they destroy each other1 and confirm the doctrine of the sermon4 ,and shall we still be told that we do not understand this doctrine8 ,have anti-predestinarians misunderstood this from ,john ,calvin's day to the present8 ,does honest ,no4 #a misunderstand it8 ,does well instructed ,no4 #c misunderstand it8 ,what then is ,calvinism1 that cannot1 through the lapse of centuries1 make itself understood either by friend or foe8 ,is not this1 of itself1 a suspicious trait in its character8 ,let us quote a ,calvinistic writer1 whose sentiments are much in point1 though aimed at the ,new ,divinity3--,it is a serious ground of suspicion1 says this writer1 that ,dr4 ,taylor has failed1 according to his own repeated declarations1 to render his speculations intelligible to others4 ,it must be granted that a man of sense1 who is acquainted with the power of language1 can1 if he is disposed1 make himself understood4 ,some of the most intelligent men in the country have utterly failed to compass ,dr4 ,t4's meaning in argument3 so that he declares again and again1 ,i am not understood--,i am misrepresented4 ,who under such circumstances can refrain from suspicion8 ,another suspicious circumstance in the case is1 that ,dr4 ,taylor expresses himself in ambiguous terms and phrases1 which1 though they are designed to influence the mind of a reader1 afford him the opportunity to avoid responsibility4 ,see pamphlet by ,edwardian1 pp4 #bh and #bi4 ,if this is justly said of ,dr4 ,taylor's recent theory1 what shall we say of a system the advocates of which1 according to their repeated declarations1 have not been able to render their speculations intelligible1 after the theory has had exhausted upon it the highly cultivated intellects of hosts of expositors through successive generations8 ,who1 under such circumstances1 can refrain from suspicion8 especially since these advocates have learned to express themselves in ambiguous terms and phrases which1 though they are designed to influence the mind of a reader1 afford them an opportunity to avoid responsibility4 ,to ,calvinism it may truly be said1 ,out of thine own mouth will ,i judge thee4 ,let not the author of the sermon then be accused of bearing false witness1 when his testimony is predicated on principles which ,calvinists have laid down1 and is also corroborated by men of their own class4 ,will it be said1 ,all this is not argument4 ,i answer1 ,the sermon1 it is supposed1 contains arguments--arguments which professed predestinarians themselves tell us are unanswerable against the prevailing modes of stating and explaining the doctrine4 ,now let them be answered1 if they can be4 ,let them be answered1 not by giving up predestination1 in the ,calvinistic sense1 and still professing to hold it--not by attempting to avoid the logical consequences1 by giving the system the thousandth explanation1 when the nine hundred and ninety-nine already given have made it no plainer1 nor evaded at all the just consequences1 so often charged upon it2 and when these are answered1 it will then be time enough to call for new arguments4 ,having prepared the way1 as ,i hope1 by the preceding numbers1 for the proper understanding of the controversy2 and having1 by the remarks just made1 attempted 7with what success the reader must judge7 to repel the charges of misrepresentation and bearing false witness1 made against me1 as the author of the sermon which gave rise to the controversy1 ,i am now prepared1 in my next number to commence an examination of some of the questions of doctrine1 connected with this discussion4 ,in doing which1 my object will be1 to let ,greek with ,greek contend so far as to show1 if possible1 the inconsistency of both1 and then present the doctrine which we believe to be the true system1 and show how it stands untouched by the conflicting elements around it as the immovable foundation of the ,church of ,god4 ,i shall begin with the ,divine purposes including foreknowledge2 then take up human agency and responsibility2 and last1 regeneration1 connected with the doctrine of human depravity1 ,divine and human agency1 c4 ,may ,he that said1 ,let light be1 and light was1 shine in our hearts1 to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of ,god1 in the face of ,jesus ,christ4 ,,number ,,vi4 ,,predestination4 ,definitions are the foundations of reasoning4 ,hence in any reply to my sermon on predestination and election it was natural and fair that the first inquiry should be1 ,are the definitions correct8 ,the definition of predestination assumed in the sermon was1 that unalterable purpose and efficient decree of ,god1 by which the moral character and responsible acts of man were definitely fixed and efficiently produced4 ,on this point the sermon joined issue4 ,to this definition most of the notices and reviews1 to the number of six or seven1 which ,i have seen1 have taken exceptions4 ,the review in the ,boston ,telegraph1 however1 is not of this number4--,that1 as has already been noticed1 agrees with the charge in the sermon1 that the fiat of ,god brought forth sin as directly as it made the world4 ,we have only to leave those ,calvinists1 who accord to that sentiment1 to struggle1 as they can1 against the arguments of the sermon--against the common sense of the world--against their own convictions of right and wrong--and1 ,i may add1 against their own brethren of the class1 some of whom have already publicly denounced the sentiment as horrid blasphemy4 ,at this day of light1 in which naked ,calvinism is abhorred by most of those who bear the name of ,calvinists1 it is hardly necessary to give a formal answer to such a review4 ,we approve of the logical consistency of these men--we admire the moral courage that1 from assumed premises1 pushes out a theory to its legitimate results without flinching2 but we are astonished at the moral nerve that can contemplate such results with complacency4 ,for myself ,i confess when ,i see this naked system of ,calvinism fulminating the curse of reprobation in the teeth of the miserable wretch whose only crime is1 that his ,god has made him a sinner1 my heart recoils with indescribable horror6 ,let him contemplate this picture who can4 ,i covet not his head or his heart4 ,of others who have expressed their views of the sermon there are two classes3 #a4 ,the conductors of the ,christian ,spectator and those who favour their views2 and #b4 ,those who in a former number were called ,reformed ,hopkinsians4 ,the latter comprehend the larger portion of ,calvinists in ,new-,england1 and probably in the ,united ,states4 ,their views on predestination shall be noticed in another number4 ,at present ,i shall direct my remarks to the letters of ,mr4 ,metcalf and to the first and second notices of the sermon in the ,christian ,spectator4 ,and here let me say1 once for all1 that ,i do not consider either of these gentlemen1 or any who think with them1 responsible for the doctrine of predestination as stated and opposed in the sermon4 ,this ,i hope will be satisfactory4 ,if these gentlemen should ask me why ,i published my sermon in terms that included ,calvinists generally1 without making the exception in their favour1 ,i answer1 #a4 ,the views of ,dr4 ,taylor and those who believe with him1 on this particular point1 were unknown to me at the time4 ,nor is this strange1 for it is but lately that those views have been fully developed--never so fully before1 probably1 as in ,dr4 ,fitch's review of my sermon1 already alluded to4 #b4 ,it never occurred to me that any man or any set of men holding1 in respect to predestination1 the doctrine of ,james ,arminius1 ,john ,wesley1 and the whole body of ,methodists1 would call themselves ,calvinists66 ,this is all the apology ,i have1 and whether or not it is sufficient1 the public must judge4 ,by acknowledging the views of these gentlemen to be ,methodistical on the subject of predestination1 ,i by no means would be understood to say this of their system as a whole--the objectionable parts will be noticed in their place4 ,but whatever is true is none the less so for being mixed with error4 ,there are some things1 however1 to be regretted and exposed in the manner in which these reviewers have expressed their doctrine of predestination1 and also in the manner in which they have opposed the sermon and ,arminianism generally4 ,they complain of my definition of predestination4 ,mr4 ,m4 thinks it is bearing false witness4 ,the reviewer thinks it is obviously erroneous and unjust4 ,and yet they themselves acknowledge that the sermon is an unanswerable refutation of predestination as held by ,dr4 ,tyler and others who oppose their views4 ,but what is a matter of the greatest surprise is the determination with which these gentlemen persist in holding up the idea that their views essentially differ from ours4 ,dr4 ,fitch1 in his answer to my reply1 says3-- ,there are three views1 and only three1 which can be taken of the ,divine purposes in relation to a moral kingdom3-- #a4 ,that ,god1 foreseeing the certainty of the conduct of his creatures1 purposes merely to treat them in a corresponding manner4 #b4 ,that he1 first of all1 resolves what the conduct of his creatures shall be1 and next resolves on such measures as shall bring them to that conduct4 #c4 ,that1 foreseeing the conduct which will certainly ensue on the different measures it is possible for him to take1 he purposes to pursue those measures which will certainly lead to the best possible results4 ,the first view is that which we understood to be advocated by ,dr4 ,fisk1 in the sermon we reviewed4 ,the writer goes on farther to say that his objection to this is1 that it is utterly deficient--that it passes over in silence all those acts of ,god in creation and government by which he determines character4 ,of course he means to say that the sermon advocated a theory which left out of the question all the ,divine influence in determining character4 ,how strangely he has misunderstood the sermon1 let those judge who have read it4 ,it teaches that ,god hath fixed the laws of the physical and moral world3 that he has a general plan1 suited to all the various circumstances and contingencies of government2 that ,god gives the sinner power to choose life2 that his grace enlightens and strengthens the sinner to seek after and obtain salvation4 ,in short1 it must be obvious that no man who believes in the ,divine government and in ,gospel provisions can leave this influence out of his system4 ,i will therefore venture upon the following declaration1 which it is presumed ,dr4 ,fitch cannot gainsay1 namely1 ,dr4 ,f4 never saw a man and never heard of a man that was a believer in revelation1 who left out of his creed all that conduct in ,god which determines character4 ,that such was not the character of my creed1 the reviewer might have learned in my reply to his first review1 if he could not from the sermon4 ,in the reply it is said1 ,as ,god foresaw men would sin1 he also determined upon the plan he would pursue in reference to them as sinners1 and arranged in the counsels of his own infinite mind the extended concatenation of causes and effects so as to 'make the wrath of man praise him1' and deduce the greatest possible good from the best possible system4--,and yet1 strange to tell1 in his answer to my reply1 the reviewer says as decidedly as if it were an undisputed truth1 ,dr4 ,fisk advocates the first1 7meaning the first view of the ,divine purposes given above47 ,we brought forward the third1 7meaning the third view47 ,now since the third upholds the fact of foreordination1 free from the objections of ,dr4 ,f41 we have succeeded in upholding the fact which ,dr4 ,f41 as an ,arminian1 denies1 and which ,calvinists maintain4 ,whereas he ought to have said1 for he had my statement for it directly before him1 ,dr4 ,fisk advocates the third1 and then he might have added1 ,now since the third destroys the ,calvinistic doctrine of foreordination1 therefore in assisting ,dr4 ,fisk to sustain the third we have succeeded in disproving the doctrine of foreordination1 which ,arminians deny1 and ,calvinists have attempted to maintain4 ,in fact1 as the reviewer says1 there can be but those three views taken of the ,divine purposes2 and since neither ,i nor any other ,arminian ever believed in the first1 and as ,dr4 ,fitch himself acknowledges we are directly opposed to the second1 it follows that we must believe the third4 ,but the third is the reviewer's creed3 therefore on this point he is an ,arminian1 or we are ,calvinists4 ,that the reviewer's theory on predestination is about the same with the ,methodists' appears evident from the following quotations from ,mr4 ,wesley1 in which it will be seen that not only does ,mr4 ,wesley's creed include all the ,divine influence that goes to determine character1 but also that ,god pursues measures which will certainly lead to the best possible results2 nay1 that he does all that he wisely can to exclude sin from the moral universe4 ,these are points for which the advocates of the ,new-,haven theory strongly contend4 ,let them see1 then1 how in this matter they have identified themselves with ,arminians4 ,to ,god1 says ,mr4 ,wesley1 in his sermon on ,divine providence1 all things are possible2 and we cannot doubt of his exerting all his power1 as in sustaining so in governing all that he has made4 ,only he that can do all things else cannot deny himself--he cannot counteract himself or oppose his own work4 ,were it not for this1 he would destroy all sin1 with its attendant pain1 in a moment4 ,but in so doing he would counteract himself1 and undo all that he has been doing since he created man upon the earth4 ,for he created man in his own image--a spirit endued with understanding1 with will or affections1 and liberty1 without which he would have been incapable of either virtue or vice4 ,he could not be a moral agent1 any more than a tree or a stone4 ,therefore 7with reverence be it spoken7 the ,almighty himself cannot do this thing4 ,he cannot thus contradict himself or undo what he has done4 ,but were he to do this1 it would imply no wisdom at all1 but barely a stroke of omnipotence4 ,whereas all the manifold wisdom of ,god 7as well as all his power and goodness7 is displayed in governing man as man--as an intelligent and free spirit1 capable of choosing either good or evil4 ,again4 ,in the sermon entitled1 ,the ,wisdom of ,god's ,counsels3 ,in the moral world evil men and evil spirits continually oppose the ,divine will1 and create numberless irregularities4 ,here therefore is full scope for the exercise of all the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of ,god in counteracting all the wickedness and folly of men and all the subtlety of ,satan1 to carry on his glorious design1 the salvation of lost mankind4 ,now let me ask the reviewer1 is this leaving out all the ,divine influence that determines character8 ,is not this maintaining that1 in view of the measures that it was possible tor ,god to take1 he purposes to pursue those measures that will certainly lead to the best possible result8 ,is ,dr4 ,fitch ignorant of what ,methodists hold to8 or is he unwilling to identify himself with us8 ,ignorant of my views he could not be1 ,i think1 after reading my reply4--,why1 then1 does he persist in talking of a difference where there is none8 ,mr4 ,metcalf has taken a more correct view of the subject4 ,after reading my reply1 he says1 if you will preach this doctrine to your ,methodist brethren thoroughly and forcibly1 and sustain it with the strong arguments on which the doctrine rests1 if they do not call it ,calvinism1 ,i will acknowledge they do not understand the term as ,i do4 ,and if you will preach in the same way to ,calvinists1 if they too do not call it ,calvinism1 ,i will grant that even they too sometimes differ about terms4 ,if you will take this course1 ,i think when you shall see what the doctrine will be called1 the astonishment you express that it should be regarded as ,calvinism will wear away4 ,now how surprised ,mr4 ,m4 will be when he learns that we have always preached this doctrine as thoroughly and forcibly as we could1 and neither ,methodists nor ,calvinists ever suspected it was ,calvinism until he and those who believe with him incorporated it into their creed1 and for some reason unknown to us1 called it ,calvinism6 ,and how surprised we all are to find that he who was so anxious to be heard in the ,christian ,advocate and ,journal1 for the purpose of informing ,methodists what ,calvinism was1 and of disabusing their minds of erroneous conceptions on this subject1 himself understands neither ,methodism nor ,calvinism66 ,yet so it is1 ,calvinists themselves being judges4 ,dr4 ,tyler1 ,dr4 ,griffin1 ,dr4 ,woods1 the author of ,views in ,theology1 the author or authors of the pamphlet by an ,edwardian1 all condemn the ,new-,haven theory of predestination as anti-,calvinistic1 and as being essentially ,arminian4 ,dr4 ,fitch acknowledges that we agree in some of the first principles4 ,in reply to my answer he says1 ,it was certainly our intention to place this contested doctrine on grounds which our ,wesleyan brethren could not dispute1 and it gives us pleasure to find that in this we have had complete success6 ,there are two things a little remarkable connected with this sentiment4 ,one is1 that the writer should so express himself as to convey the idea that he has traced up the subject to first principles with much care1 and1 to his great satisfaction1 has succeeded in convincing us of the correctness of his premises4 ,whereas it is evident from the passages already given from ,mr4 ,wesley1 and from the universal sentiments of the ,wesleyan ,methodists1 that the ,new-,haven doctors have at length come on to our ground2 and it gives us great pleasure to find that1 from some source1 arguments in favour of our system have with them met with complete success4 ,the other thing that strikes me as remarkable is1 that after the reviewer had acknowledged that we were agreed in these first principles1 he should immediately go on to say1 as has already been mentioned1 that ,i and the ,arminians hold to the first view he has given of the three possible views that might be taken of predestination1 and deny the third2 when at the same time the third contains those very first principles in which he says we are agreed4 ,this looks so much like a contradiction1 almost in the same breath1 that ,i really know not what other name to give it4 ,if these gentlemen are disposed to come into the fortress of truth1 and assist us in manning our guns and working our artillery against error1 we certainly can have no objection4 ,we are fond of help4 ,but they must pardon us if we revolt a little at the idea of their taking the lead in this business1 and accounting us as mere novices who have only learned1 and that too from themselves1 some of the elementary principles4 ,nay1 they must not wonder if we refuse outright to be crowded from our present commanding position in the fortress of truth1 and to be placed in front of our own batteries1 merely to give our new allies an opportunity to blow us up with our own ordnance6 ,in reply to my objection to the reviewer that it was an abuse of terms to call the permission of sin1 not hindering it1 c1 a foreordination or purpose that it shall be1 c1 he has said1 ,if an evil1 unavoidable and hateful1 is allowed by the ,creator to come into his kingdom1 in one place and time rather than any other1 and is thus particularly disposed of by his providence1 because it is a disposition of it the best possible1 is there no purpose of ,god in relation to the thing8 ,in doing his own pleasure1 in this case1 does he not decide on the fact of the entrance of sin into his kingdom just when and where it does8 ,now ,i beg the reader to go over this last paragraph once more1 and then say if he does not agree with me in the following sentiment1 namely1 there rarely occurs in any writer an instance of so complete an evasion of a contested question as is here exhibited4 ,is there no difference between a purpose in relation to a thing1 and the foreordaining or decreeing that the thing shall be8 ,and pray what is meant by ,god's deciding on the fact of the entrance of sin into his kingdom8 ,you can make it mean almost any thing4 ,but taking the whole of ,dr4 ,fitch's theory on the subject1 he means to say1 doubtless1 that since the entrance of sin was unavoidable1 ,god determined to restrain and control it so as to suffer it to do the least harm possible--preferring holiness in its stead in every place where it occurs4 ,and this is foreordaining sin66 ,this is predestination66 ,let us illustrate this by a case in point4 ,cicero1 a ,roman consul1 knew that ,cataline was plotting treason against the commonwealth4 ,cicero perceived that this hated treason1 though unavoidable1 was not wholly unmanageable4 ,he determined therefore to make a disposition of it the best possible4 ,he took his measures accordingly4 ,by these ,cataline and the principal conspirators were driven out of the city1 and compelled1 before their plans were matured1 to resort to open hostilities4 ,thus the citizens were aroused and united1 and the state saved4 ,in this way the evils of the conspiracy were suffered to come upon the commonwealth in one place and time rather than any other1 and were thus particularly disposed of by ,cicero4 ,in this case the consul had a special purpose about the thing4 ,he determined to drive the conspirators into open war1 rather than suffer them privately to corrupt all they could1 and then fill the city with fire and slaughter4 ,the question now is1 and it is put not to the reviewer1 for he still persists in the use of his terms1 but it is put to the common understanding of community1 ,did the ,roman consul ordain or foreordain1 or predestinate the treason of ,cataline8 ,if by common consent all answer1 ,no1 such a statement is a libel upon the consul2 and if1 in addition to this common understanding of the term1 the theological use of the term will not bear such a construction2 if the great body of the ,calvinists of the present day1 and of ,new-,england even1 use the term in a different sense1 it remains to be seen how the ,new-,haven divines can stand up before the world and say1 ,we believe ,god hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass4 ,before closing this number ,i ought1 perhaps1 to say a few things1 if not in the defence1 at least explanatory of that course of reasoning in the sermon in which ,i undertook to show that foreknowledge is antecedent to foreordination4 ,to this ,mr4 ,metcalf and others have objected because1 say they1 ,god must first have determined to make moral agents before he could know they would sin3 therefore his knowledge or his foreknowledge in this case must depend upon his determination4 ,this objection1 at least so far as the ,new-,haven theology is concerned1 is founded in error4 ,what says ,dr4 ,fitch8 ,that ,god1 foreseeing the conduct which will certainly ensue on the different measures it is possible for him to take1 purposes1 c4 ,the sermon says1 ,god knows all that is1 or will be1 or might be1 under any possible contingency1 and that his plan is the result of his infinite knowledge--the decrees of his throne flow forth from the eternal fountain of his wisdom4 ,where is the discrepancy here8 ,god saw this general plan1 as a whole1 before he resolved upon its adoption2 7,i speak now of the order of thought27 he saw1 if he made free moral agents1 and governed them as such1 sin would ensue4 ,and he also saw what he might do in that case to counteract and overrule it to his own glory and the good of the universe4--,and he judged1 in his infinite wisdom1 that such a moral universe1 notwithstanding the sin that would certainly result from it1 would1 on the whole1 be the best2 and therefore upon this foreknowledge of the whole1 ,god founded his determination to create the universe1 and govern it as proposed4 ,god's foreknowledge of the certainty of any event in this universe1 it must be acknowledged1 depended upon his determination to create and govern the universe4 ,and in this sense his purpose was causa sine qua non1 a cause without which any given event would not have happened1 and therefore could not have been foreseen as certain4 ,but then it should be remembered that there was a foreknowledge anterior to all this1 and which was1 in fact1 the foundation of all subsequent instances of knowing or decreeing4 ,it is therefore true in the sense in which the sentiment is advanced and sustained in the sermon1 that ,god foreknows in order to predestinate1 but he does not 7primarily7 predestinate in order to foreknow4 ,to conclude3 from the view taken in this number it appears that one class of ,calvinists acknowledge that predestination is chargeable with all that was included in my definition of it4 ,another1 and a rapidly increasing class1 have given up ,calvinian predestination1 and1 in all but the name1 have in that point come on to the ,methodist ground4 ,there is still another class1 who are evidently not ,arminians1 but still deny the correctness of my definition of their doctrine4 ,they say they are not chargeable with such a doctrine1 either directly or by inference4 ,in the next number1 therefore1 an attempt will be made to sustain from their own positions this definition4 ,,number ,,vii4 ,,predestination1 ,,continued4 ,from my last number the reader will perceive that there are two classes of ,calvinists1 so-called1 with whom we have no need to contend2 with one there is no cause of controversy1 because they have given up the doctrine2 and with the other there is no need of controversy1 because their plain manner of avowing the doctrine1 logical consequences and all1 renders any arguments against it unnecessary4 ,its character is too monstrous and abhorrent to gain much credit4 ,there is yet another and a larger portion1 who1 while they reject the views both of the ,new-,haven divines and of the old school and ,hopkinsian ,calvinists1 are nevertheless strongly opposed to the issue proposed in the sermon4 ,they deny1 as appears from some public intimations and many private statements1 that ,i have given a fair representation of the doctrine4 ,they appear to manifest as much horror as an ,arminian would to the idea1 that the responsible acts of moral agents are definitely fixed and efficiently produced by the purpose and decree of ,god1--that these acts are the result of an overruling and controlling power1--that the will1 in all its operations1 is governed and irresistibly controlled by some secret impulse1 some fixed and all-controlling arrangement4 ,hence1 ,i suppose1 if it can be proved that these are the genuine characteristics of ,calvinism1 the system itself will1 by many at least1 be given up4 ,at any rate1 since the exception is taken to the definition of the doctrine1 it may be presumed1 by sustaining this1 we sustain our own cause and refute the opposite4 ,the present inquiry then is1 are these1 in very deed1 the characteristics of absolute predestination8 ,i shall endeavour to maintain that they are4 ,let the intelligent and the candid judge4 #a4 ,it may be urged as a consideration of no small weight in this question1 that all but predestinarians1 as well as many predestinarians themselves1 have entertained these views of the doctrine4 ,with respect to anti-predestinarians1 ,i know of no exception2 all unite1 in charging these things1 directly or by consequence1 upon the ,calvinistic system4 ,and will ,calvinists say1 this is owing to prejudice and to a want of understanding the subject8 ,with what kind of modesty will they assume that they are free from blinding prejudice in favour of their own doctrine1 and all the world beside are prejudiced against it8 ,it may be asserted1 as it often has been1 that these doctrines are humbling to the pride of the natural heart1 and this is the ground of the universal opposition to them6 ,but this is a gratuitous assumption of what ought first to be proved1 viz4 that these doctrines are true2 and it also exhibits a most reprehensible spirit of pride and ,pharisaism--a spirit that says to a brother1 ,stand by1 for ,i am holier than thou6 ,there have doubtless been as many eminently pious ,arminians as ,calvinists1 and how is it1 that these men have never had this doctrine so explained to them as to be able to see it free from these charges8 ,but not only anti-predestinarians have universally entertained these opinions of this doctrine2 even the advocates themselves have1 in a great variety of instances1 acknowledged the same4 ,mention has before been made1 7in the sermon17 of the opposition raised against free will1 by the ,calvinists of ,mr4 ,wesley's day--and quotations have also been given from the early ,calvinistic authors1 showing how decidedly they held that ,god moved the will to sin1 by a direct positive influence4 ,to these we may add all the ,hopkinsians of modern days1 who openly acknowledge that those scriptures which teach that ,god has decreed the sinful acts of men1 do imply that he is the efficient cause of moral evil4 7,see review of my sermon in the ,boston ,telegraph47 ,it should not be forgotten1 moreover1 that the ,new-,haven divines1 who have studied ,calvinism all their lives1 with the best opportunities for understanding it1 inform us that the view of ,calvinism which makes sin preferable to holiness in its stead1 is unanswerably exposed to all the objections brought against it in the sermon4 ,it is known too1 that most of the ,methodists in ,new-,england1 and many elsewhere1 were educated predestinarians2 but have revolted from the traditions of their fathers for the very reason that ,calvinism is what we have described it to be4 ,the ,universalists are almost all predestinarians1 and they understand that this doctrine necessarily implies the ,divine efficiency in producing sin2 and hence they very consistently infer that ,god is not angry with them1 and will not punish them for being controlled by his decrees4 ,suppose now an intelligent person1 who knew nothing of the arguments on either side1 should be informed of what is true in this case1 viz4 that a great portion1 probably on the whole by far the greatest portion of predestinarians1 and all anti-predestinarians1 understood the doctrine of absolute predestination1 as involving directly1 or by consequence1 certain specified principles2 but that a portion of predestinarians persisted in denying that these principles were involved in the doctrine2 and suppose this intelligent person should be informed of the additional facts1 that these predestinarians had tried all their skill at explanation and argument1 generation after generation1 but had never succeeded in the view of the other party in freeing their doctrine from these charges1 nay1 that they had so far failed of it1 that many1 very many were leaving them1 and adopting the anti-predestinarian system1 for the very reason that they could not rid the system1 in which they had been educated1 from those principles which were charged upon it--and that even among those who had adhered to the old doctrine there were new modes of explaining and stating the theory1 constantly springing up1 until finally numbers of them had explained themselves entirely out of the doctrine1 and into the opposite sentiment2 and that very many others1 by adhering to the doctrine1 and following out the principles involved in it1 had come to the conclusion that there was no hell--no judgment1 and no angry ,god4 ,suppose1 ,i say1 this intelligent man should be informed of all these facts1 and then be requested to presume whether or not these contested principles were involved in the doctrine--what would be his judgment8 ,i need not answer this question4 ,there is strong presumptive evidence that the views in the sermon are correct4 #b4 ,another reason for believing that this doctrine is what we have defined it to be1 and involves in it the principles we have charged upon it1 is drawn from the terms in which it is expressed1 and the manner and circumstances in which these terms are used4 ,the more common terms are decree1 predestination1 foreordination1 predetermination1 purpose1 c4--,these are all authoritative terms1 and carry with them the idea of absolute sovereignty4 ,but lest they should not be sufficiently strong and imperious1 they are1 in this theory1 generally accompanied by some strong qualifying terms1 such as sovereign decree1 eternal and immutable purposes2 and without any reference to other bearings1 the whole is placed on the ground of ,god's absolute and sovereign will4 ,these sovereign decrees1 however1 are not proposed to his subjects in the light of a law enforced by suitable sanctions1 and liable to be broken4 ,they are the secret counsels of his own will2 and so far from being law1 that often1 perhaps oftener than otherwise1 in the moral world1 they are in direct opposition to the precepts of the law4 ,when these decrees come in contact with the law they supersede it4 ,laws may sometimes be broken1 the decrees1 never4 ,god commits his law to subordinate moral agents1 who may break or keep them2 but his decrees he executes himself4 ,it should also be understood that the advocates of this theory1 in their late controversy with ,dr4 ,taylor1 strenuously maintain that sin1 wherever it occurs1 is preferable to holiness in its stead1 and is the necessary means of the greatest good4 ,the idea that ,god1 foreseeing what moral agents would do1 under all possible circumstances1 so ordered his works as to take up and incorporate into his plan the foreseen volitions of moral agents1 and thus constitute a grand whole1 as perfect as any system which involves a moral government could be1 they discard as rank ,arminianism4 ,now is it possible that decrees like these1 concealed in the eternal mind of him that conceived them--dependent solely on ,almighty power to execute them1 not modified by subordinate agencies1 but made to control these agencies with absolute and arbitrary sway2 can it be possible1 ,i say1 that such decrees do not efficiently control and actuate the human will8 ,must not he who1 in this manner1 forms and executes the general plan1 also form and execute all its parts8 ,must not he who gives the first impulse to this concatenation of events1 linked together by his eternal purposes1 follow up the whole with his continued and direct agency1 and carry on this work in every mind and through every emotion8 ,most assuredly he must4 ,his is1 undoubtedly1 according to this doctrine1 that operative1 controlling and propelling energy that ,lives through all life1 extends through all extent1 ,acts undivided1 operates unspent4 ,and that we may be sure not to misrepresent the ,calvinists on this subject1 let them speak for themselves4 ,dr4 ,hill1 who is a modern1 and is reputed a moderate ,calvinist1 says3--,the ,divine decree is the determination to produce the universe1 that is1 the whole series of beings and events that was then future4 ,dr4 ,chalmers1 who has been esteemed so moderate a ,calvinist1 that some had doubted whether he had not given up absolute predestination altogether1 comes out in his sermon on predestination in the following language3--,every step of every individual character1 receives as determinate a character from the hand1 of ,god1 as every mile of a planet's orbit1 or every gust of wind1 or every wave of the sea1 or every particle of flying dust1 or every rivulet of flowing water4 ,this power of ,god knows no exceptions3 it is absolute and unlimited4 ,and while it embraces the vast1 it carries its resistless influence to all the minute and unnoticed diversities of existence4 ,it reigns and operates through all the secrecies of the inner man4 ,it gives birth to every purpose1 it gives impulse to every desire1 it gives shape and colour to every conception4 ,it wields an entire ascendancy over every attribute of the mind2 and the will1 and the fancy1 and the understanding1 with all the countless variety of their hidden and fugitive operations1 are submitted to it4 ,it gives movement and direction through every one point of our pilgrimage4 ,at no moment of time does it abandon us4 ,it follows us to the hour of death1 and it carries us to our place1 and to our everlasting destiny in the region beyond it666 ,these quotations need no comment2 if they do not come up to all we have ever charged upon this doctrine1 there is no definite meaning in words4 ,but we have another authority on this subject1 which bears more directly on the ,calvinists of this country1 the ,assembly's ,catechism4 ,dr4 ,fitch1 who is certainly as well qualified to judge in this matter as another man1 informs us1 through the medium of the ,christian ,spectator1 that the articles of faith prepared by that body1 7the assembly of ,english and ,scotch divines at ,westminster17 are considered as expressing essentially the views not only of the ,presbyterian ,church in this country1 but also of the orthodox ,congregational ,churches of ,new-,england4 ,it is known1 also1 that the ,shorter ,catechism has been almost universally used by them in their families1 and in the religious instruction of their children4 ,here then we have a standard of faith1 which all the classes1 ,i suppose1 will acknowledge1--and what saith it8 ,after stating that the decrees of ,god are his eternal purpose1 according to the counsel of his own will1 whereby1 for his own glory1 he hath foreordained whatsoever cometh to pass1 it goes on to say1 ,god executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence1 and then for farther explanation adds--,god's works of providence are his most holy1 wise1 and powerful1 preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions4 ,this is certainly an awkward sentence1 if ,i may be allowed to say this of the productions of an assembly which has been characterised as a paragon of excellency in erudition and theology4 ,its meaning1 however1 according to grammar and logic1 must be1 that by his acts of providence ,god1 in a most holy1 wise1 and powerful manner1 preserves and governs both all his creatures1 and all their actions4 ,but as it seems to be a solecism to talk about preserving actions1 we will understand preserving to belong to creatures1 and governing to actions1 and then it will be thus3 ,god powerfully preserves all his creatures1 and powerfully governs all their actions3 and it is in this way he executes his decrees4 ,there are evidently two methods of governing4 ,that control which is made up of legal precepts1 and sanctions1 and retributions1 is called a government2 not that all the subjects of such a government always obey its ordinances1 but if they violate them1 they are subjected to punishment4 ,this is evidently not the kind of government that the assembly contemplated4 ,it was a government by which ,god executed his decrees2 but1 as we have seen1 his decrees are not his laws1 for they are frequently in direct opposition to his laws4 ,decree and law are not only frequently opposed1 in respect to the moral action demanded by each1 but even where those demands are coincident they differ greatly in the manner and certainty of their fulfilment4 ,of course government1 by executing decrees1 is another thing altogether from government by executing laws4 ,but there is another kind of government4 ,it is that efficient control of a superior1 by which a being or an act is made to be what it is1 in opposition to non-existence1 or a different existence4 ,now this appears to be precisely the kind of government alluded to when it said1 ,god executes his decrees by powerfully governing all the actions of his creatures4 ,that is1 he efficiently produces and controls all the responsible volitions1 good and bad1 of the moral universe4 ,and what is this1 but affirming all that the sermon has affirmed on this subject8 ,if any one is disposed to deny that this is a fair exposition of the ,catechism1 let him reflect that as he cannot pretend that government here means a legal administration1 it will be incumbent on him to show what other fair construction can be put upon it than the one given above2 to show how ,god can execute a secret decree1 by his own powerful act1 in any other way than in the one already explained4 ,in corroboration of the foregoing views it should also be borne in mind1 that the ,calvinists uniformly use these very same terms1 decree1 predestination1 c1 in the same sense1 in reference to all events4 ,they say1 ,god's decrees extend to all events1 physical and moral1 good and evil1 by which they must mean1 if they mean any thing intelligible1 that his predestination bears the same relation to all events4 ,if then his decree of election embraces the means to the accomplishment of the end1 so also must his decree of reprobation4 ,if his decree of election requires for its accomplishment an efficient operation1 so also does his decree of reprobation4 ,if ,divine agency is directly and efficiently1 requisite to produce a good volition1 it must follow that it is in the same sense requisite to produce a sinful volition4 ,to tell us a thousand times1 without any distinction or discrimination1 that all things are equally the result of the ,divine decree1 and then tell us that the relation between ,god's decree and sin is essentially different from the relation existing between his decree and holiness1 would certainly be a very singular and unwarrantable use of language4 ,how then1 ,i inquire1 does ,god produce holy volitions8--,why1 say the ,calvinists1 by a direct1 positive1 and efficient influence upon the will1 and in proof quote--,thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power4 ,well1 how1 ,i ask again1 does ,god execute his decrees respecting unholy volitions8 ,consistency requires the same reply4 ,but1 says the ,calvinist1 he need not exert the same influence to produce unholy volitions1 because it is in accordance with the nature of sinful men to sin4 ,indeed6 and is not this nature the result of a decree8 ,it would seem ,god approaches his work of executing his decree respecting sin1 either more reluctantly or with greater difficulty1 so that it requires two steps to execute this1 and only one the other4 ,it is in both cases1 however1 equally his work4 ,this will be seen more clearly if we turn our attention to the first sin2 for it is certainly as much against a perfectly holy nature to commit sin1 as it is against an unholy nature to have a holy volition4 ,hence the one as much requires a direct and positive influence as the other1 and therefore the passage in the #aajth ,psalm1 if it applies at all to a positive ,divine influence in changing the will1 must have a much more extensive meaning1 than has been generally supposed4 ,it should be paraphrased thus3--,not only shall thy elect people1 who are yet in their sins1 and therefore not yet in a strict and proper sense thine1 be made willing to become holy in the day that thou dost efficiently change their will1 but also thy angels and thy first created human pair1 who were before their fall more truly thine1 as they were made perfectly holy1 shall be made willing to become unholy in the day that thou dost efficiently change their wills from submission to rebellion4 ,for if ,divine efficiency is necessary to make a naturally perverse will holy1 it is also necessary to make a naturally holy will perverse4 ,i am aware that we may be met here by this reply1 that although ,god does efficiently control the will1 still it is in a way suited to the nature of mind1 and consistent with free agency1 because he operates upon the mind through the influence of moral suasion1 or by the power of motives4 ,to this it may be answered1 that the ,calvinists generally condemn ,dr4 ,taylor's views of conversion1 because they suspect him of holding that motives alone convert the sinner2 whereas they deem it necessary that the ,holy ,spirit should act directly upon the will2 if so1 then1 as ,i have shown above1 it is also necessary that there should be a direct ,divine influence upon the will of a holy being1 to make him sinful4 ,and this more especially1 since both changes are decreed1 and both stand in the same relation to the ,divine purpose4 ,but this doctrine of motives leads me to another argument1 viz4 #c4 ,that the view ,i have taken of predestination is correct1 appears evident from the ,calvinistic doctrine of motives1 especially when this doctrine is viewed in connection with the ,calvinistic theory of depravity4 ,the doctrine of motives ,i understand to be this1 that the power of volition is never excited1 nor can be1 except in the presence and from the excitement of motives1 7see ,views in ,theology17 and that the mind must necessarily be swayed by the strongest motive1 or by what appears to the mind to be the greatest good4 ,dr4 ,edwards1 following ,leibnitz1 incorporated this doctrine of philosophical necessity with the ,calvinistic theology4 ,in this he has been followed by a great portion1 ,i believe1 of the ,calvinistic clergy4 ,without stopping here to attempt a refutation of this theory1 my present object is to show that it necessarily fastens upon ,calvinism the charges brought against it1 and sustains the definition that has been given to predestination4 ,for since ,god creates both the mind and the motives1 and brings them together for the express purpose that the former should be swayed by the latter1 it follows conclusively that ,god efficiently controls the will1 and produces all its volitions4 ,and this is according to express ,calvinistic teaching3--,god1 says the author of ,views in ,theology1 already quoted1 ,god is the determiner of perceptions1 and perceptions are the determiners of choices4 ,the inference therefore is plain and unavoidable1 ,god is the determiner of choices4 ,the plea that ,god does not produce volitions1 by a direct influence1 but indirectly1 through second causes1 avails nothing4 ,although there should be ten1 or ten thousand intermediate links1 if they are all arranged by our ,creator in such order as to produce the intellectual vibration intended1 whenever he pleases to give the impulse1 what is the difference8 ,in point of efficient agency1 none at all4 ,nor yet will it alter the case to say1 that this effect is produced by ,god through such a medium as is suited to the nature of the mind1 and therefore it cannot be said1 that ,god does any violence to the will1 or to man's free agency4 ,god created the mind1 and the means that were to influence it4 ,he gave to mind its nature1 and to motives their influence and arrangement1 for this very purpose4 ,hence1 unless man can unmake himself1 he is bound by the law of his nature to act in all cases as he does4 ,why talk about a free agency when it is such an agency as must1 by the constitution of ,god1 lead inevitably to sin and ruin6 ,that old1 and in the premises1 foolish reply1 that man could do differently1 if he chose1 does not help the case4 ,it is only saying1 the nature of man is such that it is governed by his perceptions1 and since ,god is the determiner of perceptions1 and perceptions the determiners of choices1 whenever ,god pleases to alter the perceptions so as thereby to change the choice1 then1 and not before1 man can do differently4 ,according to this doctrine is it possible1 according to the very nature of mind1 for the choice to be different until the perceptions are changed8 ,and can the perceptions be changed1 until ,god changes them8 ,to answer either or both of these questions in the affirmative1 would be to give up the doctrine of motives4 ,to answer them in the negative1 would be to entail upon the doctrine all that ,i have charged upon it4 ,the advocates of the theory may have their choice4 ,nor yet1 again1 will it destroy the force of this argument1 to say man has an unholy nature2 and this is the reason why the motives presented influence him to sin2 therefore the guilt is chargeable upon himself1 and ,god is clear4 ,for1 in the first place1 this would not account for the first unholy volitions of holy angels and the first human pair4 ,this argument presupposes that1 but for the consideration of man's unholy nature1 the charge against the ,calvinistic theory would be valid4 ,and inasmuch as here are cases in which the argument obviously affords no relief to the system1 it follows that in these uses1 at least1 ,god is the efficient and procuring cause of unholy volitions--and therefore the charges against predestination are established4 ,but by a little farther attention we shall see that this argument affords as little relief to the system in the case of man as he now is4 ,for this first sin1 which was itself the necessary result of the ,divine arrangement and of positive ,divine influence1 threw1 if possible1 a stronger and a more dire necessity over all the coming generations of men4 ,for this act entailed upon man a depraved heart4 ,hence this corrupt nature came upon man without his knowledge or agency4 ,we trace it back then1 thus3--,man's love of sin was produced by the unholy choice of the first pair--that choice was produced by perceptions--these perceptions were produced by motives--and these motives were brought by ,god to bear upon the minds which he had made for this very purpose--therefore ,god1 by design1 and because he purposed it1 produced our corrupt nature2 and then1 for the express purpose of leading that unholy nature to put forth unholy volitions1 he brings those motives to bear upon our minds1 which1 from the unavoidable nature of those minds1 must produce the sin designed4 ,it is thus that1 according to his theory1 our ,creator binds the human mind by the strong cords of depravity with one hand1 and with the other lashes it1 by the maddening scourge of motives1 into all the excitement of unholy delirium2 and then1 for his own glory1 consigns the sinner over to the prison house of wo66 ,turn this system1 then1 as you will1 you find this doctrine of predestination binding the human mind1 and efficiently producing all the volitions of the moral universe4 ,the strong arm of ,jehovah not more directly and irresistibly moves and binds the planets in their orbits1 than it moves and controls1 in the mysterious circle of his eternal decrees1 all the actions of all his creatures4 ,i know1 as a closing argument1 it is urged1 whatever may be our inferences1 we all know that we are free1 and that we are responsible1 because we are conscious of it4 ,this is a most singular course of reasoning1 and seems to have been adopted to reconcile contradictions4 ,if this doctrine be true1 ,i am not sure that ,i am free1 and that ,i am responsible merely because ,i feel that ,i am4 ,i am at least quite as conscious that ,i ought not to be held responsible for what is unavoidable1 as ,i am that ,i am possessed of moral liberty4 ,break down my consciousness in one case1 and you prepare the way for me to suspect it of fallacy in another4 ,and if ,i must give up my consciousness1 between two alternatives ,i will choose that which will not involve the government of ,god in injustice1 and myriads of intelligent beings in unavoidable perdition4 ,hence1 with ,dr4 ,edwards' premises1 which he holds in common with ,lord ,kaimes1 ,i would come to his lordship's conclusion1 viz4 that ,god never intended to hold men responsible1 and the universal feeling of responsibility is a kind of pious fraud--a salutary delusion1 imposed as a check and restraint upon man here1 but to be followed by no unpleasant consequences either here or hereafter4 ,but this would be charging our ,creator with both deception and folly--deception in the delusive consciousness of responsibility1 and folly in suffering ,lord ,kaimes and others to disclose the secret1 and frustrate the ,divine purpose6 ,this cannot be4 ,the charge of deception and of fallacy1 therefore1 must be rolled back from consciousness and from the throne of ,god upon the doctrine of predestination4 ,and if the reaction should crush the theory for ever1 it would doubtless be a blessing to the ,church and to the world4 ,to conclude4 ,for the reasons given1 ,i must still maintain that the charges contained in the sermon against that modification of ,calvinism ,i am now opposing1 are just2 and the definition assumed1 is correct4 ,if the advocates of the system can clear themselves1 or their doctrine1 let it be done4 ,if not1 let one of two courses be pursued--either let the system be abandoned1 or let us have it as it is4 ,i have dwelt the longer on this subject1 because ,i am weary1 and ,i believe we all are1 of hearing the oft-repeated complaint1 ,you misrepresent us6 ,you mistake our doctrine6 ,in the next ,no41 by the leave of ,providence1 the nature of human agency1 and the ground of human responsibility1 will be examined4 ,,number ,,viii4 ,,moral ,,agency ,,and ,,accountability4 ,,by what has been said on the theory of ,calvinistic predestination1 it will be seen1 ,i think1 that this system involves such necessity of moral action as is incompatible with free agency4 ,it is possible1 ,i grant1 to give to the terms will1 liberty1 free agency1 such a definition as will make these terms1 thus defined1 compatible with the other peculiarities of the ,calvinistic system4--,both parties agree that man is a free moral agent2 both maintain that he is responsible2 but we maintain that what the ,calvinists call free moral agency1 is not such in fact as is commonly understood by the term1 nor such as is requisite to make man accountable4 ,here1 therefore1 we are again thrown back upon our definitions1 as the starting point of argument4 ,what is that power1 or property1 or faculty of the mind1 which constitutes man a free moral agent8 ,it is the power of choice1 connected with liberty to choose either good or evil4 ,both the power and liberty to choose either good or evil are requisite to constitute the free agency of a probationer4 ,it has been contended that choice1 though from the condition of the moral agent it must of necessity be exclusively on one side1 is nevertheless free2 since it implies a voluntary preference of the mind4 ,hence it is contended that the fallen and the holy angels1 glorified and lost human spirits1 though some of these are confined in an impeccable state1 and the others have a perpetual and invincible enmity to good1 are nevertheless free agents4 ,with respect to the free agency of these beings1 a question might be started1 whether it is such as renders them responsible for their present acts1 the decision of which might have some bearing on the subject under investigation2 but not such bearing as would make it important to discuss it here4 ,if they are responsible for their present acts1 it must be on account of a former probation1 which by sin they have judicially forfeited4 ,or if any one thinks otherwise1 and is disposed to maintain that a being who is not1 and never was so circumstanced as to render the choice of good possible to him1 is nevertheless a free moral agent1 in any such sense as renders him accountable1 with such a sentiment at present ,i have no controversy4 ,indeed such an opinion is so violent an outrage upon all the acknowledged principles of justice1 that to controvert it would be a work of little profit4 ,it is certain that the moral standing of those angels and men whose states are now unalterably fixed1 differs materially from their probationary state2 and this difference renders their moral agency unsuited to illustrate the agency of beings who are on probation4 ,man1 in this life1 is in a state of trial2 good and evil are presented before him as objects of choice2 and upon this choice are suspended eternal consequences of happiness or misery4 ,of a being thus circumstanced1 it is not enough to say he is free to choose as he does1 unless you can say1 also1 he is equally free to make an opposite choice4--,hence1 in defining the free agency of man1 as a probationer1 we say1 as above1 that it implies a power of choice1 with full liberty to choose either good or evil4 ,the foregoing definition1 at first view1 seems sufficient for all practical purposes1 and so indeed it would have been1 if a speculative philosophy had not thrown it into the alembic of metaphysics for decomposition and analysis4 ,it is doubtful whether this process has subserved the cause of truth2 nay1 it is certain1 ,i think1 that it has produced many perplexing refinements and speculations that have greatly aided the cause of error4 ,into these abstrusities1 therefore1 it seems necessary to follow this question1 to try1 if possible1 to draw out and combine the elements of truth4 ,having defined free agency to mean the power of choice1 c1 it is asked again1 ,what is this power of choice8 ,it is probable that the different answers given to this question constitute the fundamental differences between ,calvinists and ,arminians4 ,to the above question some1 like the reply of the ,jews to ,christ1 have said1 ,we cannot tell4 ,and they give this evasive reply perhaps for a reason similar to that which influenced the ,jews2 they fear that a definite answer will involve themselves or their theory in difficulty4 ,this is a very convenient way to avoid responsibility1 but not indicative of much fairness1 or confidence in their cause4 ,when men have involved their system in apparent contradictions1 it will hardly satisfy the candid inquirer after truth to see them start aside from the very point that is to give character to their whole system4 ,we are told by men who reason upon foreknowledge1 c1 that ,god hath decreed whatsoever comes to pass2 and then we are told that all men are free1 and they enter into a great deal of metaphysical speculation about foreknowledge1 the nature of voluntary action1 c1 to prove these positions2 but when they are pressed upon this point1 ,how can you reconcile with free agency that kind of ,divine efficiency necessary to secure the execution of the decrees1 and that kind of dependency of moral agents which this efficiency implies8 the reply is1 ,we cannot tell--the how in the case we cannot explain4 ,this evasion might be allowable1 perhaps1 in either of the two following cases3 #a4 ,if the apparent discrepancy of the two positions grew out of what is mysterious1 and not of what is palpably contradictory2 or1 #b4 ,if both propositions were so clearly proved1 that it would do greater violence to our reasons1 and be a greater outrage upon all acknowledged principles of belief1 to disbelieve either of them1 than it would to believe them with all their apparent contradictions4 ,with respect to the first alternative1 it appears to me1 and doubtless it would so appear to all whose prejudices did not mislead the mind1 that the want of apparent agreement between the two is not for lack of light in the case1 but from the natural incongruity of the things compared4 ,when you say1 ,god executes his decrees by efficiently controlling the will of man1 and say also1 ,the mind of man is free1 both these propositions are clear2 there is nothing mysterious about them4 ,but you say1 perhaps1 ,the mystery is in the want of light to see the agreement of the two2 we cannot see their agreement1 but we should not therefore infer that they do not agree4 ,i answer1 ,what is light1 in this case1 but a clear conception of the propositions8 ,this we have1 and we see that they are1 in their nature1 incompatible2 and the more light you can pour upon this subject1 the more clearly must this incompatibility appear4 ,if you say that perhaps neither you nor ,i fully understand the meaning of these propositions2 then ,i reply1 ,we have no business to use them4 ,who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge8 ,and this is what ,i have already complained of2 men will reason themselves into propositions which they call doctrinal facts1 but which seem to the eye of common sense to have all the characteristics of contradictions1 and when we urge these contradictions in objection1 the objection is not allowed to have any weight1 because we do not fully understand the propositions4 ,so then the propositions must be received1 though we do not understand them6 and though1 as far as we do understand them1 they are obviously incompatible66 ,is this the way to gain knowledge1 and to make truth triumphant8 ,how much more consistent to say1 ,since it is evident the mind is free1 and since the doctrine of predestination is apparently incompatible with that freedom1 therefore this doctrine should be exploded6 ,or will this second alternative be resorted to8 ,will it be said that both of these propositions are so clearly proved1 that to deny them would do greater violence to our reasons1 and the principles of belief1 than to acknowledge them1 notwithstanding their apparent incongruity8 ,let us examine them4 ,of one of them we cannot doubt1 unless we doubt all primary truths1 viz4 ,that the human mind is free4 ,it is presumed1 if the question come to this1 that they must either give up human liberty or the dogma of predestination1 candid ,calvinists themselves would not hesitate2 they would say1 the former must stand1 whatever becomes of the latter4 ,if ,i am correct here1 it follows that1 predestinarians themselves being judges1 the doctrine of predestination is not so clear as some other moral truths4 ,but is there any thing clearer than that man ought not to be held accountable for what is unavoidable8 that he ought not to be held to answer for volitions that are efficiently controlled by a superior8 ,to me this is as clear as consciousness itself can make it1 and ,i think it must be to mankind in general4 ,if ,i am correct1 then we come to the conclusion at once1 that to believe in the compatibility of predestination with human liberty and accountability does more violence to the laws of belief than it would to discard predestination4 ,whatever1 therefore1 may seem to be favourable to this doctrine1 should be sacrificed to a stronger claim upon our belief in another direction4 ,but1 that the argument may be set in as strong light as possible1 let the evidence of predestination be adduced4 ,what is it8 ,it is not consciousness certainly2 and it is almost as clear that it is not moral demonstration by a course of reasoning4 ,the most ,i believe that has ever been said1 in the way of moral demonstration1 has been in an argument founded on foreknowledge1 which argument1 it is supposed by the author1 is fairly disposed of in the sermon on predestination1 by reasoning which has not1 to his knowledge1 ever been refuted4 ,a refutation has been attempted1 ,i grant1 by some of the reviewers of the sermon1 but the only apparent success that attended those attempts was1 as we have already seen1 in consequence of their taking the very ground of the sermon1 and building the decrees of ,god upon a prior view and knowledge of all possible contingencies4 ,if consciousness and reasoning are taken away from this doctrine1 it has nothing left to stand upon but testimony4 ,and no testimony but ,divine will here be of any authority2 and does revelation prove this doctrine8 ,in the sermon on predestination it was stated that there was not a single passage in the ,bible which teaches directly that ,god hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass2 and it is not known to the writer1 that among the different reviews of the sermon it has even been attempted to show that the statement was incorrect4 ,but if a solitary passage could have been adduced1 should we not have heard of it8 ,the evidence from ,scripture then1 if there is any1 is indirect1 and merely by inference4 ,and even this indirect testimony is far from being the best of its kind2 so1 at least1 a great portion of believers in revelation think4 ,now1 candid reader1 if you have carefully followed the chain of thought thus far1 let me ask you to pause and propound for yourself1 and honestly answer the following question--,is there so much evidence in favour of predestination1 that ,i should do more violence to my own reason1 and the laws of belief1 by rejecting it1 than ,i should by believing that this doctrine is compatible with free agency and accountability8 ,indeed1 ,calvinists themselves have so felt the force of these difficulties1 when the terms predestination and free will have been understood in their common and obvious sense1 that they have attempted a variety of explanations of these terms to do away1 if possible1 the apparent discrepancy4 ,these attempts have been the principal cause of those changes and modifications in the ,calvinistic system1 alluded to in a former number4 ,the various explanations and definitions that have been given to foreordination1 have already been noticed4 ,we have seen how every effort failed of affording any relief to the system1 until we came down to the last2 ,i mean that of the ,new-,haven divines4 ,this new theory does indeed avoid the difficulty1 but avoids it only by giving up the doctrine6 ,any thing short of this amounts to nothing2 it stands forth still the absolute decree1 fixed as fate1 and fixing1 strong as fate1 all the acts of subordinate intelligences4 ,any real modification of it is a virtual renunciation1 and a substitution in its stead of the public and consistent decree of ,heaven1 ,he that believeth shall be saved2 he that believeth not shall be damned4 ,not succeeding as was hoped in such a definition of predestination as would harmonize the opposing propositions1 repeated trials have been made to define and explain human liberty and the power of choice1 so as to bend these into a coincidence with the inflexible decree4 ,this brings us back to the inquiry started above3 ,what is this power of choice8 ,now as this is a point more metaphysical in its nature than the proposition embracing the decrees1 so there is more ground for laboured argument and refined speculation4 ,only one theory1 however1 needs to be particularly noticed3--#a4 ,because it is the most plausible of any other1 so that if this will not bear the test1 it is probable no other will2 and #b4 ,because this is the theory which is now pretty generally1 and perhaps almost universally adopted by the ,calvinists2 ,i mean the ,calvinistic doctrine of motives4 ,it is in substance this3 the power of choice is that power which the mind has of acting in view of motives1 and of deciding according to the strongest motive4 ,the strength and direction of volition are always in accordance with the motive4 ,and this relation between mind and motives is fixed by the very constitution of our natures1 so that it may be said there is a constitutional necessity that the mind should be controlled by motives4 ,these motives are multitudinous and various4--,all conceptions and perceptions of the mind1 from whatever cause1 productive of pleasure or pain1 exciting emotions of love or aversion1 are motives2 or1 more properly1 perhaps1 the causes of these mental states are motives4 ,between these motives and the mind there is such a connection1 that the former not only excite1 but control the latter1 in all its volitions4 ,the nature of this relation is of course beyond the limits of human investigation3 all we can say is1 such is the nature of motives and of mind4 ,such is the theory4 ,the arguments by which it is defended are in substance the following --experience and observation4 ,we are conscious1 it is said1 of acting from motives1 and it is universally understood that others also act from motives4 ,it is on this principle that we govern ourselves in our intercourse with men2 by this we calculate with moral certainty1 in many instances1 what will be the conduct of a man in a given case2 and1 upon such calculations1 we form most of our maxims1 and rules of conduct in social life3 nay1 it is said a man that will act without a reason must be insane--that1 on this ground1 whenever a man acts it is common to inquire what induced him4 ,what motive had he8 ,that even children1 at a very early age so readily recognize this principle1 that they are constantly inquiring why do you do this or that4 ,such are the strongest arguments by which this theory is sustained--arguments too strong it is supposed to be overthrown4 ,i object to the sovereign control of the mind by motives4 ,but in offering my objections1 it should first be observed that no man1 in his senses1 it is presumed1 will deny that motives have an important influence in determining our volitions4 ,nor is it necessary1 in order to oppose the doctrine of the controlling power of motives1 to deny that the power of volition may have been waked up to action1 in the first instance1 by motive influence1 or that the mind ever after may1 in all its volitions1 be more or less under this influence4 ,as these are points which do not materially affect the question at issue between us and the ,calvinists1 they may be left out of the discussion for the present4 ,the question is this--,has the mind a self-determining power1 by which it can spontaneously decide1 independent of the control of motives1 or is the mind absolutely controlled by motives8 ,we maintain the former--our opponents the latter4 ,by establishing our position1 we disprove theirs--by disproving theirs we establish ours--and it is believed that theirs can be directly disproved1 and ours directly established2 at least so far as we can hope to arrive at demonstration on these extremely difficult points4 #a4 ,my first objection to this doctrine of motive influence is1 that most of the arguments by which it is defended1 as directly and certainly prove that the ,divine mind is subject to the absolute control of motives as that human minds are4 ,it is argued1 that to maintain the doctrine of spontaneous volition1 independent of the control of motives1 involves the absurdity1 that our volitions are excited without any intelligent reasons whatever1 and as the effect1 consequently1 of nothing better than a mere brute or senseless mechanism4 7,views in ,theology1 p4 #afc47--,now if this has any bearing on the question1 it relates not to human mind and human volition merely1 but to mind in general1 and must apply to the ,divine mind4 ,the same may be said1 in fact1 of most of the arguments that are brought in favour of this doctrine4 ,calvinists are convinced of this--and hence this also is a part of their creed4 ,it was defended by ,dr4 ,edwards1 and is thus avowed by ,professor ,upham1 in his ,system of ,mental ,philosophy4 ,speaking of the control of motives1 he says1 ,our condition1 in this respect1 seems to be essentially the same with that of the ,supreme ,being himself--he is inevitably governed in all his doings1 by what1 in the great range of events1 is wisest and best4 7,vol4 ii1 p4 #cha47 ,thus the ,divine ,being is1 according to this theory1 and by the express showing of the leading advocates of the theory1 inevitably made a subordinate to a superior4 ,it is believed there is no avoiding this conclusion2 and what then8 ,why then the doctrine makes ,god a necessary agent1 and leads to atheism6 ,it is nearly1 if not exactly1 the same as the old heathen doctrine of fate4 ,the ancient heathens supposed that ,jupiter himself1 the omnipotent father of the gods and men1 must yield to fate4 ,modern ,christians teach that there is a certain fitness of things1 certain constitutional relations1 existing independent of the ,divine will1 which ,god himself cannot supersede1 but to which he must yield4 ,how does this sink1 at once1 both the natural and moral perfections of ,god6 ,the exercises of his wisdom and goodness are nothing more than the result of certain fixed and irresistible influences4 ,fixed not by ,god himself1 for that would be to give up the doctrine2 for in that case1 in the order of cause and effect1 the ,divine mind must have acted without control of motive1 if this law of motive influence did not exist until the ,divine volition willed it into being and if he could once act independent of this control1 he might so act for ever2 and the argument built on the absurdity of volition1 without an intelligent reason1 is contradicted4 ,but if that argument has any weight1 it fixes1 in the order of cause and effect1 a paramount influence eternally antecedent to the exercise of the ,divine mind1 and controlling that mind with irresistible sway4 ,this is fate6 ,this is atheism6 ,once set up an influence that controls the ,divine mind1 call that influence what you will1 fitness of things--fate--energy of nature--or necessary relation1 and that moment you make ,god a subordinate2 you hurl him from his throne of sovereignty1 and make him the instrument of a superior4 ,of what use is such a ,deity8 ,might we not as well have none6 ,nay better1 as it seems to me1 if under the control of his own native influence he is led to create beings susceptible of suffering1 and fix the relations of those beings to the motives around them such1 that by a law of their nature they are inevitably led to sin and endless wo6 ,is it to be wondered at1 that many ,calvinists have become infidels8 ,this doctrine of motives is the very essence of the system of ,spinoza1 whose deity was the energy of nature6 ,the supreme controlling power of ,dr4 ,edwards and his followers is the energy of motives1 which exists in the nature of things1 anterior to the will of ,god4 ,can any one point out any essential difference between the two systems8 ,such are the objections to any arguments in favour of the doctrine that motives inevitably control the volitions of intelligent beings in general1 involving of course the highest intelligence4 ,but if any are disposed to give up this doctrine1 as essential to intelligent volition in general1 and choose to maintain it only in respect to the volitions of some particular intelligent beings2 then they must give up all the strongest of their arguments4 ,if ,god is free from this control1 they must acknowledge also1 or give some reason for their dissent1 that he may1 if he chooses1 make and sustain subordinate intelligences1 having the same freedom from this control2 and if they acknowledge that there is nothing in the nature of the case that renders this an impossibility1 then they must show1 if they can1 that though ,god might constitute beings otherwise1 he has so constituted man as to render him incapable of choice1 except when and as motives direct1 by an inevitable influence4 ,but in attempting this they must meet other difficulties in their course1 which1 it is believed1 will greatly embarrass the system4 ,these difficulties1 however1 together with the arguments which ,i design to advance directly in favour of the opposite view1 must be reserved for another number4 ,,number ,,ix4 ,,moral ,,agency ,,and ,,accountability1 ,,continued4 ,another argument against the ,calvinistic doctrine of motives is1 that it leads to materialism4 ,the doctrine1 it will be recollected1 is this3 ,when the mind is brought into connection with objects of choice1 it is inevitably led1 by a law of its nature1 to the selection of one rather than of the other1 unless there is a perfect equality between them2 in which case ,i suppose1 of course1 the mind must remain in equilibrium2 for if it moves only by the influence of motives1 and to the same degree and in the same direction with motive influence1 of course when it is equally attracted in opposite directions it must be at rest6 ,it is on this ground that ,leibnitz maintained that ,god could not make two particles of matter in all respects alike2 because1 in that case1 being inevitably governed by motives in his decisions1 he could not determine where to place them1 both having the same influence on his mind for a location in the same place6 ,the same writer represents this motive influence1 also1 as frequently imperceptible1 but not the less effectual1 and not the less voluntary6 ,and to illustrate it makes the following comparison3--,it is as if a needle1 touched with a loadstone1 were sensible of and pleased with its turning to the north1 for it would believe that it turned itself independent of any other cause1 not perceiving the insensible motions of the magnetic power4 ,this statement of ,leibnitz1 who had paid great attention to this philosophical theory1 is important in several respects4 ,it is1 in the first place1 an acknowledgment that consciousness is against the doctrine2 and it is also a concession that the mind is imposed upon1 in this matter1 by the ,creator4 ,but with respect to the argument1 that this doctrine leads to materialism1 this quotation is important1 because it shows that one of the most philosophical1 if not one of the most evangelical of the defenders of this doctrine1 considered the law of motive influence similar to the law of magnetic attraction1 differing only in being accompanied by sensation and a deceptive consciousness4 ,and what says its great evangelical champion in this country1 ,dr4 ,edwards8 ,he compares our volitions to the vibrations of a scale beam1 the different ends of which are respectively elevated or depressed as the opposite weights may chance to vary4 ,what is this but teaching that motions of mind are governed by the same fixed laws as those of matter1 and that volitions are perfectly mechanical states of mind8 ,what the advocates of this doctrine charge on the opposite theory belongs1 by their own showing1 to their own system4--,they1 not we1 make choices the result of animal instinct1 or senseless mechanism4 ,i know ,professor ,stuart1 in his late exposition of the ,romans1 seems to reprobate these comparisons2 and while he contends1 as ,i should think1 as strenuously as ,dr4 ,edwards1 for a complete and efficient control of the ,divine ,being over all our volitions1 he appears to think that there is a great difference between the laws of intellectual and material action4 ,so1 indeed1 do we think4 ,but we think that difference consists in the mind's being free from that control for which the professor contends2 and we believe when he contends for that control in the volitions of the mind1 he contends for that which1 from the nature of the case1 entirely destroys the other part of his hypothesis1 viz4 that the operations of the mind are free1 and essentially different from mechanical motion or the laws of attractive influence in the material world4 ,if the attractive power of motives over the mind is any thing different from the law of gravitation or magnetic attraction1 what is that difference8 ,should any one say1 ,i cannot tell2 ,i ask then1 ,how does he know but it is that very power for which ,arminians contend8 ,most probably it is that power4 ,or will it be said1 the difference between motive influence and gravity is consciousness8 ,i reply1 ,consciousness is no part of the relation between motives and the power of choice4 ,i see not indeed how it affects that relation at all4 ,and this the comparison of ,leibnitz1 already alluded to1 clearly illustrates4 ,look at that flowing stream2 it hastens on most freely1 and by the law of its own nature down the gentle declivities or more precipitous slopes of its meandering channel4 ,suppose now that ,omnipotence should impart consciousness to the particles of the continuous current1 it would then wake up to perceive the action and feel the pleasure of its own delightful motions4 ,it would roll on still by the law of its own nature1 and would feel that it was free to move according to its own inclination and voluntary tendency1 for its will would of course be in the direction of its motive1 or in other phrase1 its gravitating influence4 ,but could it turn its course and roll back its waters to their fountains8 ,it could if it was so inclined4 ,but its present inclination is toward the bottom of the valley or the bosom of the ocean1 and thither1 by the relation that exists between its particles and the gravitating influence of the earth1 it rolls on with the utmost freedom1 though with the utter impossibility of changing its own course1 without an inversion of the gravitating power4 ,let the hand of ,omnipotence invert the slope of the mountain1 and to6 with the same freedom these very waters roll back again to their original fountains6 ,thus it is with the human mind4 ,it is conscious of being free to move in the direction of its inclinations1 but require it to turn its course and move in the current of its volitions1 in an opposite direction1 and it would be utterly impossible1 until ,omnipotence himself should change the motive influence4--,god is the determiner of perceptions1 and perceptions are the determiners of choices4 ,we see1 therefore1 that this doctrine of motive influence leads to materialism1 for it makes the analogy between mental and material action so complete that it destroys all idea of intellectual power4 ,philosophically speaking1 there is no power in the laws of nature4 ,what we express by the power of attraction1 or repulsion1 or decomposition1 is nothing more than the uniformity of the ,divine agency4 ,does the earth attract elevated bodies to its surface8--,this is not an energy inherent in nature2 it is the ,god of nature acting by a uniform law4 ,this is all that any intelligent man can mean by the power of nature4 ,we1 however1 use the word power in an accommodated sense in these cases1 but always ,i think in connection with that portion of matter that appears to act1 and not that which is acted upon4 ,the magnet1 we say1 has power to attract iron1 because iron is attracted toward the magnet1 and not the magnet toward the iron4 ,the antecedent1 or that which takes the lead in the motion1 is more properly said to have the power1 or is the efficient cause4 ,if then we allow of the use of the term power at all1 to express the relation of cause and effect1 growing out of a philosophical constitution of things1 the term should be applied to the antecedent1 and not to the consequent4 ,in the case before us1 mental action is not the cause of the motive1 but the motive is the cause of the mental action3 therefore we should say motives have power to act upon the mind1 and the mind has a susceptibility of being acted upon4 ,dr4 ,reid has well observed1 that a power to be acted upon is no power1 or it is a powerless power1 which is philosophically absurd4 ,therefore we come to the conclusion that the mind has no power of choice1 but has a susceptibility of being drawn into a state called volition by the power of motives4 ,it will avail nothing1 as ,i conceive1 to say that there is evidently a difference between the susceptibility of the mind in this case1 and the susceptibility of matter in other cases1 unless it be shown what that difference is3 for when that difference is pointed out1 it will doubtless be found to be what is in direct opposition to the motive theory4 ,it is the misfortune of the ,calvinistic system that it often has to assume positions to keep itself in countenance1 which positions themselves are a virtual abandonment of the system4 ,so the ,new-,haven divines have done to support predestination1 and to this all ,calvinists are driven in their attempts to reconcile free will1 or the power of choice1 with their doctrine of motives1 dependence c4 ,we may be told in the case before us1 that when the mind is acted upon it is then excited to action4 ,but how excited to action8 ,is the action any stronger than the motive influence8--,is it carried beyond this influence8 or in a different direction8 ,to answer any one of these questions in the affirmative is to give up the theory2 but to answer them in the negative is to attribute to the mind nothing more than the inertia of matter4 ,the motives are 7under ,god7 the agent1 the mind is the passive object1 and the volition is the effect4 ,can any one say then1 on this theory1 that the mind has the power of choice8 ,it has no power in the first place1 because its volitions are the result of philosophical necessity2 and it has no power1 secondly1 because it is not the cause of its own volitions1 but in these volitions it is the passive subject of foreign influences4 ,now1 so far as moral action is concerned1 how does this differ from materialism8 ,it is true mental action differs from material action in some associated circumstances2 it is accompanied by consciousness2 but as consciousness of itself cannot give accountability1 and as it gains nothing in this respect by being associated with such kind of mental action as results from philosophical necessity1 it appears plain that man is not accountable2 and if not accountable1 it is more than probable that he has no future existence1 and thus again we are driven to materialism and to deism1 if not to atheism4 ,that man is not accountable upon the principle we are opposing1 might have been made a distinct argument2 but ,i have connected it with the argument that this doctrine leads to materialism because they imply each other4 ,if materialism is true1 we are not accountable1 and if we are not accountable1 materialism is probably true2 and both are true1 as ,i conceive1 if the ,calvinistic doctrine of motives is true4 ,it may1 however1 be urged by the advocates of this theory1 that the mind is not wholly passive1 because we are conscious of putting forth a mental energy and making a responsible volition2 that ,i am ready to grant1 but then our consciousness is a fallacy if this system be true2 and on the contrary1 if consciousness be true1 this system is false4 ,i believe no one who pays attention to his own mind will doubt of having this consciousness4 ,but does that prove the truth of this theory8 ,it is one thing to be conscious of having this energy of mind and responsible volition1 and another to be conscious that the theory in question is true2 indeed this consciousness destroys the theory4 ,should it be urged in opposition to the alleged tendency of this system to materialism1 that different minds are not uniformly influenced by the same motives1 nor the same minds at different times1 and therefore1 in this respect1 it is evident that the laws of mind and of matter differ2 ,i reply1 ,it is precisely so with matter2 for that attracts or repels according to its different magnetic or electrical states2 or should it be urged that mind differs from matter1 and shows itself to be possessed of a peculiar energy1 because it has power to suspend its decisions1 to review the subject1 to investigate1 c2 ,i answer1 this it cannot do without a motive2 and this it must do if the motive preponderate in that direction1 but not otherwise4 ,to have a proper view of this subject let us go back to the first perception4 ,could the mind1 according to this doctrine1 act otherwise than in coincidence with the motive influence of this perception2 or could it even suspend the volition this influence was calculated to produce1 until a second and more powerful motive was introduced8 ,if it could1 then this doctrine is false2 if it could not1 then the mind1 like matter put in motion1 must move on invariably in the same direction1 and with the same velocity of thought for ever1 or until a new motive should counteract the influence of the former6 ,this is emphatically the vis inertia of matter4 ,the bare statement of which seems sufficient to overthrow the theory4 ,another objection to this doctrine of motives is1 it leads to the notion of regeneration by moral suasion merely4 ,there has been much said of late1 by the various writers in the old and the new school1 on this point4 ,the new school are charged with holding that the truth alone1 without any immediate agency of the ,holy ,spirit1 converts the sinner4 ,this is considered by the old school ,calvinists as a fatal error4 ,but why so8 ,if motives govern the mind1 with absolute sway1 all you need to convert a sinner1 is to bring a motive strong enough to induce him to choose ,god as his chief good1 and he is converted4 ,until you do this there is no conversion1 it is impossible for the ,holy ,ghost to convert a sinner in any other way than by motives1 for choice of good we are told is conversion2 there is no choice without a motive1 and the strongest motive governs choice absolutely2 therefore motive is the omnipotent power that changes the sinner's heart4 ,this is the legitimate result of ,the ,calvinistic premises4 ,we have more than once had occasion to wonder that ,calvinists should revolt at the result of their own doctrines2 here we have another instance of it2 here too we have the enigma of natural ability unriddled4 ,the human mind1 by the constitution of its nature1 has the power of choosing according to the influence of the strongest motive2 and therefore1 so far as this can be called a power1 it has the natural power to convert itself2 and this is the reason why make you a new heart is the burden of almost every sermon and exhortation in modern preaching2 all the sinner has to do is to choose1 in view of motives1 and he is converted4 ,and here1 too1 is unravelled that other mystery which we have been so puzzled to understand1 viz4 that although all possess the natural power to convert themselves1 yet no man ever did convert himself without the special interposition of the ,divine agency2 for1 observe1 ,god keeps the motives in his own hands2 ,god is the determiner of perceptions1 and perceptions are the determiners of choices2 that is1 of conversions2 for to choose in a particular way1 is to be converted4 ,whenever1 therefore1 he is disposed to let the sinner convert himself1 according to his natural power2 that is1 when he is disposed to overpower the mind by an irresistible motive1 he brings the motive and mind in contact1 and it is done4 ,thus the sinner has as much power to convert himself as he has to resolve to eat when he is hungry2 for all the power he has to do either1 is a susceptibility of being operated upon1 and controlled by the strongest motive2 and thus you see1 also1 that ,god converts the sinner1 because he supplies the motive that influences the choice2 and here1 too1 is seen the occasion for misquoting so frequently and misapplying so universally1 that passage in the ,psalms3 ,my people shall be made willing in the day of my power4 ,that is1 when ,god applies the controlling motive to influence to a right choice1 then shall the sinner1 by a law of his nature1 become willing to be converted4 ,such are the wonderful philosophical discoveries of modern theology6 ,this is the way for man to convert himself by natural power1 and this is the way for ,god to convert him1 without the aid of super natural power6 ,well might a divine of this cast1 whom ,i heard preach not long since1 say of regeneration1 ,there is nothing supernatural or miraculous in it4 ,for surely it is one of the most natural things in the world1 according to this theory1 to be converted4 ,it is only to be operated upon by a motive1 according to the law of his natural constitution1 and the man is converted4 ,this philosophy of ,christian experience has led modern orthodoxy to the very borders of natural religion4 ,another step1 and we can do without a ,holy ,ghost or a ,divine ,saviour4 ,we will sit down with the philosopher in his study1 and work out a religious experience1 as philosophically as a skilful casuist can solve a question of morals2 we will show the rationale of the whole process1 and demonstrate it so clearly1 that infidels shall lose all their objections to the ,gospel1 and be induced to submit to ,god with scarcely a change of theory4 ,hereafter let no man say1 that the work of regeneration is a mystery--that in this work we cannot tell whence the regenerating influence comes1 or whither it goes2 for it comes through the philosophical channel of motive influence by which it introduces a governing purpose into the mind1 and the work is done4 ,let no man hereafter say that his faith stands not in the wisdom of man1 but in the power of ,god2 or if any man would be wise let him become a fool that he may be wise2 or the wisdom of man is foolishness with ,god2 for lo1 the philosophy of regeneration is at length explained6 and the whole secret is found to consist in the philosophical relation between motives and mind66 ,can any one wonder1 after this1 that in ,geneva1 in ,germany1 and in ,new-,england1 ,calvinism has finally resulted in ,socinianism8 ,and can any one help trembling for a large portion of the orthodox ,churches among us at the present day8 ,grant that there is an increase of zeal1 a greater stir among the people1 more revivals1 c2 all these1 with a good foundation1 would promise well for the ,church2 but we fear there is a worm at the root4 ,by this it is not intended to insinuate that the work is always spurious and the professed conversions unsound4 ,in many instances it is undoubtedly the reverse of this4 ,it might be expected after the people had been lulled for a long time under the paralyzing opiates of old-fashioned ,calvinism1 that this new and apparently opposite theory should rouse many to action4 ,i had been taught1 said a man not far from this1 that ,i must wait ,god's time to be converted1 and ,i waited many years in vain2 but more recently ,i have been instructed that ,i might convert myself2 ,i set about the work1 and ,i believe it is done6 ,now this1 which in the relation borders upon the ludicrous1 might have been a genuine conversion4 ,his new views might only have been sufficient to arouse him to a co-operation with the ,holy ,spirit in his conversion2 and this may have been the case with thousands4 ,in their practical effects two opposite errors may1 in individual cases1 neutralize each other4--,but is either therefore safe8 ,will the general effect be salutary8 ,let the history of the ,church speak2 and in view of that record ,i confess ,i fear for our common ,zion4 ,but let not the old ,calvinists lay this blame1 and charge this danger upon the new school2 the new school doctrine is a legitimate scion from that root which they have cultivated with such assiduity and care4 ,it grows out of the doctrine of motives1 it springs from the idea of the entire dependence of the human mind for each and all its volitions upon the directing influence of ,omnipotence1 whatever may be the theory by which that influence is explained4 ,another argument in opposition to this doctrine is found in the consideration1 that we are constantly liable to disappointment in most of our calculations respecting human agents4--,though we may judge something of what will be the conduct of men in given circumstances1 yet our calculations are very far from coming up to mechanical exactness4 ,motives have some influence2 but that influence is very variable and uncertain4 ,why is this8 ,it is not so in matter2 the same causes will produce the same effects to the end of time4 ,but we see many choose1 without being able to give what1 in their own estimation1 is a valid reason2 they did thus because they chose to do so2 they act in defiance of the strongest motives1 drawn from whatever source4 ,we see the greatest possible caprice in the volitions of men2 we see their minds starting aside1 and putting on the greatest possible and unaccountable mental states1 in a way and form that baffles all human calculation1 and will for ever baffle it4 ,a man may spend all his life in trying to reduce to uniformity the phenomena of human volitions1 and thereby to fix1 in an unerring code1 the laws that govern them1 and he may hand his labours to his successor1 and so on to the end of time1 and after all1 that living1 spontaneous1 thought-producing essence which we call the human soul1 will slide from our grasp and elude all our calculations4 ,if this consideration should have no direct weight in opposition to the theory ,i am opposing1 it will at least show the absurdity of defending this system by what is called the known regularity and uniform phenomena of human volitions4 ,to talk of uniformity here1 is to talk of1 to say the least1 what does not exist4 ,in the examination of this subject1 we find that the arguments in favour of the motive theory are generally of the negative kind2 they are not so much direct proofs of the truth of the theory1 as they are attempts to show the absurdity of denying it4 ,but when statements of this kind are accompanied by no arguments1 they need only be met by a denial4 ,we are conscious1 say the theorists1 of being controlled by motives3 ,i reply1 we are not conscious of this control1 but we are conscious of the contrary fact4 ,we know1 indeed1 that motives have their influence2 but we know also that the mind has an influence over motives1 and probably a greater influence than motives have over it4 ,the mind is conscious too of having an influence over itself1 and of possessing a self-directing energy1 a spontaneous power1 and its consciousness of responsibility is predicated on this power of spontaneity4 ,only let the mind become clearly conscious that motives beyond its power and influence have an irresistible power in controlling its decisions1 and you would as certainly remove from man all sense of responsibility1 as in those cases now1 where the spasmodic motion of the muscle is not the result of the will4 ,it is said again1 that to deny this control involves the absurdity that our volitions are exerted without any intelligent reasons1 and are the result of a brute or senseless mechanism4 ,it appears to me1 however1 that a system which represents the will as mechanically governed by motives1 as weights turn the scale beam1 makes man a machine2 while the theory that gives the mind a spontaneous power and energy of its own1 makes him what he is1 an intelligent1 responsible agent4 ,since1 then1 these negative arguments in favour of the theory that motives control the mind1 are assertions and not proofs2 and since the theory itself leads to fate1 to atheism1 to materialism1 to conversion by mere moral suasion1 to the subversion of human liberty and moral responsibility1 we must believe the theory false4 ,but against the theory of the spontaneous power of the mind1 none of these objections lie4 ,it accords too with consciousness2 and is1 in fact1 the only theory on which the responsibility of a moral agent can be predicated4 ,the opposite view claims our assent to two incongruous and apparently contradictory propositions1 between which there is not only no agreement1 but an evident repugnancy4 ,this is the embarrassment in the one case1 and it is fatal to the theory4 ,if there are embarrassments in the other case1 and what theory of mind or matter has not its inexplicables8--these embarrassments are evidently of another kind2 it is not the want of light to see how two antagonist principles can agree1 the repugnancy of which must be the more apparent as light increases1 but it is from the known limits to human knowledge4 ,the principal embarrassment to the theory we defend is1 we cannot understand the manner in which this faculty of the mind operates4 ,but this is no more difficult than to understand the manner in which other faculties of the mind operate4 ,to make this last statement clear1 the reader is desired to recollect that the mind is not divided into parts and members like the body4 ,when we talk of the faculties of the mind1 we should understand the power that the entire mind has to act in this or that way4 ,thus we say1 the mind has the faculties of will and of memory1 that is1 the mind1 as a whole1 has the powers of choosing1 and of calling up its past impressions4 ,now if any one will tell me how the mind remembers1 ,i will tell him how it wills2 and ,i have the same right to ask him what causes the memory to remember1 as he has to ask me what causes the will to will4 ,in both cases it may be said1 the mind remembers and wills because this is its nature--,god made it so4 ,when you analyze until you come to the original elements1 or when you trace back effects until you come to first principles1 you must stop4--,and if you will not receive these first principles because you cannot explain them farther1 then indeed you must turn universal skeptic4 ,i frankly acknowledge ,i cannot tell how the mind acts in its volitions4 ,and let it be understood that the motive theory1 with all its other embarrassments1 has this one in common with ours4--,can its advocates tell me how motives act upon the mind8 ,true philosophy is an analysis of constituent principles1 or of causes and effects1 but the origin of these relations and combinations is resolvable only into the will of the ,creator4 ,it is so1 because ,god hath made it so4 ,and the nature of these relations is beyond the reach of the human mind4 ,however impatient we may be at these restrictions1 they are limits beyond which we cannot go2 and our only duty in the case is1 submission4 ,i am aware1 however1 that what ,i have now said may1 without farther explanation1 especially when taken in connection with a principle of philosophy already recognized1 be considered as an important concession to my opponents4 ,i have before stated1 in substance1 that in the material world there is1 strictly speaking1 no such thing as power2 that the efficiency of the laws of nature is1 in fact1 the ,divine energy operating in a uniform way4 ,let it be granted1 a ,calvinist might say1 that what we call the operation of second causes is universally the supreme ,intelligence operating in a uniform way1 and it is all we ask to defend our system4 ,then it will be granted1 that in each volition of the human mind the operation of the will is nothing more than the energy of the ,divine mind operating in a uniform way4 ,to this ,i reply1 ,though matter1 on account of its inertia1 cannot in any proper sense be said to have power1 yet the same is not true of mind4 ,if any one thinks it is1 then the supreme ,mind itself has not power4 ,in other words1 as both matter and mind are inert1 and cannot act only as acted upon1 there is no such thing as power in the universe6 and thus we again land in atheism4 ,but if mind has power1 as all theists must grant1 then the human mind may have power4 ,if any one can prove that it is impossible1 in the nature of things1 for the ,supreme ,being to create and sustain subordinate agents1 with a spontaneous power of thought and moral action1 to a limited extent1 in that case we must give up our theory4 ,but it is presumed no one can prove this1 or will even attempt to prove it4 ,we say1 ,god has created such agents1 and that they act1 in their responsible volitions1 uncontrolled by the ,creator1 either directly or by second causes4 ,we are expressly told1 indeed1 that ,god made man in his own image2 his moral image doubtless4 ,man1 then1 in his own subordinate sphere1 has the power of originating thought1 the power of spontaneous moral action3 this1 this only1 is the ground of his responsibility4 ,will it be said that this puts man entirely out of the control of his ,creator8 ,i answer1 ,by no means4 ,it only puts him out of the control of such direct influences as would destroy his moral liberty4 ,does the power of moral action1 independent of the magistracy and the laws1 destroy all the control of the civil government over malefactors8 ,how much less in the other case8 ,god can prevent all the mischief that a vicious agent might attempt1 without throwing any restraint upon his responsible volitions4 ,it is thus that he makes the wrath of man praise him1 and the remainder of wrath he restrains4 ,let it be understood1 then1 from this time forward1 by all1 as indeed it has been understood heretofore by those who have carefully examined the subject1 that when the ,calvinists talk about free will1 and human liberty1 they mean something essentially different from what we mean by these terms2 and1 as it is believed1 something essentially different from the popular meaning of these terms4 ,they believe in human liberty1 they say1 and the power of choice1 and we are bound to believe them2 but we are also bound not to suffer ourselves to be deceived by terms4 ,theirs is a liberty and power of a moral agent to will as he does1 and not otherwise4 ,ours is an unrestricted liberty1 and a spontaneous power in all responsible volitions1 to choose as we do1 or otherwise4 ,thus far ,i have examined the mind in its power of choosing good or evil1 according to its original constitution4 ,how far this power has been affected by sin1 on the one hand1 or by grace1 on the other1 is a question that will claim attention in my next4 ,,number ,x4 ,,moral ,,agency ,,as ,,affected ,,by ,,the ,,fall1 ,,and ,,the ,,subsequent ,,provisions ,,of ,,grace4 ,,my last number was an attempt to prove that ,god created man with a spontaneous power of moral action2 and that this was the only ground of his moral responsibility4 ,it is now proposed to inquire how far this power has been affected by the fall1 and the subsequent provisions of grace4 ,the doctrine of the ,methodist ,church on these points is very clearly expressed by the #gth and #hth articles of religion in her book of ,discipline4 #a4 ,original sin standeth not in the following of ,adam1 7as the ,pelagians vainly talk17 but it is the corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of ,adam1 whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness1 and of his own nature inclined to evil1 and that continually4 #b4 ,the condition of man after the fall of ,adam is such1 that he cannot turn and prepare himself1 by his own natural strength and works1 to faith and calling upon ,god3 wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to ,god1 without the grace of ,god by ,christ preventing us1 7going before to assist us17 that we may have a good will1 and working with us when we have that good will4 ,it is not pretended here that any intellectual faculties are lost by sin1 or restored by grace2 but that the faculties that are essential to mind have become corrupted1 darkened1 debilitated1 so as to render man utterly incapable of a right choice without prevenient and cooperating grace4 ,as muscular or nervous power in a limb1 or an external sense1 may be weakened or destroyed by physical disease1 so the moral power of the mind or an inward sense may be weakened or destroyed by moral disease4 ,and it is in perfect accordance with analogy1 with universal language1 and with the representations of ,scripture1 to consider the mind as susceptible1 in its essential nature1 of this moral deterioration4 ,if any one should say he cannot understand what this moral defect is1 ,i would answer by asking him if he can tell me what the essence of mind is8 ,and if he chooses to object to this kind of depravity1 because he cannot understand it1 in its essence1 he should turn materialist at once2 and then1 as he will find equal difficulty to tell what the essence of matter is1 and in what its weakness and disorder essentially consist1 he must turn universal skeptic4--,the simple statement is1 the soul has become essentially disordered by sin2 and as no one can prove the assertion to be unphilosophical or contrary to experience1 so ,i think it may be shown from ,scripture that this is the real state of fallen human nature4 ,and it may also be shown that this disorder is such as to mar man's free agency4 ,there is a sense1 indeed1 in which all voluntary preference may be considered as implying free agency4 ,but voluntary preference does not necessarily imply such a free agency as involves moral responsibility4 ,the mind may be free to act in one direction1 and yet it may so entirely have lost its moral equilibrium as to be utterly incapable1 of its own nature1 to act in an opposite direction1 and therefore not1 in the full and responsible sense1 a free agent4 ,it is not enough1 therefore1 to say1 ,free agency 7of a responsible kind7 consists in the possession of understanding1 conscience1 and will2 7see ,christian ,spectator for ,september1 #ahcj27 unless by will is meant the spontaneous power already alluded to4 ,the understanding may be darkened1 the conscience may be seared or polluted1 the will1 that is1 the power of willing1 may1 to all good purposes1 be inthralled2 and this is what we affirm to be the true state and condition of unaided human nature4 ,it will be farther seen that the above account of human nature does not recognize the distinction of natural and moral ability4 ,the fact is1 man's inability is both natural and moral2 it is natural1 because it is constitutional2 and it is moral1 because it relates to the mind4 ,to say a fallen man has natural power to make a right choice1 because he has the faculties of his mind entire1 is the same as to say that a paralytic man has the natural power to walk1 because he has his limbs entire4 ,it appears to me that the whole of this distinction1 and the reasoning from it1 proceed on the ground of a most unphilosophical analysis of mind and an unwarranted definition of terms4 ,the simple question is1 ,has fallen man1 on the whole1 the power to make a right choice1 or has he not8 ,we say without grace he has not4 ,and therefore fallen man is not1 in the responsible sense of that term1 a free agent without grace4 ,this view of the subject is not novel in the ,church4 ,i readily acknowledge that a doctrine is not therefore true1 because it has been held by many1 and can be traced back to antiquity1 unless it can be proved to be ,scriptural4 ,the fact1 however1 that a doctrine has been generally received in the ,church1 entitles it to respect and to a careful examination1 before it is discarded4 ,hence to those who have only read modern ,calvinistic authors on this subject1 it may be a matter of surprise to learn that not only the more ancient fathers1 but even ,st4 ,austin himself1 the introducer of predestination into the ,church1 and ,calvin1 and the synod of ,dort1 were all supporters of sentiments substantially the same as are here vindicated--,i say1 those who have only read modern ,calvinistic authors will be surprised to learn this1 because these authors treat this doctrine as though it were so unreasonable and absurd as scarcely to be tolerated in the view of common sense4 ,though it may have an influence with some1 in a paucity of better reasons1 to scout a doctrine from the ,church by calling it absurd1 yet the candid will not readily give up an old doctrine for a new1 without good reason4 ,i had at first thought of quoting pretty freely from some of the fathers1 and especially from the early ,calvinists1 to show their views on this point4 ,but it may not be necessary1 unless the statements here made should be denied4 ,let therefore one or two quotations from ,calvin and from the synod of ,dort1 both of which ,i think ,calvinists will acknowledge as good ,calvinistic authority1 suffice4 ,calvin denies all power to man1 in his apostasy1 to choose good1 and says that1 surrounded on every side with the most miserable necessity1 he 7man7 should nevertheless be instructed to aspire to the good of which he is destitute1 and to the liberty of which he is deprived4 ,the synod of ,dort decided thus3--,we believe that ,god--formed man after his own image1 c1 capable in all things to will agreeably to the will of ,god4 ,they then speak of the fall1 and say1 ,we reject all that is repugnant to this concerning the free will of man1 since man is but a slave to sin1 and has nothing of himself1 unless it is given him from heaven4 ,and speaking of the change by grace1 they add1 ,the will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by ,god1 but in consequence of this influence becomes itself active4 ,and to show that ,calvin did not consider the voluntary acts of a depraved sinner as proof of free will1 he says1 ,man has not an equally free election of good and evil1 and can only be said to have free will1 because he does evil voluntarily1 and not by constraint2 and this he ironically calls egregious liberty indeed6 if man be not compelled to serve sin1 but yet is such a willing slave that his will is held in bondage by the fettors of sin4 ,these quotations1 ,i think1 show satisfactorily that the early ,calvinists believed man to have lost his power to choose good by apostasy1 and can only regain it by grace4 ,it is true1 they generally believed that whenever this grace was imparted to an extent to restore to the mind the power of choosing good1 it was regenerating grace4 ,and herein they differ from the ,arminians1 who believe that grace may and does restore the power to choose good before regeneration4 ,this1 however1 does not affect the point now under examination1 but involves a collateral question1 which will be examined in its proper place4 ,one thought more1 and ,i pass to the arguments on the main questions in the articles quoted above4 ,these articles are taken from the #ith and #ajth of the articles of the ,church of ,england4 ,our #hth is indeed identically the same as the #ajth of the ,church of ,england2 and the latter part of that article1 commencing1 ,wherefore1 c1 is taken substantially from ,st4 ,austin himself4 ,thus much for the ,calvinistic authority of the doctrine we defend4 ,to which1 if it were necessary1 we might add quotations from ,beza1 ,dr4 ,owen1 a decided ,calvinist1 and many of the ancient fathers4 ,nay1 the ,remonstrants declared1 in the presence of the synod of ,dort1 that this was the judgment of all antiquity4 ,let us now notice some arguments in favour of this doctrine4 #a4 ,the doctrine above stated1 and now to be defended1 must be true1 as is believed1 since only this view of man's condition will accord with the ,scripture account of depravity4 ,if the ,scriptures teach that man is constitutionally depraved1 that a blight and a torpor have come over his moral nature1 comparable to sleep1 to disease1 and to death1 how can it be otherwise than that this should affect his power to choose good8 ,had man any too much moral power in the first instance to constitute him an accountable moral agent8 ,and if he had not1 has he enough now that his mind has become darkened1 his judgment perverted1 and his moral powers corrupted and weakened8 ,or will it be denied that the moral energies of his nature have been impaired by sin8 ,if not1 how has he been affected8 ,let any one spend a thought on this question1 and decide1 if he can1 what definite vicious effect can be produced on man's moral nature which will not necessarily imply a weakening and an embarrassment of his original power to a right choice4 ,should it be said that his power is somewhat weakened1 but he has enough left to constitute him free to choose good1 this would imply that before the loss he had more than enough6 ,besides1 such an idea would rest on the principle that man's moral nature was not wholly vitiated4 ,it is said1 ,i know1 that all the embarrassment which man has to a right choice is a disinclination to moral good4 ,but if this disinclination to good be derived and constitutional1 it exists in the mind previous to any act of choice1 and is therefore the very thing we mean--it is this very thraldom of the mind which utterly incapacitates it to choose good4 ,if it be asked whether disinclination can ever be so strong as to destroy the freedom of the will to act in one particular direction8 ,i answer1 most unhesitatingly1 ,yes2 and if that disinclination is either created or derived1 and not the result of an antecedent choice1 the possessor is not morally obligated to act in opposition to it1 unless he receive foreign aid to help his infirmities1 and to strengthen him for a contrary choice4 ,it follows then1 ,i think1 that we must either give up constitutional depravity1 or discard the notion that we can make a right choice without ,divine aid4 ,and here1 if ,i mistake not1 we shall find the precise point on which modern ,calvinism has verged over into the ,new ,divinity theory of depravity4 ,perceiving that to acknowledge any depravity of man's moral constitution would either imply the necessity of supernatural aid in order to a right choice1 or else free man from responsibility1 ,dr4 ,taylor and his associates have resolved all depravity into choice or voluntary preference4 ,they deny that there is any thing in the nature of man1 antecedently to his act of willing1 that possesses a moral character4 ,their idea is perfectly consistent with the notion of natural ability2 and that the advocates of the ,new ,divinity have embraced this idea is evidently a proof that they think closely and are seeking after consistency1 let it lead them where it will4 ,the only wonder is1 that all who cleave to the dogma of natural ability do not follow them4 ,the doctrine of natural ability1 if it is any thing more than a name1 appears evidently to be a part of the old ,pelagian system1 and should never be separated from its counterpart--the doctrine of self conversion and the natural perfectability of the human character4 ,but this clearly implies that there is no serious derangement or radical viciousness of the moral man4 ,here1 then1 is another instance in which ,calvinists in general revolt at the legitimate results of their own system4 ,but while the ,new ,divinity advocates have fearlessly removed an important objection to their doctrine1 they have1 by this very act1 as it is believed1 however little they may have designed it1 set themselves in fearful array against the ,scripture doctrine of depravity and salvation by grace1 and have opened a wide door for the introduction of numerous and dangerous heresies4 ,it is true1 they will not own that they have gone very far from the old system4 ,they think the doctrine of natural depravity is asserted when they say1 nature is such that he will sin1 and only sin1 in all the appropriate circumstances of his being4 7,see ,dr4 ,taylor's ,sermon47 ,but what this nature is1 we are at a loss to determine2 as also what the such is that is predicated of this nature2 nor has ,dr4 ,t4 told us how he knows that all men will sin and only sin1 when in fact they have natural power to avoid it2 or in what other than the appropriate circumstances of their being those are who become regenerate4 ,in fact1 while this theory claims to be orthodox1 and thus to assimilate itself with the old theory1 it has only exchanged one inconsistency for a half score4 ,its advocates1 to be consistent1 must come out plain and open ,pelagians1 and then meet the ,scripture doctrine of depravity and salvation by grace as they can1 or they must go back to their old ground1 and endure the manifest inconsistency they are now endeavouring to avoid2 or1 what seems to me better than either1 come on to the ,arminian ground1 which shuns all these difficulties1 while it maintains constitutional depravity and salvation by grace from the foundation to the top stone1 including of course a gracious ability to choose life and gain heaven4 #b4 ,another argument in favour of the necessity of ,divine grace1 in order to a right choice1 is the fact1 that ,god actually gives grace to those who finally perish1 as well as to those who are saved4 ,of this fact the ,scriptures afford decisive proof4 ,they speak in general terms4 ,jesus ,christ is the true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world4 ,the grace of ,god that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men4 ,they speak in special terms of the unregenerate--that they grieve1 resist1 and quench the ,spirit of grace1 which certainly they could not do if they had it not4 ,but if they have the operations of the ,spirit1 what are these operations8 ,what is the ,spirit doing to the inner man8 ,will it be said he is bringing motives to bear upon the mind8 ,but what motives other than those found in the ,gospel8 ,these the sinner has without the ,spirit4 ,if these motives can convert sinners1 any of us can convert our neighbours4 ,but1 it is said1 the ,spirit makes the heart feel these motives4 ,aye1 truly he does1 and that not by operating upon the motives1 but upon the heart1 and this is the very work we contend for4 ,it is thus that the ,spirit graciously arouses and quickens the dead soul1 and brings it to feel1 and excites it to act1 in the great work of salvation4 ,since1 then1 it must be granted that unregenerate sinners1 and those who are finally lost1 have the operations of this ,spirit of grace1 let me seriously inquire1 ,for what purpose is this grace given8 ,on the ,calvinistic ground it cannot be that they may have a chance for salvation1 and thus be without excuse2 for this is secured without grace4 ,since they have natural ability to come to ,christ1 the abuse of that ability is sufficient to secure their just condemnation4 ,so say the ,calvinists2 and on this ground they maintain that the reprobates are justly condemned4 ,for what purpose1 then1 is this grace given8 ,if we may establish a general principle by an induction of particulars2 if we may judge of the design of the ,god of providence or grace1 by noticing1 in any given case1 the uniform results1 then we can easily determine this point4 ,god gives grace to the reprobates that their condemnation may be the more aggravated4 ,the argument stands thus3 ,god gives grace to the reprobates for some important purpose4 ,he does not give it that salvation may be possible to them1 for they are able to be saved without it2 he does not give it to make salvation certain1 for this it does not effect2 nevertheless he gives them grace1 the invariable effect of which is to increase their condemnation4 ,the only consistent inference2 therefore is1 that he gives grace to the reprobates that they may have a more aggravated condemnation4 ,here1 then1 we trace the ,calvinistic theory to one of these logical consequences charged upon it in the sermon1 and which has been so strenuously denied by the reviewers--a consequence which1 revolting as it is1 must nevertheless be charged upon it still1 unless its advocates can show why grace is given to the reprobates when they have all necessary ability to repent and believe without it4 #c4 ,on the ground of this doctrine1 also1 there would be some difficulty in accounting for the necessity of giving grace1 in all cases1 even to the elect4 ,why may not some of these repent without grace8 ,nay1 why may not some of the reprobates1 in the plenitude of their natural ability1 repent and be converted1 in despite of the decree of reprobation8 ,did ,god foresee that they would not1 and on that foresight predicate his decree of reprobation8 ,but that would be a conditional reprobation1 and would therefore imply its counterpart--a conditional election4 ,this no class of ,calvinists will admit4 ,how happens it1 then1 that some of these reprobates do not get converted1 since they not only have natural powers enough to make a right choice but have some grace beside8 ,is it because ,god has fixed the barrier in something else1 by which this ability1 grace1 and all are rendered nugatory8 ,but this would render their condemnation unjust1 ,calvinists themselves being judges4 ,they tell us that the only just ground of condemnation is1 that the sinner will not come to ,christ4 ,here1 then1 is the most extraordinary thing that angels or men ever knew2 for almost six thousand years there has been upon our earth a succession of generations of sinners1 and its the present generation of them there are eight hundred millions4 ,all of these1 throughout all their generations1 have had no other obstruction to salvation but what exists in their own will1 and each and all have had by nature all needful ability in the will to a right choice1 and have had a measure of grace super-added1 and yet not a reprobate among them all has ever made a right choice2 and not one of the elect ever did or ever will make such a choice until ,god1 by an omnipotent act1 makes his elect willing in the day of his power66 ,this is a miracle to which all the other miracles in the world are as nothing--a miracle which ,omnipotence alone can accomplish by a ,divine constitution and an all-controlling energy4 ,thus this doctrine destroys itself4 ,it assumes positions1 with respect to free will1 that cannot be maintained1 only on the supposition of an efficient superior agency to direct the action of that free will1 in a course of sinful volition1 in hundreds of millions of cases1 without a single variation1 save where that variation is the result of the same superior ,power acting in the opposite direction4 #d4 ,that the sinner receives aid by ,divine grace to enable him to repent2 and that he could not repent1 without this1 appears evident from the ,scriptural representation of the ground of man's responsibility4 ,if ,i had not come1 says the ,saviour1 ye had not had sin4 ,this is the condemnation1 that light has come into the world1 and men loved darkness rather than light4 ,he that believeth not is condemned already1 because he hath not believed in the only begotten ,son of ,god4 ,because ,i have called1 and ye have refused1 c1 ,i also will laugh at your calamity4 ,these and many other passages seem to imply that the sinner is rejected on the ground of his neglecting offered grace4 ,but if this is the ground of his condemnation1 it is not for the abuse of natural power4 ,i see no way for a plausible attempt even to get rid of this argument1 unless it should be attempted to raise a question respecting the nature of this grace4 ,it may be said that these passages only relate to gracious provisions1 such as the atonement1 the ,scriptures of truth1 c1 and have no reference whatever to a gracious influence upon the mind4 ,the mind had sufficient strength to believe1 repent1 c1 but something must be presented to believe in2 and some provision must be made to make repentance available4 ,in reply ,i would say1 ,first1 ,even this shows that man could not have been saved from sin without grace1 and hence on this ground this theory would be involved in the very difficulty which it attempts to throw upon our view of the subject1 viz41 that grace is necessary to make men guilty1 because none can be guilty in a case where their course is unavoidable4 ,but1 leaving this for another place1 ,i would say farther1 in reply to the above1 that the ,scriptures do not represent this grace as confined to external provisions1 but on the contrary speak of it as operating upon and influencing the mind1 and that1 too1 in the very way for which we contend4 ,look at a few ,scriptural expressions1 promiscuously selected1 and see how clearly they sustain our position4 ,in the first place1 to give the argument full force1 let us notice the ,scripture account of man's natural condition4 ,he is in darkness1 asleep1 dead1 without strength1 sick1 deaf1 blind1 lame1 bound1 helpless2 and all this in consequence of sin4 ,indeed1 this is the very definition of his sinful character and condition4 ,if such language does not describe utter inability of the sinner to serve ,god1 then no language can do it4 ,now let us see what grace does4 ,its very design is to awake the sleeper2 to unstop deaf ears1 and open blind eyes2 to lighten every man2 to strengthen with might by the ,spirit in the inner man4 ,christ strengthens the sinner1 that he may do all things4 ,it is on the ground that ,god worketh in him to will and to do1 that man is exhorted to work out his salvation with fear and trembling4 ,thou strengthenedst me with strength in my soul4 ,but leaving farther quotations of this kind1 let the reader fix his attention on the stress which the ,scriptures lay upon the striving of the ,spirit4 ,all the efficacy of the word is ascribed to the ,spirit2 and hence the apostle declares that he preached the ,gospel1 with the ,holy ,ghost sent down from heaven2 that it came1 not in word1 but in power4 ,indeed1 the letter 7of the word7 killeth1 but the ,spirit giveth life4 ,hence the frequent cautions not to grieve or quench the ,spirit4 ,now what1 ,i ask1 can all these scriptures mean8 ,is there any plausibility in the idea1 that by such expressions nothing is meant but the general provisions of grace in the ,gospel economy8 ,that no direct1 gracious influence of the ,spirit upon the heart is intended8 ,in fact1 the new idea of conversion by motives and moral suasion seems to be a device to meet this very difficulty4 ,the old ,calvinists charge the advocates of the ,new ,divinity with holding that all the ,spirit does in operating upon the heart1 is not by operating upon it directly1 but indirectly through the truth3 which has given rise to the saying1 ,if ,i were as eloquent as the ,holy ,ghost1 ,i could convert souls as well as he4 ,and if they do hold this1 it is no wonder1 for indeed it is the legitimate consequence of the doctrine of natural ability4 ,they doubtless arrive at it thus3--,according to the ,scriptures1 man's responsibility turns on his rejecting or improving the grace of ,god4 ,that grace cannot be an internal gracious influence upon man's moral nature1 because that would conflict with the notion of responsibility1 on the ground of natural power4 ,these scriptures therefore can mean nothing more than that a gracious atonement is provided1 and a record of ,divine truth made1 and now1 in the use of his natural power1 the sinner is required to judge of and embrace this truth1 which if he does1 he in this sense improves the grace of ,god1 and is converted2 but if he does it not1 he grieves the ,spirit1 and is condemned4 ,thus in the one case1 if he is converted1 it is in the use of his natural power1 choosing in the view of motives2 and in the other case1 if he is not converted1 it is in the use of his natural power1 refusing in view of motives4 ,is not this correct reasoning8 ,and ought not the ,new-,haven divines to be commended for carrying out the system to its legitimate results8 ,and ought not all to follow them in this1 who hold to natural ability8 ,and yet no wonder that they hesitate here1 for cold and spiritless indeed must be that system of religious experience that resolves the conversion of the soul into a mere natural operation of choosing1 through the influence of moral suasion4 ,leaving this system1 therefore1 to labour under its fatal embarrassments1 it may be seen1 ,i think1 that the system here vindicated corresponds with the ,scriptures and is consistent with itself2 for it makes man's responsibility turn upon grace improved or misimproved1 and it makes that grace an internal quickening influence1 and a strengthening energy upon the heart2 and these different features of the theory1 when placed together1 all seem at once to be compatible with each other4 #e4 ,express passages of ,scripture teach the doctrine here maintained4 ,i need not now repeat the passages already referred to1 in which the state of the depraved heart is described1 and which show1 if any human language can show it1 that man is naturally without strength4 ,but my object is to call the attention of the reader to some very direct and express passages1 to show that it is grace1 and grace alone1 that enables the soul to do the will of ,god4 ,i can do all things1 saith the apostle1 through ,christ who strengtheneth me4 ,query3 would not the apostle have thought it presumption to have said1 ,i can do all things without strength from ,christ8 ,has he ever intimated such a sentiment in all his writings8 ,does he not rather say1 ,we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves1 but our sufficiency is of ,god8 ,this is the apostle's general language1 and it is in perfect accordance with the declaration of his ,master1 ,without me ye can do nothing4 ,as the branch cannot bear fruit of itself1 except it abide in the vine1 no more can ye1 except ye abide in me4 ,no man can come to me1 except the ,father draw him4 ,likewise the ,spirit ,helpeth our infirmities2 for we know not what to pray for as we ought4 ,my grace is sufficient for thee2 for my strength is made perfect in weakness4 ,the ,god of all grace--stablish1 strengthen1 settle you4 ,for this cause ,i bow my knees to the ,father1 c1 that he would grant you1 according to the riches of his glory1 to be strengthened with might1 by his ,spirit1 in the inner man1 according to the power that worketh in us4 ,it is useless to quote farther4 ,if these passages do not show that our strength to do good is of grace1 then it appears to me the ,holy ,spirit must fail of an ability to communicate that idea through human language4 ,will it be said that some of these passages refer to the regenerate1 and therefore are not in point to meet the case of the unregenerate8 ,i would ask1 in reply1 whether regenerating grace takes away our natural ability8 ,certainly if the regenerate can neither think nor do any thing acceptable without grace1 much more do the unregenerate need this grace to enable them to make a right choice4 ,and yet in the face of these most explicit scriptures1 we are repeatedly told that man has natural power to make himself a new heart6 ,to the foregoing considerations1 ,i might add1 if any farther proof of our doctrine were necessary1 and if this paper had not been extended so far already1 the universal experience of all ,christians4 ,this appears1 from their language1 to be the experience of ,bible saints1 under both the ,jewish and ,christian dispensations4 ,and what ,christian now living1 but feels now1 and felt when he first embraced the ,saviour1 that the strength to do this was from ,god--directly from ,god1 through grace4 ,hear his prayers--he pleads his weakness--he asks for strength4 ,and what does he mean by that prayer8 ,does he ask for some external accommodation and aid8 ,no2 he wants strength1 by the ,spirit1 in the inner man4 ,and this is the prayer of all ,christians1 whether they advocate this notion of natural ability or not4 ,the sayings and writings also of these very advocates of natural ability1 so powerful is this feeling of dependence1 are often in perfect coincidence1 with the doctrine we defend4 ,a most striking instance of this is found in ,dr4 ,wood's pamphlet 7page #ig7 in opposition to ,dr4 ,taylor1 as follows3--,the common theory 7of ,calvinistic orthodoxy7 leads us to entertain low thoughts of ourselves1 especially in a moral view2 and to feel that we are not of ourselves sufficient for any thing spiritually good1 and that1 for whatever holiness we now possess1 or may hereafter attain1 we are dependent on ,divine grace4 ,what stronger gracious ability do ,arminians hold to1 than this8 ,not of ourselves sufficient for any thing spiritually good4 ,and is this the common theory of ,calvinism8 ,then ,calvinism here1 as in other points1 is divided against itself4 ,indeed one would be induced to think1 were it not for the context1 either that ,dr4 ,wood differed from his brothers generally1 on this point1 or was off his guard at this moment4 ,but he tells us1 in this very paragraph1 that he does not differ at all from the generality of ministers1 in ,new-,england1 respecting the natural powers and faculties of man1 as a moral and accountable being4 ,but he fears the unqualified language which ,dr4 ,t4 employs respecting the natural state1 the free will1 and the power of man4 ,on reading this last passage1 ,i confess ,i am at a loss to know what to say or believe of this ,calvinistic opinion of natural power4 ,dr4 ,taylor's unqualified language respecting the power of man1 ,i take to be a frank statement of ,dr4 ,wood's opinion1 and that of other ,calvinists4 ,dr4 ,t4 says man has natural power sufficient to make a right choice4 ,does not ,dr4 ,wood say this8 ,he says he does not differ from the generality2 and it is notorious that this is the doctrine of the generality of those ministers4 ,dr4 ,tyler1 of ,portland1 one of ,dr4 ,wood's coadjutors in opposing ,dr4 ,taylor1 says1 in a sermon#e on free salvation1 ,there is no reprobation taught in the ,scriptures1 which destroys human liberty1 or which impairs the sinner's natural power4 ,every man is a free moral agent4 ,life and death are set before him1 and he is capable of choosing between them4 ,what language can be more unqualified than this8 ,it teaches us that man has natural power1 which renders him capable to make a right choice4 ,it is true1 ,dr4 ,taylor1 and those who believe with him1 carry out this doctrine into its legitimate and practical bearings4 ,on the ground of this power1 they exhort sinners to make themselves new hearts4 ,one of them1 as reported to me by a preacher1 went so far as to say1 in a public address1 that sinners ought to be ashamed to ask the aid of the ,holy ,spirit to convert them1 since they had power to convert themselves4 ,and what objection can any1 who hold to natural power to choose life1 urge against this8 ,if1 as ,dr4 ,tyler teaches1 in his ,examination of ,dr4 ,taylor's ,theological ,views1 a right choice implies regeneration2 and if every man is naturally capable of a right choice1 as taught by this same ,dr4 ,tyler1 and the generality of his brethren1 then it follows conclusively1 and ,i see not how any sophistry can cover up the inference1 these sinners have natural power to convert themselves4 ,instead therefore of hypocritically pleading their own weakness1 before a throne of grace1 and asking for mercy and grace to help them in their time of need1 they ought to be crimsoned with shame1 for their folly and hypocrisy1 turn away from their impertinent suit1 throw themselves upon the resources of nature1 and regenerate their own hearts4 ,if however these gentlemen believe it impossible for sinners to do this1 then1 taking their whole theory together1 this power is no power1 and community1 up to this hour1 has been deluded by unmeaning words--words which only serve to conceal the deformity of a theological system1 which1 when thoroughly examined1 is found after all1 to teach that the poor reprobate has no adequate power by nature1 and receives no available aid from grace to choose salvation1 and must therefore1 from the imperious necessity of his nature and condition1 go down to interminable death4 ,,number ,,xi4 ,,same ,,subject ,,continued4 ,it is not pretended that there are no difficulties in our view of the subject4 ,what important theory is there in philosophy1 politics1 morals1 or religion1 against which some apparently plausible objection may not be urged8 ,but the inquiry in each case should be1 ,are those objections fatal to the system8 ,or are the difficulties in the proposed system greater than in some other view of the subject8 ,for reasonable men will refuse to be driven into the vortex of skepticism merely because there are some difficulties and obscurities in all subjects of faith1 which the limitations to human vision will not permit us to penetrate4 ,to form an enlightened comparative view in the case before us1 it will be important that we glance at the different theories on the subject of depravity and the ground of responsibility4 #a4 ,one form in which this subject has been held is1 ,that the sin of ,adam introduced into his nature such a radical impotence and depravity that it is impossible for his descendants to make any voluntary efforts toward piety and virtue1 or in any respect to correct and improve their moral and religious character1 and that faith and all the ,christian graces are communicated by the sole and irresistible operation of the ,spirit of ,god1 without any endeavour or concurrence on the part of man4 ,this of course makes the elect entirely passive in their conversion2 and consigns the reprobate to destruction for the sin of ,adam1 which1 it is maintained1 is imputed to him by virtue of a federal relation2 or at best gives him over to unavoidable personal and eternal condemnation for possessing a nature which he had no agency in bringing upon himself1 and from which he has no power to extricate himself4 ,the difficulties of this system are so numerous and so palpable1 whether it be tried by the standard of ,scripture1 of reason1 or of common sense1 that ,i need not here allude to them4 ,suffice it to say that they have pressed so heavily upon the ,calvinists themselves as to baffle all their ingenuity and invention at defence1 and have driven them finally into all those changes and modifications so frequently alluded to in this controversy4 ,i will here say in advance that1 in my opinion1 this1 after all1 is the strongest position ,calvinism can assume4 ,the moment its advocates depart from this1 they must either1 to be consistent with themselves1 verge over into the other extreme of ,pelagianism1 or strike off into the golden mean of ,arminianism4 ,this may be more clearly seen in the sequel4 #b4 ,pelagianism is another1 and an opposite theory4 ,it has a variety of shades1 called ,pelagian1 ,semi-pelagian1 c4 ,its varieties1 however1 relate to some minor modifications of the relation of the human family to ,adam1 touching natural evil1 the death of the body1 and greater exposure to temptation4 ,but there is a uniformity in the essential part of the theory1 which is1 that human nature is free from sin or guilt until it becomes guilty by intelligent1 voluntary exercise4 ,the objections to this theory are1 among others1 as follows4 ,it is in direct opposition to the ,scripture doctrine of native depravity--a doctrine which has been often and ably treated of and defended by ,calvinistic and1 ,arminian divines--a doctrine which is embodied in a palpable form in every man's own experience--a doctrine which not only flashes upon the mind of the student in every page of the history of man1 but also upon the mind of the unlettered nurse in the earliest emotions of the infant that struggles in her arms4 ,another objection to this theory is1 that it gives to infants1 previous to intelligent voluntary exercise1 no moral character4 ,hence1 should they die at this age1 as multitudes doubtless do1 they would not be fit subjects either for the rewards of heaven or the pains of hell4 ,at the ,judgment1 as they will not be subjects of praise or blame1 they will neither be on the right hand nor the left1 and of course will neither be sentenced to everlasting punishment1 nor welcomed into life eternal4 ,if1 however1 they by any means go into a state of punishment1 their sufferings will be unjust2 or if they are admitted into heaven1 it will not be a salvation by grace1 nor will it be preceded by regeneration1 nor will their song be1 ,unto ,him that hath loved us1 c4 ,this is not only contrary to the whole ,gospel system1 but also is in direct opposition to many scriptures1 especially ,rom4 v1 #ah3 ,therefore1 as by the offence of one1 judgment came upon all men to condemnation2 so1 by the righteousness of one1 the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life4 ,it also leaves infants involved in the natural evils of diseases1 pains2 and death1 not only without any assignable cause1 but also in direct opposition to the cause assigned by the apostle--,and so death passed upon all men1 for that all have sinned4 ,a third objection to this theory is1 that it destroys the ,scripture doctrine of regeneration4 ,the ,scripture account of this matter is1 in substance1 that there is a radical change of our moral nature by the efficient operations of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but as this doctrine makes sin consist exclusively in exercise1 so holiness must consist wholly in exercise4 ,the whole work1 therefore1 of regeneration is a mere change of volition2 and this volition is not the result of a preceding change of moral constitution1 but it is1 like any other volition1 produced by the native power of the mind1 under the exciting influence of motives4 ,the ,holy ,spirit1 therefore1 may well be dispensed with in this work4 ,the supernatural character of the change must be given up1 and the whole work is resolvable into a natural process4 ,it is here worthy of remark that this is not mere speculation4 ,such has1 in fact1 been the final result of this theory1 ,i believe1 in every case where it has long been defended4 ,and hence1 in close connection with this1 the supernatural efficacy of the atonement1 and of course the ,divine character of the ,redeemer1 are found to be notions not at all essential to the system1 and somewhat discordant with the philosophy of its other parts1 and are therefore soon brought into discredit4 ,and this1 too1 as may be seen by the history of the ,church1 has been the practical result wherever ,pelagianism or ,semi-pelagianism has been cherished4 ,it has degenerated into ,socinianism4 ,it may be said1 then1 in one word1 that this doctrine of ,pelagianism does1 in its teachings1 tendencies1 and practical results1 supplant and overthrow all the essential principles of the ,gospel system4 #c4 ,a third and intermediate theory on the subject of depravity and human responsibility is the one presented and advocated in the preceding number4 ,this system is presented1 in part1 in the very language in which the ,ultra-,calvinists present theirs4 ,arminians1 as well as ,calvinists1 say that the sin of ,adam introduced into his nature such a radical impotence and depravity that it is impossible for his descendants who1 it is believed1 are propagated in the moral likeness of their fallen ancestor to make any voluntary efforts unassisted by grace toward piety and virtue1 or in any respect to correct and improve their moral and religious character4 ,thus far we go together2 but this is a point of divergency1 from which we take very different directions4 ,instead of going on to say that the ,christian graces are communicated by the irresistible operation of the ,spirit of ,god1 without any endeavour or concurrence on the part of man1 we say that the saving grace of ,god hath appeared unto all ,men2 and that this grace so enlightens1 strengthens1 and aids the human mind1 that it is thereby enabled to make that choice which is the turning point1 conditionally1 of the soul's salvation2 and that it is by this same gracious aid that the man1 when he has this good will1 is enabled to work out his salvation unto the end4 ,it is in this latter part of the statement that we are at issue with the ,calvinists2 but we are at issue on both parts with the ,pelagians of every grade1 including1 of course1 the advocates of the ,new ,divinity in our country4 ,to the foregoing statement of our doctrine it is proper to add that we believe that the merits of the atonement are so available for and in behalf of the whole human family1 that the guilt of depravity is not imputed to the subject of it until1 by intelligent volition1 he makes the guilt his own by resisting and rejecting the grace of the ,gospel2 and that being thus by grace in a justified state1 the dying infant is entitled to all the promised blessings of the new covenant1 and will1 of course1 have wrought in him all that meetness necessary to qualify him for the gracious rewards of the saints in glory4 ,thus1 according to this system1 the dying infant1 as well as the dying adult believer1 is sanctified by the blood of the covenant1 and saved by grace4 ,these are the three systems which are presented to the inquirer after truth as the alternatives1 and perhaps ,i may say the only alternatives of choice1 in reference to this subject4 ,it is true1 the doctrine of natural ability has been proposed as another alternative1 holding an intermediate place between the doctrines of native impotency as first stated and of ,pelagianism4 ,and it may therefore appear to some1 that ,i ought1 in my enumeration1 to have given this as a separate and distinct theory4 ,my reason1 however1 for not doing this is1 that there cannot1 in my opinion1 be such a resting place between the doctrines of derived constitutional depravity and ,pelagianism4 ,natural ability that is any thing more than a name--that is1 in fact1 an ability1 destroys the idea of constitutional depravity2 and depravity that is any thing more than a name--that is1 in fact1 constitutional depravity1 destroys the idea of natural ability4 ,a striking proof of this is found in the fact that a great portion of those divines in the ,calvinistic ,churches who have been most decided in preaching up natural ability1 have gone over and embraced the ,new ,divinity1 which1 as we have seen1 abjures the doctrine of constitutional depravity4 ,the ,new-,haven divines are certainly gentlemen of talents and of close thought2 and they have been following up this doctrine for a number of years1 and it has landed them upon the logical conclusion that there is no such depravity4 ,but we need not trust to the conclusions of the ,new ,divinity advocates1 to show that the notions of natural ability and natural freedom from guilt and sin necessarily and reciprocally imply each other4 ,why have ,calvinists left their old ground of natural impotency1 and resorted to the dogma of a natural ability8 ,it is for the avowed reason that there can be no guilt without an ability to avoid it4 ,but since the sin of his nature is unavoidable to the new-born infant1 of course he can have no guilt1 and by consequence no sin1 until he is capable of an intelligent moral choice4 ,again3 this same theory tells us that where there is no natural ability there is no moral character4 ,but as the infant cannot be reasonably supposed to have ability to put forth an intelligent holy volition1 he can have no moral character1 and of course no sin4 ,the only way to avoid this conclusion in connection with the assumed premises is1 to maintain that the infant1 from his birth1 is a voluntary agent2 and thus1 in fact1 to a certain extent1 sinful4 ,and would you believe1 reader1 that any reasonable man would resort to such an idea for the sake of helping out a theory8 ,and yet it is even so4 ,a paper lately published under the sanction of the ,new ,divinity1 purporting to be an inquiry into what is the real difference between the ,new-,haven divines and those who differ from them1 says1 ,the ground has of late been taken 7if we understand the discussions on this subject7 that mankind are literally at birth voluntary and accountable agents1 and actual sinners against ,god2 that the new-born infant is a responsible subject of ,god's moral government1 and actually sins with a knowledge of his duty1 and in the same sense with the adult sinner violates moral obligation1 does wrong1 ought to be penitent1 and to change its moral character4 ,and as a proof that this is the ground now assumed1 the same writer gives us a quotation from ,rev4 ,mr4 ,harvey1 who has been one of the most active in this state in opposition to the ,new-,haven divines1 in which he says1 ,a moral being1 for aught we know1 may commence his existence in an active1 voluntary state of the will2 he may be a voluntary agent from his birth1 and thus1 in fact1 to a certain extent sinful1 and that without supposing that depravity is seated in any thing but the will4 ,this same writer also states that ,dr4 ,spring1 in a treatise on native depravity1 a work which ,i have not at hand1 has advanced and defended the sentiment of actual sin from birth4 ,and has it indeed come to this at last1 that this natural ability1 for which ,calvinists have so strenuously contended1 is nothing more than the power the new-born infant has to commit actual sin on the one hand1 or make himself a new heart on the other6 ,alas for ,calvinism6 ,to what miserable shifts--yes1 ,i must call them miserable shifts--is this system driven6 ,on this subject ,i will not express myself in accordance with my feelings4 ,the respect ,i have for the intelligent1 learned1 and pious gentlemen who have advanced this idea1 restrains me in this matter4 ,such a result1 in the advocacy of a favourite theory1 is however in strict accordance with the known obliquity of the greatest and purest minds4 ,but while we respect the authors of such a theory1 and while we feel the necessity of taking heed to ourselves1 lest we also fall by the same example of prejudice1 we cannot suffer our common sense to be imposed upon by such gross absurdities4 ,in this1 however1 we see that1 as before1 in trying to maintain their ability1 they gave up their depravity3 so here1 in trying to establish their depravity1 they destroy their ability4 ,nay1 what is still worse for this theory1 this very attempt to prove that infants are actual sinners from their birth1 is an indirect denial of the doctrine of derived depravity4 ,why do these gentlemen wish to establish this point8 ,why1 forsooth1 in order to show that men are guilty from their birth1 which is an acknowledgment1 of course1 that they cannot prove them guilty only by proving that they have intelligent moral exercise4 ,consequently it is a concession that this exercise is the occasion and origin of their guilt4 ,this is not the first time that ,calvinism1 in trying to save itself1 has gone over and joined the ranks of its opposers4 ,can the reader see the difference between this doctrine of actual sin from the birth1 viewed in connection with its origin and bearings1 and the ,new ,divinity1 which makes sin consist exclusively in moral exercise8 ,let these old-side ,calvinists1 then1 sheath the sword of controversy which they have drawn against their brethren1 and join in with them to defend1 if possible1 the ,pelagian doctrine which1 it would seem1 after all1 they hold in common stock4 ,has the ,rev4 ,mr4 ,harvey been so active in getting up an opposition theological school in ,connecticut to teach that the infant commences his existence in an active voluntary state of the will1 and is thus 7on this account7 to a certain extent sinful8 ,this is clearly a work of supererogation--a useless expenditure of money and of talents4 ,the ,new-,haven ,theological ,school is capable--alas6 too capable of carrying on this work1 especially if ,mr4 ,harvey and his friends will cease their opposition1 and unite in their assistance4 ,does ,mr4 ,harvey fear that the ,new-,haven divines will not begin their moral exercise early enough to make it natural depravity8 ,they have given assurances that they will not be particular on that point4 ,only allow that there is no sin previous to the first intelligent act of choice--previous to the corresponding power to make themselves new hearts1 and they will be satisfied4 ,they have said already that this capableness of sinning1 if it is not at the exact moment of birth1 and they do not affirm that it is not1 commences so early in their existence1 that it is proper1 for all the great purposes of instruction1 to speak of it as existing from the beginning of their days4 ,hence we see nothing between these gentlemen on this point worth contending about4 ,it will1 however1 be important that all who hold to conversion by motives and mere moral suasion should not put the commencement of these moral exercises so far back that the subject cannot understand ,gospel truth2 otherwise they may yet get into another difficulty as serious as the one they are trying to avoid4 ,but to the subject4 ,it has been very distinctly shown1 ,i think1 from the reasoning of the ,calvinists themselves1 and from the nature of the case1 that there can be no such intermediate theory as they contend for1 between the native impotency of old ,calvinism and ,pelagianism4 ,but as this is an important point1 ,i will illustrate it farther by an examination of the seat of this ,calvinistic depravity4 ,it is seen1 by the quotation above from ,mr4 ,harvey1 that he considers depravity as seated in nothing but the will4 ,and this is avowedly the sentiment of at least all those ,calvinists who believe in natural ability4 ,it is on this ground that they reiterate incessantly1 ,you can if you will2 ,there is no difficulty except what is found in a perverse will4 ,it is on this ground1 also1 that they tell us a right choice is conversion4 ,they do not say a right choice is a condition or a fruit of the new birth2 but it is itself the new birth4 ,but to understand this subject clearly1 it is important to know what they mean by the will4 ,it appears to me they use this term with great indefiniteness1 if not latitude of meaning4 ,if they mean by this what ,i understand to be the legitimate meaning of the term the mental power or susceptibility of putting forth volitions2 then to say that all depravity is seated in the will1 is to be guilty of the gross absurdity of teaching that the affections have not a moral character4 ,if by the will1 however1 they mean1 as they frequently seem to mean1 the affections themselves going out in desire after some proposed good1 then indeed they establish the ,new-,haven theory1 that all sin consists in moral exercise4 ,thus by placing all depravity in the will1 whether by this is meant the power of willing1 or the exercise of the affections1 they1 in the one case1 exclude sin from the affections altogether1 and in the other affirm the doctrine of ,pelagianism4 ,but if by the will they mean something different from either of the above definitions1 then ,i frankly confess ,i know not what they mean4 ,should they however1 change their ground1 and place the seat of this depravity in the constitution of man's moral nature1 as it exists anterior to any act of volition1 then and in that case they throw the subject back on the old ground of natural impotency2 for to talk of a natural power to change the moral constitution1 as it existed prior to choice1 and which constitution must1 by the law of its nature1 exercise a controlling influence over the mind1 is the same as to talk of a natural power to alter one's own nature1 or to unmake and remake himself4 ,in this case we must have supernatural aid1 or we must remain as we are4 ,we shall not be fully prepared to judge correctly on this subject until we have examined one more preliminary question1 viz4 ,what is the precise meaning that we are to attach to the terms1 natural and moral ability1 as used by the ,calvinists8 ,to ascertain this1 ,i have examined such authors as ,i have had access to1 with care2 and ,i have been particular to consult recent authors1 that ,i might not be accused of charging old and exploded doctrines upon our opposers2 and various authors1 that ,i might ascertain any varieties that appertain to the different ,calvinistic schools4 ,in particular1 the author of ,views in ,theology2 ,dr4 ,griffin1 in a late work on ,divine ,efficiency2 ,rev4 ,tyler ,thatcher1 of the ,hopkinsian school2 and a doctrinal tract1 entitled1 ,man a ,free ,agent without the ,aid of ,divine ,grace1 written1 it is presumed1 by one of the divines of the ,new-,haven school have been consulted4 ,there is among them all a remarkable uniformity on this point4 ,if ,i understand them1 the substance of what they say is1 ,natural power consists in the possession of understanding1 conscience1 and will2 and moral power is the exercise of these faculties4 ,mr4 ,thatcher says this in so many words4--,the tract alluded to gives this definition of natural power4 ,dr4 ,griffin says their sinners' faculties constitute a natural ability1 that is1 a full power to love and serve ,god1 if their hearts are well disposed4 ,it certainly must appear1 at the first glance1 very singular to every mind not embarrassed by theory1 that either the possession of faculties1 or the exercise of faculties1 should be called power4 ,the idea of power is supposed1 by the best philosophical writers1 to be undefinable1 from the fact that it is a simple idea2 but here1 strange to tell1 we have it analyzed in two different forms4 ,faculties are power--the exercise of faculties is power4 ,now1 although we cannot define power1 every one doubtless has a clear conception of it2 and ,i humbly conceive that the common sense of every man will decide that neither of the above definitions embraces the true idea of power4 ,the exercise of faculties implies power1 it is granted2 but every one must see that it is not power itself4 ,and although the faculties of the mind are sometimes called the powers of the mind by a kind of borrowed use of the term power1 just as the limbs or muscles are called the powers of the body1 yet it requires very little discrimination to see that as we may possess these powers of the body entire1 and yet they be defective from some cause1 as to some of their appropriate functions1 so we may possess these powers or faculties of mind entire1 and yet they may be defective in that moral strength necessary to a holy choice4 ,hence the possession of these faculties does not even imply power adequate to a holy choice2 much less are they power itself4 ,i marvel therefore at these definitions of moral and natural power1 and am thereby confirmed in the opinion advanced in my former number1 viz4 ,that the whole of this distinction 7of natural and moral ability7 and the reasoning from it1 proceed on the ground of a most unphilosophical analysis of mind1 and an unwarranted definition of terms4 ,this may seem a strong statement from so humble an individual as myself1 in view of the many able minds that have adopted the opinions here opposed4 ,but neither their opinion nor mine will weigh much1 in this controversy1 except as sustained by reasonable arguments2 and by such arguments the present writer expects to stand or fall4 ,look then1 reader1 to both sides of this subject4 ,dr4 ,griffin himself seems to be at a loss how to explain himself on this subject4 ,when he wishes to oppose the ,new-,haven divines1 and guard against their error1 he says1 ,if you mean by power1 an ability that works without ,divine efficiency1 ,i hope ,i shall be the last to believe that4 ,and every body knows that the mass of the ,new-,england divines1 from the beginning1 have acknowledged no such doctrine4 ,and why is ,divine efficiency necessary8--,because man has no ability that will work1 without it4 ,thus the moment he sets up a guard against ,pelagianism1 he throws himself back either upon our doctrine1 or upon the old ,calvinistic doctrine of native impotency4 ,there is no standing place any where else4 ,the ,new-,haven divines are right1 if natural ability is right2 and the time cannot be far distant when the love of consistency will drive all1 who hold to natural ability1 either on to the ,new ,divinity ground1 or back to old ,calvinism4 ,from this remark the reader will see how much depends1 if my views are correct1 upon the proper adjustment of this question4 ,it is in fact the turning point1 which is to give a character to the theology of the ,churches4 ,let us not then be in haste to pass over it4 ,hear ,dr4 ,griffin farther4 ,now if you ask me what is that power1 which is never exerted without ,divine efficiency8 ,i can only say1 that1 in the account of the ,divine mind1 it is the proper basis of obligation1 and therefore by the decision of common sense1 must be called a power4 ,the doctor had a little before told us1 that this power was faculties--he is not satisfied with this2 and what well instructed mind1 like the doctor's1 could be8 ,it is something that forms the basis of obligation1 he knows not what it is4 ,he merely infers there is such a power1 because men are held responsible4 ,but this inference will flow quite as naturally1 by taking the ,arminian ground of gracious ability1 and save the other difficulties beside4 ,at any rate1 it will save the absurdity of holding to an ability1 that will not work1 without being strengthened by ,divine aid1 and yet that this same ability is sufficient for all purposes of obligation without that aid4 ,we shall find equal difficulty1 if we take up and examine this definition of moral power4 ,it is the exercise of natural power4 ,but these same writers tell us that1 while we have this natural power sufficient without ,divine grace to form a basis of obligation1 we are entirely dependent upon ,god's grace for moral power--in other words1 according to the definition of moral power1 we are dependent upon grace for the exercise of our natural power--and since natural power means the faculties of the understanding1 will1 and conscience--the statement is simply and evidently this3 we are dependent upon ,divine grace for the exercise of our understanding1 conscience1 and will1 in making a holy choice4 ,why8 ,because the understanding1 conscience1 and will are so depraved by nature1 that it is not in their nature to work in this exercise1 without this ,divine grace4 ,is not this holding the gracious ability after all8 ,is it singular then that ,dr4 ,griffin should say1 in another place--,they 7sinners7 are bound to go forth to their work at once1 but they are not bound to go alone3 it is their privilege and duty to cast themselves instantly on the ,holy ,ghost1 and not to take a single step in their own strength8 ,or is it any wonder that the ,christian ,spectator should say1 that this statement of ,dr4 ,griffin brings him directly on the ground of evangelical ,arminianism8 ,and is this the ability that the mass of the ,new-,england divines have held to from the beginning8 ,not exactly4 ,they only slide over on this ground occasionally1 when they are pressed hard with ,pelagianism on the one hand1 and the old doctrine of passivity on the other4 ,for the truth is1 as before remarked1 they have not a single point to balance themselves upon between these two1 only as they light upon our ground4 ,there is still another difficulty in this moral power1 as it is called4 ,it implies the absurdity1 that power to obey ,god is obedience itself4 ,for a right exercise of our natural powers is obedience4 ,but the right exercise of our natural power is moral power--therefore ,our moral power to obey ,god is obedience66 ,and this will give us a clue to the proper understanding of that oft-repeated ,calvinistic saying--,you have power to obey ,god1 if your heart is rightly disposed1 or in short hand--,you can if you will4 ,now the verb will here evidently means the right exercise of the natural faculties--that is1 as shown above1 it means obedience4 ,hence the whole and proper meaning of this notable saying is--,you have power to obey ,god1 if you obey him4 ,you can if you do4 ,this is a sort of logic which1 when scanned down to its naked character1 one would get as little credit in refuting1 as its abettors are entitled to for its invention and use4 ,and yet this is the logic which1 in its borrowed and fictitious costume has led thousands in our land to suppose that ,calvinism1 as it is now modified1 is the same1 or nearly the same with ,methodism4 ,there is still another striking solecism1 necessarily connected with this definition of power4 ,it supposes it to have no actual existence1 until the necessity for it ceases4 ,for in the order of cause and effect1 natural power effects the act of obedience2 and this effect of natural power1 producing obedience1 gives existence to moral power4 ,thus we have power to obey1 super-added to the power that has actually obeyed6 ,if1 however1 ,calvinists say this is treating the subject unfairly1 because their very definition shows that they do not mean by it any thing which enables man to obey--,i answer1 that my reasoning went upon the ground1 that it was what they call it--power2 and if they do not mean power1 that is only acknowledging the position ,i started upon1 that this ,calvinistic power is no power at all4 ,and here ,i ask1 in the name of candour1 ,what is the use of calling things by wrong names8 ,what confusion and error may not be introduced by applying common and well defined terms in such a manner1 that1 when the things to which they are applied1 are defined1 it is seen that the terms thus applied are worse than useless2 they directly mislead the mind6 ,it is the direct way to bring ,christian theology and ,christian ministers into distrust and reproach4 ,one thought more1 with respect to this moral power1 and ,i will pass on4 ,the doctrine of ,calvinism is1 if ,i understand it1 that ,god controls the natural power of men1 by means of their moral power4 ,this some of them expressly affirm4 ,and to show that ,i am not mistaken with respect to the others1 let the reader carefully attend to the following considerations4 ,what is it secures the fulfilment of the ,divine decrees1 in respect to the elect and the reprobate8 ,why do not some of the reprobates1 in the use of natural ability1 repent and get to heaven8 ,because they have not the moral power4 ,why do not some of the elect1 in the use of the same ability1 fall into sin and finally perish8 ,because ,god makes and keeps them willing in the day of his power--that is1 he irresistibly imparts to them this moral power4 ,thus1 by means of this1 which he keeps in his own hands he executes his decrees4 ,for ,god1 of set purpose1 so constituted this natural power1 that it does not work without ,divine efficiency4 ,by moral power2 therefore1 natural power is controlled4 ,now1 to say nothing here of the absurdity of efficiently and irresistibly controlling one power by another1 and yet calling that other the essence of free agency1 and the basis of obligation--look at the absurdity in another point of view4 ,since moral power is the exercise of natural power1 the former must be the effect of the latter4 ,and since1 according to ,calvinism1 natural power is controlled by moral power1 it follows conclusively2 that the effect controls its cause66 ,and since the cause must act1 before the effect is produced1 it follows that the effect1 before it has an existence1 acts upon its cause to produce its own existence666 ,this is certainly a nullification of both cause and effect3 ,such are some of the difficulties of these definitions of power--definitions as contrary to the common understandings of men1 and the common laws of language1 as they are to sound philosophy--definitions which1 if they were always understood1 when the terms were used2 would make the propositions in which these terms are found1 sound very differently to the common ear4 ,i trust therefore it has been made to appear1 that this distinction of natural and moral ability1 and the reasonings upon it1 are founded on a most unphilosophical analysis of mind and an unwarranted definition of terms1 and that1 after all the efforts of the ,calvinists to find out another alternative1 they will be under the necessity1 if they would be consistent1 either of going back to the old ,calvinistic ground1 of remediless impotency1 or of advancing on to the ,pelagian ground of the ,new ,divinity2 or they must accept of the ,arminian theory of gracious ability4 ,and that the reader may be prepared to make his selection1 ,i will here remind him of the arguments adduced in favour of the latter doctrine1 in the last number1 while ,i next proceed to answer more specifically the objections that have been urged against it1 which however for an obvious reason must be withheld until the next number4 ,,number ,,xii4 ,,objections ,,to ,,gracious ,,ability ,,answered4 ,in consulting different authors to find the strongest objections that have been urged against our doctrine of ability by grace1 ,i have fixed upon the doctrinal tract1 already alluded to1 entitled1 ,man a ,free ,agent without the ,aid of ,divine ,grace1 as concentrating in a small compass1 and in a clear and able manner1 the sum total of these objections4 ,i may not follow the precise order of this writer1 and possibly shall pass over some of his remarks as of minor importance2 but the substance of his reasoning shall receive such notice as ,i shall be able to give it4 #a4 ,the first objection is1 in substance1 this3 that without being a free agent man cannot be man2 that free agency in fact enters into the very definition of an intelligent1 morally responsible being2 and therefore he must be such by nature4 ,this objection gains all its plausibility from the writer's definition of free agency4 ,it consists1 he says1 in the possession of understanding1 conscience1 and will4 ,now we grant that the being who possesses these is an intelligent voluntary agent4 ,but these faculties1 as we have seen1 may be disordered1 so that1 for all holy purposes1 they may be defective4 ,the understanding may be darkened1 the conscience may be seared1 the power to choose good may be weakened either positively or relatively4 ,liberty is a distinct faculty of the soul2 and as such is as subject to derangement as any other mental susceptibility4 ,it has1 we say1 suffered materially by the fall2 so that man has not his original aptitude or facility to good4 ,and whether we consider this as a weakness appertaining directly to the faculty of the will itself1 or whether we consider it a relative weakness1 7which is probably the more philosophical17 resulting from the loss of a moral equilibrium in the mind1 by reason of the uncontrolled sway of the passions1 in either case the primary cause and the practical result are the same4 ,sin has perverted the soul1 and given it an unholy declination from righteousness to an extent which none but ,god can rectify4 ,with this view of the subject1 the writer may call man a free agent if he pleases2 but he is only free to unrighteousness1 and not to holiness4 ,our objector was aware that his argument might be disposed of in this way2 and hence in a note he says1 ,some writers speak of man1 in his natural state1 as free only to evil4 ,but in what does such freedom differ from mere instinct8 ,with no power to do otherwise1 how is he who murders a fellow creature more criminal than the tiger1 or even a falling rock that destroys him8 ,the fallacy of this argument consists chiefly in a misrepresentation of our theory4 ,instead of holding that man has no power to do otherwise1 we believe1 as much as this author1 that man has ample power at his command to do otherwise2 but that this power is of grace1 and not of nature4 ,any farther supposed difficulties growing out of this view of the subject will be explained1 ,i trust satisfactorily1 as we advance4#f #b4 ,every man is conscious that he possesses the faculties which constitute free agency4--,here again we must keep in view the writer's definition4 ,we shall find no difficulty in granting that every man is conscious that he possesses the faculties of understanding1 conscience1 and will2 but that these1 unaided by grace1 constitute man free to a holy choice1 is denied2 and this is the very question in debate4 ,to affirm it therefore in argument is begging the question4 ,it however1 the author means to say1 as his reasoning on this point seems to imply1 that man is conscious of being a free agent1 in the responsible sense of the term1 this is also granted2 but then this does not touch the question whether this power is of grace or of nature4 ,but1 says the writer1 ,when man1 under the influence of grace1 does choose the good1 he is not conscious of any new faculty or power to choose1 but only he uses that power in a different manner4 ,the power or faculty which chooses evil and which chooses good1 is the same power differently used4 ,whoever disputed this8--understanding by power a faculty of the soul1 as this author evidently does4 ,we all acknowledge that the soul gets no new faculties by grace2 but we believe that the mind1 in the exercise of its natural faculties1 is assisted by grace to make a right choice4 ,but1 says the writer1 in this connection1 ,power to choose between two objects is power to choose either4 ,if the writer means to say that power to choose either the one or the other of two objects is power to choose either--this is an identical proposition3 it is only saying1 ,if a thing is1 it is4 ,but if he means to say1 when two objects are presented to the mind1 and the mind finds itself possessed of a power to attach itself voluntarily to one1 that therefore it has the same power to attach itself to the other1 this is denied2 and as no proof is given or pretended by the objector1 nothing but a denial is necessary4 ,on this point the founder of the ,calvinistic school was undoubtedly correct--philosophically and theologically correct--when he said1 ,man has not an equally free election of good and evil4 ,but that ,i may meet this objection founded on consciousness1 full in the face1 ,i am prepared to assert1 and ,i think prove1 that man1 so far from being conscious that he has by nature adequate power to serve ,god1 is conscious of the very reverse of this4 ,what truly awakened sinner has not a deep conviction of his utter helplessness8 ,how many experiences of intelligent and pious ,calvinists could ,i quote on this point8 ,as a specimen take that of the ,rev4 ,david ,brainerd1 who stands high in the ,church1 not only among ,calvinists1 but among all ,christians who know him4 ,i quote a passage from his experience quoted by ,dr4 ,griffin3 ,i saw that it was utterly impossible for me to do any thing toward helping or delivering myself4 ,i had the greatest certainty that my state was for ever miserable for all that ,i could do1 and wondered that ,i had never been sensible of it before4--,this passage is very strong2 too unqualified1 perhaps1 but it is the natural language of a weak sinner1 convinced1 as all must be before they can become strong1 of their utter helplessness without grace4 ,how fully does such a one prove the truth of ,scripture1 that the natural man receiveth not the things of the ,spirit of ,god1 for they are foolishness unto him1 neither can he know them1 for they are spiritually discerned2 that no man knoweth the ,father1 but the ,son1 and he to whom the ,son shall reveal him4 ,hence the necessity that the ,spirit should take of the things of ,jesus ,christ1 and show them unto them4 ,indeed1 but for this darkness and weakness of the understanding1 the penitent sinner would not feel the necessity of the agency of the ,spirit3 nor would it in fact be necessary4 ,it is on this ground that the doctrine of natural ability has led to the idea of conversion by moral suasion4 ,thus it is evident that a man may be conscious of having an understanding1 but at the same time be as fully conscious that that understanding is too dark and weak for holy purposes1 unaided by grace4 ,the same is also true of conscience4 ,experience teaches us that it often becomes languid or dead1 and needs quickening4 ,hence the ,christian often prays-- ,quick as the apple of an eye1 ,o ,god6 my conscience make2 ,awake my soul when sin is nigh1 ,and keep it still awake4 ,hence also we pray ,god to alarm the conscience of sinners4 ,so also we learn from ,scripture and experience that the conscience needs purging from dead works1 for the very object that we may be able to serve ,god with filial fear2 we learn also that we may have defiled consciences1 weak consciences1 seared consciences1 c4 ,and here let it be noticed1 that whether we understand these passages as applying to the regenerate or unregenerate1 to derived depravity or contracted depravity1 the argument against the objector will in every case apply with resistless force1 viz4 it shows that this faculty of the soul may become so disordered as to have its original healthy action impaired1 and that in this case nothing can give it its original sensibility and strength but the ,god who made it4 ,if sin does disorder the conscience1 it disordered ,adam's3 and if he begat children in his own moral likeness1 then his posterity had a similar conscience4 ,and therefore it is necessary that1 as by the offence of the first ,adam sin abounded1 so by the obedience of the second1 grace may abound in a way directly to meet the evil4 ,let us next examine the will4 ,are we not conscious that this also is weak8 ,how repeatedly does the awakened sinner resolve and fail6 until he becomes deeply impressed that he is without strength6 ,he tries to keep the law1 but cannot2 for he finds that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of ,god1 neither indeed can be4 ,hear his complaint6 and that we may be sure of taking a genuine case1 let us select a ,bible experience from ,rom4 vii2 ,i am carnal1 sold under sin4 7,how much liberty to serve ,god has a bond slave to sin87 ,that which ,i do ,i allow not2 for what ,i would do that ,i do not1 but what ,i hate that do ,i4 ,to will is present with me1 but how to perform that which is good1 ,i find not1 c4 7,see through the chapter47 ,hear him finally exclaim1 in self despair1 ,who shall deliver me from the body of this death8 ,why1 ,saul of ,tarsus6 are you not conscious that you have understanding1 conscience1 and will8 ,why make such an exclamation8 ,who shall deliver you8 ,deliver yourself4 ,no6 such philosophy and such theology were not known to this writer1 neither as a penitent sinner1 nor as an inspired apostle4 ,i thank ,god1 through ,jesus ,christ my ,lord4--,the law of the spirit of life1 in ,christ ,jesus1 hath made me free from the law the controlling power of sin and death4 ,should any one say that the apostle was not describing his conversion here1 but his experience as a ,christian believer1 ,i reply3 ,if any thing1 that would make the passage so much the stronger for my present purpose2 for if these things are done in the green tree1 what shall be done in the dry8 ,if a saint--one who has been washed and renewed--finds nevertheless that his will is so weak as to need the continued grace of ,god to enable him to do the things that he would1 much more is this true of the unrenewed sinner4 ,if this account of the apostle's experience means any thing1 it is as express a contradiction of the doctrine1 that we have natural strength to serve ,god1 as could be put into words4 ,and ,i am bold to say that this is the experience of all ,christians4 ,and it presents an argument against the doctrine of natural ability which no metaphysical reasoning can overthrow--not indeed an argument to prove that we have not understanding1 conscience1 and will2 but to show that1 having these in a disordered and debilitated state1 grace is indispensable to aid them1 in order to an efficient holy choice4 ,how often soever the judgment may be brought to a preference of the ,divine law1 it will as often be carried away by the strength of the unholy passions until it is delivered by the grace of our ,lord ,jesus ,christ4 ,we are conscious therefore that we have not natural power to keep the ,divine law4 #c4 ,but it is objected again1 that the ,scriptures require us to use our natural faculties in the service of ,god2 and hence the inference is1 that these faculties are adequate to this service4 ,it is certainly no objection to our doctrine1 that the ,scriptures1 dealing with man as he is1 require him to use his natural powers to serve ,god4 ,with what other powers should he serve him8 ,i again repeat that the question is not1 whether we have mental faculties1 nor whether man may or can serve ,god with these faculties1 but simply whether the command to obey is given independently of the considerations of grace4 ,we say it is not2 and in proof refer to the ,scriptures1 which give a promise corresponding with every command1 and assurances of gracious aid suited to every duty--all of which most explicitly imply1 not only man's need1 but also the ground on which the command is predicated4 ,and with this idea agrees the alleged condemnation1 so often presented in the ,scriptures3 ,this is the condemnation1 that light has come into the world1 and men have loved darkness4 ,he that believeth not is condemned already4 ,but they grieved his ,holy ,spirit1 therefore he is turned to be their enemy4 ,how shall we escape1 if we neglect so great salvation4 ,these1 and many other passages1 show that the turning point of guilt and condemnation is not so much the abuse of natural powers1 as the neglect and abuse of grace bestowed4 ,this point may be illustrated by ,christ's healing the withered hand4 ,he commanded the man to stretch it forth4 ,what was the ground of that command1 and what was implied in it8 ,the ground of it was1 that aid would be given him to do it2 otherwise the command to stretch forth a palsied limb would have been unreasonable4 ,and yet it was understood that the man was to have no new muscles1 or nerves1 or bones1 to accomplish this with2 but he was to use those he had1 assisted1 as they would be1 by the gracious power of ,god4 ,so man1 it is true1 is commanded to use his natural powers in obeying ,god2 but not without ,divine aid1 the promise of which is always either expressed or implied in the command4 #d4 ,the ,scriptures ascribe no other inability to man to obey ,god1 but that which consists in or results from the perversion of those faculties which constitute him a moral agent4 ,it is true1 the ,scriptures blame man for his inability--for inability they certainly ascribe to him1 and why8 ,because where sin abounded grace has much more abounded4 ,that sinners are perverse and unprepared for holy obedience up to this hour is undoubtedly their own fault1 for grace has been beforehand with them4 ,it met them at the very threshold of their moral agency1 with every thing necessary to meet their case4 ,it has dug about the fruitless fig tree4 ,it has laid the foundation to say justly1 ,what more could ,i have done for my vineyard8 ,if the sinner has rejected all this1 and has increased his depravity by actual transgression1 then indeed is he justly chargeable for all his embarrassments and moral weakness1 for he has voluntarily assumed to himself the responsibility of his native depravity1 and he has added to this the accumulated guilt of his repeated sins4 #e4 ,it is farther objected1 with a good deal of confidence1 that ,arminians1 after all1 make man's natural power the ground and measure of his guilt1 since no part of his free agency arises from furnished grace1 but it consists simply inability to use or abuse that grace1 and of course in an ability distinct from1 and not produced by the grace4 ,let us see1 however1 if there is not some sophistry covered up here4 ,arminians do not mean that man's ability to use grace is independent of1 and separate from the grace itself4 ,they say that man's powers are directly assisted by grace1 so that through this assistance they have ability or strength in those powers which before they had not1 to make a right choice4 ,to talk of ability to use gracious ability1 in any other sense1 would be absurd4 ,it would be like talking of strength to use strength--of being able to be able4 ,this absurdity1 however1 appears to me justly chargeable upon the natural ability theory1 taken in connection with the ,scripture account of this matter4 ,the ,scriptures instruct us to look to ,god for strength2 that he gives us power to become the children of ,god2 that he strengthens with might in the inner man1 that we may be able1 c4 ,this theory1 however1 tells us that we have an ability back of this2 an ability on which our responsibility turns1 and by means of which we can become partakers of the grace of the ,gospel4 ,this is certainly to represent the ,divine ,being as taking measures to make ability able1 and adding power to make adequate strength sufficiently strong4--,such is the work of supererogation which this theory charges upon the ,gospel1 for which its advocates alone are answerable2 but let them not1 without better ground1 attempt to involve us in such an absurdity4 ,but the strongest objections1 in the opinion of those who differ from us1 are yet to come4 ,they are of a doctrinal1 rather than of a philosophical character1 and are therefore more tangible1 and will1 for this reason1 perhaps1 be more interesting to the generality of readers4 ,let us have patience1 then1 to follow them out4 #f4 ,doctrinal ,objections4--,on the ground of gracious ability it is objected that1 #a4 ,as the consequence of ,adam's fall1 ,adam himself and all his posterity became incapable of committing another sin4 #b4 ,every sinful action performed in this world1 since the fall of ,adam1 has been the effect of supernatural grace4 #c4 ,man needed the grace of ,god1 not because he was wicked1 but because he was weak4 #d4 ,the moral difference between one man and another is not to be ascribed to ,god4 #e4 ,the posterity of ,adam needed no ,saviour to atone for actual sin4 #f4 ,this opinion is inconsistent with the doctrine of grace4 #g4 ,there can be no guilt in the present rebellion of the infernal regions4 #h4 ,is not this grace a greater calamity to our race than the fall of ,adam8 ,i have thrown these objections together1 and presented them in connection to the reader1 for the reason that they all rest mainly on one or two erroneous assumptions1 to correct which will be substantially to answer them all4 ,one erroneous assumption of this writer is1 that there is no free agency to do wrong1 which is not adequate to do right4 ,this writer seems to think this a self-evident proposition1 which needs no proof2 for although he has used it in argument a number of times1 he has left it unsustained by any thing but his naked assertion4 ,this proposition has already been denied1 and an unqualified denial is all that in fairness can be claimed by an antagonist to meet an unqualified assertion4 ,our object1 however1 is truth1 and not victory4 ,let me request you then1 reader1 to look at this proposition4 ,can you see any self-evident proof of this assertion8 ,if the ,creator should give existence to an intelligent being1 and infuse into his created nature the elements of unrighteousness1 and give to his faculties an irresistible bias to sin1 and all this without providing a remedy1 or a way for escape1 then indeed all our notions of justice would decide that such a being ought not to be held responsible4 ,but this is not the case with any of the sinful beings of ,god's moral government4--,not of the fallen angels1 for they had original power to stand1 but abused it and fell--not of fallen man1 for in the first place his is not a created depravity2 but1 in the case of ,adam1 it was contracted by voluntary transgression when he had power to stand2 and in the case of his posterity1 it is derived and propagated in the ordinary course of generation3 and in the second place1 a remedy is provided which meets the exigencies of man's moral condition1 at the very commencement of his being4 ,this it does by graciously preventing the imputation of guilt until man is capable of an intelligent survey of his moral condition2 for as by the offence of one1 judgment came upon all men unto condemnation3 even so1 by the righteousness of one1 the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life4 ,and when man becomes capable of moral action1 this same gracious remedy is suited to remove his native depravity1 and to justify him from the guilt of actual transgression2 for if we confess our sins1 he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins1 and cleanse us from all unrighteousness4 ,it does not appear1 then1 either from the obvious character of the proposition itself2 or from the condition of sinful beings1 that the same free agency which enables a man to do wrong1 will enable him also to do right4 ,hence it is not true that ,adam1 by the fall1 lost his power to sin1 or that there is now no sin in the infernal regions4 ,it is true1 the writer tries to sustain this idea farther1 by asserting that that ceases to be a moral wrong which is unavoidable2 for no being can be held responsible for doing what is unavoidable4 ,this is little better1 however1 than a reiteration of the former assumption4 ,if the character and conduct of a being are not now1 and never have been avoidable1 then indeed he ought not to have guilt imputed to him4 ,but to say that there is no moral wrong in the case1 is to say that characters and actions are not wrong in themselves1 even where it would not be just to impute guilt4 ,and this is an idea which is implied also in another part of this writer's reasoning2 for he tells us that1 according to the doctrine of gracious ability every sinful action performed in this world1 since the fall of ,adam1 has been the effect of supernatural grace2 and that man needed the grace of ,god1 not because he was wicked1 but because he was weak1 c4 ,this reasoning1 or rather these propositions1 are predicated on the assumption1 that there is no moral wrong where there is no existing ability to do right3 in other words1 that dispositions and acts of intelligent beings are not in themselves holy or unholy1 but are so only in reference to the existing power of the being who is the subject of these dispositions and acts4 ,but is this correct8 ,sin may certainly exist where it would not be just to impute it to the sinner4 ,for the apostle tells us that until the law sin was in the world2 and yet he adds1 ,sin is not imputed 7he does not say sin does not exist17 where there is no law4 ,the fact there are certain dispositions and acts that are in their nature opposite to holiness1 whatever may be the power of the subject at the time he possesses this character or performs these acts4 ,sin is sin1 and holiness is holiness1 under all circumstances4 ,they have a positive1 and not merely a relative existence4 ,and although they have not existence abstract from an agent possessing understanding1 conscience1 and will1 still they may have an existence abstractly from the power of being or doing otherwise at the time4 ,if not1 then the new-born infant has no moral character1 or he has power to become holy with his first breath4 ,whether the subject of this unavoidable sin shall be responsible for it1 is a question to be decided by circumstances4 ,if a being has had power1 and lost it by his own avoidable act1 then indeed he is responsible for his impotency--his very weakness becomes his crime1 and every act of omission or commission resulting from his moral impotency1 is justly imputed to him1 the assertion of our objector to the contrary notwithstanding4 ,hence it is incorrect to say there is now no guilt in the rebellion of the infernal regions4 ,it is of little consequence whether1 in this case1 you assume that all the guilt is in the first act1 by which the ability to do good was lost1 or in each successive act of sin1 which was the unavoidable consequence of the first4 ,in either case1 the acts that follow are the measure of the guilt2 and hence1 according to the nature of the mind1 the consciousness of guilt will be constantly felt1 as the acts occur4 ,for all practical purposes1 therefore1 the sense of guilt1 and the ,divine administration of justice will be the same in either view of the subject4 ,the writer supposes the case of a servant's cutting off his hands to avoid his daily task1 and says1 this he is to blame1 and ought to be punished2 but thinks he ought not to be punished for his subsequent deficiencies4 ,but ,i ask1 ,how much is he to blame1 and to what extent should he be punished8 ,his guilt and punishment are to be measured1 certainly1 by the amount of wrong he has done his master--that is1 by every act of omission consequent upon this act1 which rendered these omissions unavoidable4 ,therefore he is justly punishable for every act of omission2 and you may refer this whole punishment to the first act exclusively1 or to all the acts separately3 it amounts to the same thing in the practical administration of government and of justice4 ,indeed1 to say that each succeeding act is to be brought up and taken into the estimate1 in order to fix the quantum of punishment1 is to acknowledge that these succeeding acts are sins2 else why should they be brought into the account at all1 in estimating guilt and punishment8 ,take another case4 ,the drunkard destroys or suspends the right use of his reason1 and then murders4 ,is he to be held innocent of the murder because he was drunk8 or was the whole guilt of the murder to be referred to the act of getting intoxicated8 ,if you say the former1 then no man is to be punished for any crime committed in a fit of intoxication2 and one has only to get intoxicated in order to be innocent4 ,if you say the latter1 then1 as getting drunk is the same in one case as another1 every inebriate is guilty of murder1 and whatever other crimes drunkeness may occasion1 or has occasioned4 ,is either of these suppositions correct8 ,shall we not rather say that the inebriate's guilt is to be measured by the aggregate of crimes flowing from the voluntary act of drowning his reason8 ,and so in the case before us4 ,instead then of saying1 that on our principles there is no guilt in the present rebellion of the infernal regions1 ,i would say that their present rebellion is the fruits and measure of their guilt4 ,thus we see1 that a being who has had power and lost it1 is guilty of his present acts4 ,and by examination we shall find that by how much we enhance the estimated guilt of the first act1 it is by borrowing so much from the acts of iniquity which follow4 ,and will you then turn round and say1 the acts which follow have no guilt8 ,why have they no guilt8 ,evidently because you have taken the amount of that guilt and attached it to the first act4 ,and does this make these acts in themselves innocent8 ,the idea is preposterous4 ,as well may you say that the filthy streams of a polluted fountain are not impure in themselves1 because but for the fountain they would not be impure2 as to say that the current of unholy volitions which unavoidably flows from a perverted heart is not unholy and criminal4 ,another clearly erroneous assumption of this writer is1 that if it would be unjust for the ,divine ,being to leave his plan unfinished1 after it is begun1 the whole plan must be predicated on justice1 and not on grace4 ,it is true1 he has not said this1 in so many words1 but his reasoning implies it4 ,for he says this scheme of gracious ability annihilates the whole doctrine of grace4 ,because ,god1 if he held man accountable1 was bound to give him this ability1 as a matter of justice2 hence it is not an ability by grace1 but an ability by justice4 ,the whole of this reasoning1 and much more1 goes upon the principle1 that the completion of a plan of grace1 after it is begun1 cannot be claimed on the scale of justice1 without making the whole a plan of justice4 ,but is this true8 ,is not a father1 after he has been instrumental of bringing a son into the world1 bound in justice to provide for and educate him8 ,and yet does not the son owe a debt of gratitude to that father1 when he has done all this8 ,if a physician should cut off the limb of a poor man1 to save his life1 is he not bound in justice1 after he has commenced the operation1 to take up the arteries and save the man from dying1 by the operation4 ,and if he should not do it1 would he not be called a wanton and cruel wretch8 ,and yet in both these cases the persons may be unworthy4 ,the son may show much obliquity of moral principle1 and yet the father should bear with him1 and discipline him4 ,the man on whom the physician operated may be poor and perverse4 ,here then are cases in which justice demands that un merited favour begun should be continued1 or else what was favour in the commencement1 and what would be favour in the whole1 would nevertheless by its incompleteness1 be most manifest injustice4 ,such is the state of the question in respect to the ,divine administration4 ,the whole race of man had become obnoxious to the ,divine displeasure1 in their representative and federal head1 by reason of his sin4 ,this is expressly stated3 ,by the offence of one1 judgment came upon all men to condemnation4 ,in ,adam all die4 ,in this situation we may suppose that the strict justice of the law required punishment in the very character in which the offence was committed4 ,adam personally and consciously sinned2 and so1 according to justice1 he must suffer4 ,the prospective generations of men1 existing seminally in him1 as they had not consciously and personally sinned1 could1 in justice1 only experience the effects of the curse in the same character in which they sinned1 viz4 passively and seminally1 unless provision could be made1 by which1 in their personal existence1 they might free themselves from the effects of sin4 ,now ,god1 in the plenitude of his wisdom and grace1 saw fit to make provision for a new probation for man1 on the basis of a covenant of grace1 the different parts of which are all to be viewed together1 in order to judge of their character4 ,in this covenant ,adam had a new trial2 and when the promise was made to him he stood in the same relation to his posterity as he did when he sinned1 and the curse was out against him4 ,if1 by the latter1 the prospective generations of men were justly cut off from possible existence2 by the former this existence was mercifully secured to them4 ,if by the corruption of the race1 through sin1 the possibility of salvation was cut off1 on all known principles of administrative justice2 by the provisions of grace the possibility of salvation was secured to the whole race2 and this possibility implies every necessary provision to render grace available and efficient1 in accordance with moral responsibility4 ,if ,god1 who spared not his own ,son1 but freely gave him up for us all1 had not with him also freely given us all things necessary for our salvation1 would not the ,divine procedure have been characterized both by folly and injustice8 ,if his plan of grace had only gone so far as to have given us a conscious being1 without giving us the means of making that existence happy1 would it not have been wanton cruelty8 ,and yet1 taking the whole together1 who does not see that it is a most stupendous system of grace1 from the foundation to the top-stone8 ,let us not then be guilty of such manifest folly1 as to take a part of the ,divine administration1 and make up a judgment upon that1 as viewed independently of the rest1 and then transfer this abstract character to the whole4 ,as in chemical combinations1 though one of the ingredients taken alone might be deleterious1 yet the compound may be nutritious or salutary1 so in the new covenant1 if we separate legal exactions and penalties from gracious provisions1 the operations of the former may be unjust and cruel1 yet the whole1 united as ,god hath combined them1 may be an administration of unparalleled grace4 ,it is in this heavenly combination that mercy and truth are met together1 righteousness and peace have kissed each other4 ,now1 therefore1 if we confess our sins1 he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins1 for on this ground he can be just and the justifier of them that believe4 ,although justice is thus involved in the system1 and to leave out part of the system would be manifest injustice1 yet the whole is the blessed ,gospel2 the ,gospel of the grace of ,god4 ,it is objected1 ,i know1 that the idea that1 but for the provisions of the ,gospel1 man would not have propagated his species1 is fanciful and unauthorized by ,scripture4 ,the ,scriptures1 ,i grant1 do not strike off into speculations about what ,god might have done1 or would have done1 if he had not done as he has4 ,this is foreign from their design2 and ,i am perfectly willing to let the whole stand as the ,scriptures present it4 ,but when our opponents set the example of raising an objection to what we think the true system1 by passing judgment on a part1 viewed abstractly1 we must meet them4 ,on their own ground1 then1 ,i would say1 the idea that man would have been allowed to propagate his species1 without any provisions of grace1 is altogether fanciful and unauthorized by ,scripture4 ,will it be said1 that it seems more reasonable1 and in accordance with the course of nature1 to suppose that he would8 ,i answer1 ,it seems to me more reasonable1 and in accordance with the course of justice1 to suppose that he would not4 ,whoever maintains that the personal existence of ,adam's posterity was not implied and included in the provisions of grace1 in the new covenant1 must take into his theory one of the following appendages2--he must either believe that the whole race could justly be consigned to personal and unavoidable wo1 for the sin of ,adam1 or that all could be justly condemned for the sin of their own nature1 entailed upon them without their agency1 and therefore equally unavoidable2 or he must believe that each would have a personal trial on the ground of the covenant of works1 as ,adam had4 ,if there is another alternative1 it must be some system of probation which ,god has never intimated1 and man1 in all his inventions has never devised4 ,whoever is prepared to adopt either of the two former propositions is prepared to go all lengths in the doctrine of predestination and reprobation charged upon ,calvinism in the sermon that gave rise to this controversy1 and1 of course1 will find his system subject to all the objections there urged against it4 ,if any one chooses to adopt the third alternative1 and consider all the posterity of ,adam as standing or falling solely on the ground of the covenant of works1 such a one need not be answered in a discussion purporting to be a ,calvinistic controversy4 ,he is a ,socinian1 and must be answered in another place4 ,all that need be done here1 is to show the embarrassments of ,calvinism proper1 the utter futility of all its changes to relieve itself from these embarrassments1 unless it plunge into ,pelagianism and ,socinianism1 or rest itself upon the ,arminian foundation of gracious ability4 ,it is on this latter ground we choose to rest1 because here1 and here alone1 we find the doctrines of natural depravity1 human ability and responsibility1 and salvation by grace1 blending in beautiful harmony4 ,having noticed some of the erroneous assumptions on which the doctrinal objections to our theory are based1 the objections themselves1 ,i think1 may all be disposed of in a summary way4 ,we see1 on our plan1 that1 #a4 ,adam did not render himself incapable of sinning1 by the fall1 but rather rendered himself and his posterity incapable of any other moral exercise but what was sinful2 and it was on this account that a gracious ability is necessary1 in order to a second probation4 #b4 ,sin1 since the fall1 has not been the result of supernatural grace1 but the natural fruit of the fall2 and supernatural grace is all that has counteracted sin4 #c4 ,man needed the grace of ,god1 both because he was wicked1 and because he was weak4--#d4 ,the moral difference between one man and another is--to be ascribed to ,god4 ,how any one could think a contrary opinion chargeable upon us1 is to me surprising4 ,it is more properly ,calvinism that is chargeable with this sentiment4 ,calvinism says1 ,regeneration is a right choice4 ,it says1 also1 that power to sin implies power to be holy2 and of course we become holy by the same power as that by which we sin4 ,and it farther says1 that the power is of nature and not of grace4 ,now let the reader put all these together1 and see if it does not follow most conclusively1 that the moral difference between one man and another is not to be ascribed to ,god4 ,but1 on the contrary1 we say the sinful nature of man is changed in regeneration by the power of the ,holy ,ghost4 #e4 ,the posterity of ,adam did need a ,saviour to atone for actual sin4 ,for actual sin is the result1 not of gracious power1 as this author supposes1 but of a sinful nature voluntarily retained and indulged4 ,if our opponents charge us with the sentiment1 that grace is the cause of the actual sin of ,adam's posterity1 because we hold that grace was the cause of their personal existence1 we grant that1 in that sense1 grace was a cause without which the posterity of ,adam would not have sinned4 ,but if this makes ,god the author of sin1 by the same rule we could prove that ,god is the author of sin1 because he created moral agents--and if there is any difficulty here1 it presses on them as heavily as on us4 ,but in any other sense1 grace is not the cause of sin4 #f4 ,this opinion is1 as we have seen1 perfectly with the doctrine of grace4 #g4 ,there is constant guilt in the present rebellion of the infernal regions4 #h4 ,this grace is a greater blessing to our race than the fall of ,adam was a calamity2 for where sin abounded1 grace did much more abound4 ,thus ,i have endeavoured to explain1 prove1 and defend the doctrine of gracious ability1 a doctrine always maintained in the orthodox ,church1 until the refinements of ,calvinism made it necessary to call it in question2 and a doctrine on which1 viewed in its different bearings1 the orthodox ,arminian system must stand or fall4 ,i have been the more minute and extended in my remarks from this consideration2 and also from the consideration that while this doctrine has of late been most violently assailed by all classes of ,calvinists1 very little has been published in its defence4 ,if the reader has had patience to follow the subject through1 he is now perhaps prepared to judge whether our holy volitions are the result of a gracious ability or of natural power4 ,should ,i find time to pursue this subject farther1 it would be in place now to examine the doctrine of regeneration2 in which examination the nature of inherent depravity1 and of that choice which is conditional to the new birth1 would be more fully noticed4 ,this will ,i do if ,god permit4 ,,number ,,xiii4 ,,regeneration4 ,an important error in any one cardinal doctrine of the ,gospel will make a glaring deformity in the entire system4 ,hence when one of these doctrines is marred or perverted1 a corresponding change must be made in most or all of the others to keep up the appearance of consistency4 ,these remarks apply with special emphasis to the doctrine of regeneration4 ,as this is a focal point1 in which many other leading doctrines centre1 this doctrine must of necessity give a character to the whole ,gospel plan4 ,this might be inferred a priori from the knowledge of the relation of this to the other parts of the ,christian system1 and it is practically illustrated in the history of the ,church4 ,there are those who believe1 that by the various terms used in ,scripture to express the change commonly called regeneration or the new birth1 nothing is intended but some outward ceremony1 or some change of opinion in matters of speculative belief or the like4 ,some say it is baptism1 or a public profession of faith2 others that it is a mere speculative renunciation of heathen idolatry1 and an acknowledgment of the ,christian faith2 others that it is merely a reformed life2 and a few maintain that it is the change that we shall undergo by death1 or by the resurrection of the body4 ,these persons1 and all in fact who make the new birth something short of a radical change of heart1 are obliged1 for consistency's sake1 to accommodate the other doctrines to their views of regeneration4 ,hence they very generally deny constitutional or derived depravity1 the inflexibility and rigorous exactions of the ,divine law1 the destructive character of sin1 the atonement1 the supernatural agency of the ,spirit upon the human heart1 justification by faith1 and the like4 ,thus a radical error on one point actually leads to another gospel--if gospel it may be called4 ,it does not come within the scope of my present design to enter into a refutation of the foregoing errors4 ,but from the disastrous results of these errors we may infer the importance of guarding carefully and of understanding clearly the ,scripture doctrine of the new birth4 ,even where the error is not so radical1 as in the instances above alluded to1 the evil may be considerable1 and in some cases fatal4 ,the ,arminians and ,calvinists agree in this doctrine1 in so far as that they both make it a radical change of moral nature1 by the supernatural agency of the ,holy ,ghost4 ,but they differ in respect to the order in which the several parts of the change take place--in respect to the manner and degree of the agency of the ,holy ,spirit1 and also in respect to the part which human agency has in the accomplishment of this change4 ,and in some1 if not all of these points1 ,calvinists differ as much from each other as they do from us4 ,it is my present purpose to point out some of the more prominent ,calvinistic modes of stating and explaining this doctrine1 with the difficulties attending them3 after which ,i shall endeavour to present and defend what we believe to be the ,scripture doctrine of regeneration4 ,first ,theory4--,the notion that the mind is entirely passive in this change1 that is1 that nothing is done by the subject of it1 which is preparative or conditional1 or in any way co-operative in its accomplishment1 has been a prevailing sentiment in the various modifications of the old ,calvinistic school4 ,it is not indeed pretended that the mind is inactive1 either before or at the time this renovation is effected by the ,holy ,spirit4 ,on the contrary1 it is said that the sinner is resisting with all the power of the mind1 and with all the obstinacy of the most inveterate enmity1 up to the very moment1 and in the very act of conversion4 ,so that the sinner is regenerated1 not only without his co-operation1 but also in spite of his utmost resistance4 ,hence it is maintained1 that1 but for the irresistible influence of the ,holy ,ghost upon the heart1 no sinner would be converted4 #a4 ,one of the leading objections to this view of conversion is1 that it is inseparably connected with the doctrine of particular and unconditional election4 ,the two reciprocally imply each other1 and must therefore1 stand or fall together4 ,but this doctrine of particular and unconditional election has been sufficiently refuted1 it is hoped1 in the sermon that gave rise to this controversy2 if so1 then the doctrine of passivity and irresistible grace is not true4 #b4 ,another very serious difficulty which this theory of conversion has to contend with is1 that the ,scriptures1 in numerous passages1 declare that the ,spirit of ,god may be resisted1 grieved1 quenched1 and utterly disregarded2 and that the grace of ,god may be abused1 or received in vain4 ,the passages to establish these propositions are so frequent that ,i need not stop to point them out4 ,but if this be so1 then the grace of ,god and the ,spirit of grace are not irresistible4 #c4 ,it may be yet farther objected to this doctrine of the mind's passivity in conversion1 that it is a virtual denial of all gracious influence upon the heart before regeneration4 ,it has been shown in previous numbers that man was not able to comply with the conditions of salvation without grace--and that the gracious influences of the ,divine ,spirit are given to every sinner previous to regeneration4 ,but there would be no necessity for this1 and no consistency in it1 if there are no conditions and no co-operation on the part of the sinner in the process of the new birth4 ,hence the advocates of this doctrine very consistently maintain that the first act of grace upon the heart of the sinner is that which regenerates him4 ,since then this theory conflicts with the ,bible doctrine of a gracious influence anterior to conversion1 it cannot be admitted4 #d4 ,this theory of regeneration removes all conditions on the part of the sinner to the removal of the power and guilt of sin4 ,it teaches that if the sinner should do any thing acceptable to ,god1 as a condition to his conversion1 it would imply he did not need converting2 that such an idea1 in fact1 would be inconsistent with the doctrine of depravity1 and irreconcilable with the idea of salvation by grace4 ,and this is the ground on which the old ,calvinists have so repeatedly charged us with the denial of the doctrines of grace1 and with holding that we may be justified by our works4 ,there is something very singular in these notions respecting the necessity of unconditional regeneration1 in order that it may be by grace4 ,these same ,calvinists tell us that the sinner can repent1 and ought to repent1 and that the ,scriptures require it at his hand4 ,what6 is the sinner able and obliged to do that which would destroy the whole economy of grace6 which would blot out the ,gospel and nullify the atonement itself8 ,ought he to do that which would prove him a practical ,pelagian and an operative workmonger8 ,is he indeed1 according to ,calvinists themselves1 required in ,scripture to do that which would prove ,calvinism false1 and a conditional regeneration true8 ,so it would seem4 ,put together these two dogmas of ,calvinism4 #a4 ,the sinner is able1 and ought to repent4 #b4 ,the idea that the sinner does any thing toward his regeneration destroys the doctrine of depravity and of salvation by grace4 ,i say put these two together1 and you have almost all the contradictions of ,calvinism converged to a focus--and what is most fatal to the system1 you have the authority of ,calvinism itself to prove that every intelligent probationer on the earth not only has the ability1 but is authoritatively required to give practical demonstration that the system is false66 ,what is this but to say1 ,you can1 and you cannot2--if you do not1 you will be justly condemned--if you do1 you will ruin the ,gospel system1 and yourself with it8 ,where such glaring paradoxes appear1 there must be something materially wrong in1 at least1 some parts of the system4 #e4 ,but the inconsistency of this theory is not its only1 and certainly not its most injurious characteristic4 ,in the same proportion as men are made to believe that there are no conditions on their part to their regeneration1 they will be likely to fall into one of the two extremes of carelessness or despair1 either of which1 persisted in1 would be ruinous4 ,i cannot doubt but that1 in this way1 tens of thousands have been ruined4 ,we should infer that such would be the result of the doctrine1 from only understanding its character2 and ,i am fully satisfied that1 in my own personal acquaintance1 ,i have met with hundreds who have been lulled in the cradle of ,antinomianism on the one hand1 or paralyzed with despair on the other1 by this same doctrine of passive1 unconditional conversion4 ,calvinists1 it is true1 tell us this is the abuse of the doctrine2 but it appears to me to be the legitimate fruit4 ,what else could we expect8 ,a man might as well attempt to dethrone the ,mediator1 as to do any thing toward his own conversion4 ,teach this1 and carelessness ensues1 ,antinomian feelings will follow--or if you arouse the mind by the curse of the law1 and by the fearful doom that awaits the unregenerate1 what can he do8 ,nothing6 ,hell rises from beneath to meet him1 but he can do nothing4 ,he looks until he is excited to phrensy1 from which he very probably passes over to raving madness1 or settles down into a state of gloomy despair4 #f4 ,another very decisive objection to this doctrine is1 the frequent1 and ,i may say uniform language of ,scripture4 ,the ,scriptures require us to seek--ask--knock--come to ,christ--look unto ,god--repent--believe --open the door of the heart--receive ,christ1 c4 ,no one can fail to notice how these instructions are sprinkled over the whole volume of revelation4 ,and what is specially in point here1 all these are spoken of and urged upon us as conditions of blessings that shall follow--even the blessings of salvation1 of regeneration--and as conditions1 too1 without which we cannot expect these blessings4 ,take one passage of many--,as many as received him1 to them gave he power to become the sons of ,god1 even to them that believe on his name4 ,if any one doubts whether becoming the sons of ,god1 as expressed in this text1 means regeneration1 the next verse will settle it--,which were born not of blood1 nor of the will of the flesh1 nor of the will of man1 but of ,god1 ,john i1 #ab1 #ac4 ,the latter verse ,i may have occasion to remark upon hereafter2 it is quoted here to show that the new birth is undoubtedly the subject here spoken of4 ,and we are here expressly taught1 in language that will bear no other interpretation1 that receiving ,christ and believing on his name are the conditions of regeneration4 ,if there were no other passage in the ,bible to direct our minds on this subject1 this plain unequivocal text ought to be decisive4 ,but the truth is1 this is the uniform language of ,scripture4 ,and are there any passages against these1 any that say we cannot come1 cannot believe1 seek1 c8 or any that say1 this work of personal regeneration is performed independent of conditions8 ,i know of none which will not fairly admit of a different construction4 ,we are often met with this passage--,it is not of him that willeth1 nor of him that runneth1 but of ,god that showeth mercy4 ,see ,rom4 ix1 #af4 ,but whoever interpreteth this of personal and individual regeneration can hardly have examined the passage carefully and candidly4 ,but we are told again1 it is ,god that renews the heart2 and if it is his work1 it is not the work of the sinner4 ,i grant this2 this is the very sentiment ,i mean to maintain2 but then there may be conditions--there are conditions--or else we should not hear the psalmist praying for this1 in language that has been preserved for the edification of all subsequent generations1 ,create in me a clean heart1 ,o ,god1 and renew a right spirit within me4 ,this is a practical comment on ,christ's conditional salvation1 ,ask and ye shall receive4 ,since then this doctrine of passive and unconditional regeneration implies unconditional election--since it is in opposition to those scriptures which teach that the ,spirit and grace of ,god may be resisted and received in vain--since it is a virtual denial of all gracious influences upon the heart before regeneration--since it leads the abettors of the theory into gross contradictions1 by their endeavours to reconcile the can and the cannot of their system--since its practical tendency is to make sinners careless1 or drive them to despair--and finally1 since it contradicts that numerous class of scriptures1 some of which are very unequivocal1 that predicate the blessings of regeneration and justification upon certain preparatory and conditional acts of the sinner--therefore we conclude that this theory cannot be true4 ,second ,theory4--,to avoid these difficulties1 to make the sinner feel his responsibility1 and to bring him into action1 a new theory of regeneration is proposed4 ,this constitutes a leading characteristic of the ,new ,divinity4 ,it is the theory of self-conversion4 ,its advocates maintain that there is no more mystery or supernatural agency in the process of the change1 called the new birth1 than there is in any other leading purpose or decision of the mind4 ,it is true1 they do not wholly exclude the ,holy ,spirit from this work1 but his agency is mediate and indirect4 ,he acts in some undefinable way1 through the truth as an instrument4 ,the truth acts upon the mind1 in the way of moral suasion1 and the sinner1 in the view and by the influence of truth1 resolves to give himself up to ,god and to his service--and this is regeneration4 ,the preparation is of ,god--but the actual change is man's own work4 ,the ,god of providence reveals the truth and arranges the means for its promulgation1 the ,spirit of grace applies it to the understanding1 the sinner looks at it1 reflects upon it1 and at length is persuaded to set about the work1 and regenerates himself6 ,that we may be the better prepared to meet this hypothesis1 it should be noticed that it is inseparable from the notion that all sin consists in voluntary exercise1 or in other words1 in a series of sinful volitions4 ,regeneration is a change from sin to holiness--and hence a regenerate state is the opposite of a sinful state4 ,if then a regenerate state is nothing more than a series of holy volitions1 an unregenerate state1 which is its opposite1 is nothing more than a series of unholy volitions4 ,thus it appears that this doctrine of regeneration by the act of the will must stand or fall with the notion that all sin consists in voluntary exercise4 ,any argument1 therefore1 brought against this latter theory will bear with equal weight against this new idea of regeneration4 ,bearing this in mind1 we are prepared to object to this doctrine1 #a4 ,that it is inconsistent with the doctrine of constitutional depravity4 ,this is granted by the supporters of the theory1 and hence constitutional depravity is no part of their system4 ,all the arguments therefore that have been adduced in favour of derived1 inherent depravity1 or that can be urged in favour of this doctrine1 will stand directly opposed to this view of regeneration4 ,the arguments in favour of our views of depravity need not be repeated2 and the reader is referred to a previous number in which this point has been discussed4 #b4 ,another objection to this theory of regeneration is1 that it makes entire sanctification take place at the time of regeneration4 ,conversion1 holiness1 are nothing more than a decision of the will2 and since the will can never be more than decided1 of course the decision at regeneration is the perfection of holiness4 ,on this ground1 therefore1 though ,christians are exhorted to cleanse themselves from all filthiness of flesh and spirit1 perfecting holiness in the fear of the ,lord2 though the saints are commanded to grow in grace1 to confess their sins1 that they may be cleansed from all unrighteousness1 though some of the ,corinthian ,christians were carnal and walked as men1 and for that reason were1 after years of experience1 only babes in ,christ--still1 if we embrace this sentiment1 we must call the convert1 at his first spiritual breath1 as holy as he ever can be in any of the subsequent stages of his experience6 ,surely the apostles taught not this6 ,and yet so strongly are men impelled forward by their systems1 this doctrine of perfect holiness at conversion is the very sentiment that many of the advocates of the ,new ,divinity are now propagating--a clear proof that it necessarily follows from their theory of conversion4 ,this of itself1 it strikes me1 ought to destroy the doctrine4 #c4 ,another bearing of this hypothesis1 and one which ,i think must prove fatal to it1 is1 that the ,scriptures represent this change to be chiefly in the affections1 whereas this doctrine makes it exclusively in the will4 ,that the ,scriptures place the change in the affections chiefly1 ,i suppose will not be denied4 ,if it should be1 without stopping here to quote specific passages1 or use many arguments1 one consideration alone will be sufficient to set the question at rest4--,true evangelical holiness consists in love to ,god and man2 and sin is loving the creature rather than the ,creator4 ,the apostle brings into view both the regenerate and the unregenerate state in this passage--,set your affection on things above1 and not on things on the earth4 ,numerous are the passages which teach that love to ,god is the essence of the ,christian character4 ,the affections1 therefore1 are the seat of this change4 ,but we are told by this new theory the change is in the will4 ,it is only to resolve to serve ,god1 and we are converted4--,either this theory1 therefore1 or the ,bible account of this matter must be wrong4 ,to avoid this difficulty1 it may be said1 that a change of the will implies a change of the affections4 ,but this is changing the position--which is1 that a decision of the will is regeneration4 ,if however this new position be insisted upon1 it can be reconciled with the phraseology used only by making a change of the affections a mere subordinate part of regeneration1 whereas the ,scriptures make the change consist essentially in this4 ,but there is still a more serious difficulty in this idea1 that the change of the will implies a change in the affections4 ,it necessarily implies that the affections are at all times under the control of the will4 ,but this is as unphilosophical as it is unscriptural4 ,it is even directly contrary to the observation and knowledge of men who have paid only common and casual attention to mental phenomena4 ,the will is oftener enthralled by the affections1 than the affections by the will4 ,even in common and worldly matters let a man try by an effort of the will to beget love where it does not exist1 or to transfer the affections from one object to another1 and how will he succeed8 ,will love and hatred go or come at his bidding8 ,you might as well attempt1 by an act of the will1 to make sweet bitter1 or bitter sweet to the physical taste4 ,how much less can a man1 by an act of the will1 make all things new1 and transfer the heart from the grossness of creature love to the purity of supreme love to ,god4 ,the ,apostle ,paul has taught us his failure in this matter4 ,when he would do good1 evil was present with him4 ,for1 says he1 the good that ,i would do1 ,i do not2 but the evil which ,i would not1 that ,i do4 ,and this is the fact in most cases of genuine awakening4 ,resolutions are formed1 but the current of the unsanctified affections sweeps them away4 ,over the untowardness of the unregenerate heart the will has1 in fact1 but a feeble influence2 and this is the reason why the man1 struggling with the corruptions of his heart1 is driven to despair1 and exclaims1 ,o6 wretched man that ,i am1 who shall deliver me from the body of this death8 ,we shall see hereafter how the action of the will is indispensable in regeneration2 but not in this direct way to change and control the affections1 by the power of its own decisions4 ,when ,i find my will capable of doing this1 ,i must have an essentially different intellectual character from the one ,i now have4 ,since the ,scriptures make the new birth a change of affections1 and this theory makes it a change of volitions2 and especially since the affections cannot be transferred from earth to heaven by a mere act of the will1 therefore the doctrine which teaches and implies these views must be false4 #d4 ,this idea of the character of sin and of the new birth makes man sinless1 at particular times1 even without regeneration4 ,i do not mean by this that he is not obnoxious to punishment for past unholy volitions4 ,but if sin consists only in voluntary exercise1 whenever the mind does not act2 or whenever its action is not under the control of the will1 there is nothing of sin personally appertaining to the man4--,when the action of the will is suspended by an all-absorbing emotion of wonder or surprise--in sound sleep when the mental states1 if there are any1 are not under the control of the will--in cases of suspended animation1 by drowning1 fainting1 or otherwise--in short1 whenever the mind is necessarily wholly engrossed1 as is often the case1 by some scientific investigation1 or matter of worldly business1 not of a moral character1 then1 and in every such case1 whatever may be the guilt for past transgressions1 there is no personal unholiness4 ,and by the same reasoning we may show that the regenerate pass a great portion of their time without any personal holiness6 #e4 ,according to the theory we are opposing1 regeneration1 strictly speaking1 means nothing4 ,the work of grace1 by which a sinner is made meet for heaven1 embraces two essential points1 pardon and renewal4 ,the former is not a positive change of character1 but a relative change1 from a state of condemnation to a state of acquittal4 ,but as regeneration1 if it have any appropriate meaning1 cannot mean a mere change of relation1 any construction or system that forces such a meaning upon it does1 in fact1 do it away4 ,hence1 being born again1 being renewed1 being created anew1 being sanctified1 being translated from darkness to light1 being raised from the dead1 and numerous other scripture expressions1 are figurative forms of speech1 so foreign from the idea they are used to express1 that they are worse than unmeaning--they lead to error4 ,but if these expressions mean any thing more than pardon1 what is that meaning8 ,this doctrine makes the principal change take place in the neighbourhood of the will2 not in the will itself1 meaning by that1 the mental power by which we put forth volitions4 ,this faculty of the mind is sound1 and needs no change--all the other mental susceptibilities are sound1 the essence of the mind and the susceptibilities of the mind are perfectly free from any moral perversion4 ,it is the mental action that is bad4--,what is there then in the man that is to be changed8 ,do you say his volitions8 ,but these he changes every hour4 ,do you say1 he must leave off wrong volitions1 and have right ones8 ,this too he often does4 ,but he must do it with right motives1 you say1 this acting from right motives is the regenerate state4 ,indeed6 ,suppose then that he has resolved to serve ,god1 from right motives1 what if he should afterward resolve1 from false shame or fear1 to neglect a duty1 is he now unregenerate8 ,this is changing from regenerate to unregenerate1 from entire holiness to entire unholiness with a breath4 ,truly such a regeneration is nothing4 ,but you say1 after he has once submitted1 he now has a governing purpose to serve ,god1 and this constitutes him regenerate2 aye1 a governing purpose that does not govern him4 ,let it be understood1 you cannot divide a volition2 it has an entire character in itself2 and if it be unholy1 no preceding holy volition can sanctify it4 ,hence every change of volition from wrong to right1 and from right to wrong1 is a change of state1 so that regeneracy and unregeneracy play in and out of the human bosom in the alternation of every criminal thought or every pious aspiration4 ,is this the ,bible doctrine of the new birth8 ,and yet this is all you can make of it1 if you resolve it into the mere action of the will4 #f4 ,this doctrine of self-conversion1 by an act of the will1 is directly contrary to ,scripture4 ,it would be tedious to me and my readers to quote all those passages that attribute this work directly to the ,holy ,spirit1 and that speak of it as a work which ,god himself accomplishes for1 and in us4 ,there is one passage which is much in point1 however1 and is sufficient of itself to settle this question4 ,but as many as received him1 to them gave he power to become the sons of ,god1 even to them that believe on his name4 ,who were born1 not of blood1 nor of the will of the flesh1 nor of the will of man1 but of ,god1 ,john i1 #ab1 #ac4 ,this is a two-edged sword--it cuts off1 as we have remarked before1 passive and unconditional regeneration on the one hand2 and also1 as we may now see1 self conversion by an act of the will1 on the other4 ,i know not how words can be put together1 in so small a compass1 better to answer the true objects of destroying these two opposite theories of regeneration1 and asserting the true theory4 ,here is1 first--the receiving of ,christ1 the believing on his name--this is the condition4 ,second1 ,christ gives the power1 viz4 strength and privilege1 to become the sons of ,god4 ,this is the regeneration4 ,third--,this becoming the sons of ,god1 or being born1 is not in a physical way1 by flesh and blood1 nor yet by human will1 but of or by ,god4 ,can any thing be clearer or more decisive8 ,indeed the very terms1 regeneration1 born1 birth1 c1 imply of themselves another and an efficient agent2 and then to connect these with the ,divine agency1 as the ,scriptures have done some half dozen times in the phrase1 born of ,god1 and several other times in the phrase1 of the ,spirit3 to have this called being begotten again1 and the like1 is enough1 one would think1 if words have any meaning1 to show that man does not change his own heart4 ,the same may be said of the terms resurrection1 translation1 creation1 renewal1 and various other terms the ,scriptures use to express this change4 ,jesus ,christ claimed that he had power to lay down his life1 and to take it again2 but this is the only instance of self-resurrection power that we read of2 and even this was by his ,divine nature2 for he was quickened by the ,spirit1 and raised by the power of ,god4 ,but these theorists teach that man has power to lay down his life1 and then1 after he is dead in trespasses and sins1 he has power to take his life again4 ,truly this is giving man a power that approaches very near to one of the ,divine attributes4 ,to ,christ alone does it belong to quicken whom he will4 ,to change the heart of the sinner is one of the ,divine prerogatives1 and he that attempts to convert himself2 and trusts to this1 will find in the end that he is carnal still4 ,for whatsoever is born of the flesh is flesh1 but whatsoever is born of the ,spirit is spirit4 ,let me not here be misunderstood4 ,i shall endeavour to show1 in its proper place1 the conditional agency of man in this work4 ,i have only time to add1 in this number1 that ,i consider those scriptures which press duties upon the sinner as applying to this conditional agency4 ,and even those strong expressions which sometimes occur in the ,bible1 requiring the sinner to make himself a new heart--to cleanse his hands and purify his heart1 c1 will find an easy solution and a pertinent application in this view of the subject4 ,for if there are certain pending conditions1 without which the work will not be accomplished1 then there would be a propriety1 while pressing this duty1 to use expressions showing that this work was conditionally1 though not efficiently1 resting upon the agency of the sinner4 ,in my next ,i shall endeavour to show that there is no intermediate ,calvinistic ground between the two theories examined in this number4 ,if that attempt prove successful1 and if in this it has been found that the two theories examined are encumbered with too many embarrassments to be admitted1 then we shall be the better prepared to listen to the teachings of the ,scriptures on this important and leading doctrine of the ,christian faith4 ,,number ,,xiv4 ,,regeneration1 ,,continued4 ,an inconsistency in any received theory is constantly driving its supporters to some modification of their system4 ,this is a redeeming principle in the human mind1 and greatly encourages the hope that truth will finally triumph4 ,it has already been noticed that the doctrine of entire passivity1 in regeneration1 is so pressed with difficulties that it has sought relief in the opposite notion of self-conversion4 ,but this latter hypothesis is1 in turn1 encumbered1 if possible1 with still greater embarrassments4 ,the presumption therefore is1 that the truth lies between them2 and it will doubtless be found1 by a fair and thorough investigation1 that this is the fact4 ,but here the question arises1 ,can ,calvinists consistently occupy any such middle ground8 ,in other words1 retaining the other peculiarities of ,calvinism1 can our ,calvinistic brethren assume any position between these two extremes which will avoid the difficulties of both8 ,a brief examination1 it is hoped1 will decide this question4 ,third ,theory4--,dr4 ,tyler is a highly respectable clergyman of the ,calvinistic faith1 and is now at the head of the theological school in ,east ,windsor1 ,conn41 which was got up with the avowed purpose of counteracting the ,new-,haven theology4 ,we should not therefore suspect him of leaning too much toward the ,new ,divinity4 ,he tells us that the only depravity is to be unwilling to serve ,god--that there is no other obstacle in the way of the sinner's salvation except what lies in his own will--that to be born again is simply to be made willing to do what ,god requires4 ,what is this but the ,new ,divinity8 ,the will is here made1 most explicitly1 the sole seat of depravity2 and regeneration is an act of the will4 ,but every act of the will is the sinner's own act1 and therefore the agent1 by that act of the will which constitutes regeneration1 converts himself4--,perhaps ,dr4 ,tyler will say1 the sinner in this case does not convert himself1 because he is made willing4 ,god makes him willing in the day of his power4 ,it is remarkable what a favourite phrase this is with the ,calvinists4 ,it is borrowed from the third verse of the hundred and tenth ,psalm1 ,thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power4 ,now although the word made is not in the text2 although there is not the slightest evidence that the text speaks of regeneration at all1 but on the contrary1 it is most evidently intended to describe the character and conduct of ,god's people1 viz4 the regenerate2 and although every scholar1 at least1 among the ,calvinists1 knows this as well as he knows his right hand from the left1 yet we hear it repeated by the learned and the ignorant1 at all times and places--,god's people are made willing in the day of his power4 ,it is not only a gross perversion of a ,scripture phrase1 but its repetition1 in this perverted sense1 renders it wearisome and sickening4 ,but1 waiving this1 it becomes us to ask whether there is any more rational or ,scriptural ground for the idea itself than there is for this use of the text4 ,what is meant by making the soul willing8 ,i confess ,i cannot understand it4 ,is it meant that ,god forces the soul to be willing8 ,this is a contradiction in terms4 ,to say that ,god acts directly on the will1 and thus changes its determination by superior force1 is to destroy its freedom--is to produce a volition without motive or reason--which would1 at any rate1 be an anomalous action of the will4 ,and what is still more fatal to the theory1 it implies no act of the sinner whatever1 but an irresistible act of the ,divine power1 which therefore necessarily throws the theory back upon the doctrine of passive conversion4 ,there is no avoiding this conclusion1 ,i think1 on the ground that ,god changes the action of the will1 by an exertion of power upon the will itself4 ,if1 to avoid this1 it should be said that the will is not changed by a direct act of power1 but influenced to a holy determination indirectly1 through the medium of motives1 presented by the ,holy ,spirit--then and in that case we should be thrown forward on to the self-conversion system4 ,the sinner's voluntary act1 by which he regenerated himself1 would be as truly and entirely his own as any other act of the will2 therefore he would be self-regenerated4 ,this also would be regeneration1 not by the ,holy ,spirit1 but by the truth2 which is another feature of the ,new ,divinity4 ,this also would make all depravity consist in the will1 or rather in its acts2 which has been shown in the preceding number to be unscriptural as well as unphilosophical4 ,this objection is valid1 whether the depravity is supposed to be in the power of willing1 or in the acts of the will4 ,but since1 in ,dr4 ,tyler's view1 to will in one direction is depravity1 and to will in another direction is regeneration1 and since all that motives can do is1 not to change the will itself1 but only prompt it to new voluntary states1 it follows conclusively that ,dr4 ,t4 makes all holiness and all unholiness consist in volitions2 and therefore the moral-exercise system is true2 which is another feature of the ,new ,divinity4 ,truly ,i may repeat1 we do not need another theological seminary in ,connecticut to teach this doctrine4 ,finally1 according to this theory of ,dr4 ,t41 he and all those who reason like him1 are chargeable1 ,i think1 with a palpable paralogism--they reason in a circle4 ,they say1 in the express language of ,dr4 ,tyler1 ,all men may be saved if they will--,no man is hindered from coming to ,christ who is willing to come--that is1 since to will and to be willing is to be regenerated1 this language gravely teaches us1 ,all men may be saved1 if they are regenerated--,no man is hindered from coming to ,christ 7to be regenerated7 who is regenerated6 ,and indeed this view of regeneration not only makes learned divines talk nonsense1 but the ,scriptures also4 ,the invitation1 ,whosoever will1 let him come1 c1 must mean1 ,whosoever is regenerate1 let him come1 and so of other passages4 ,thus this theory of ,dr4 ,tyler1 and of the many who hold with him1 is so closely hemmed in on both sides1 that it must throw itself for support1 either upon the doctrine of passivity1 or self-conversion2 at the same time that in other respects it involves itself in inconsistent and anti-scriptural dogmas4 ,but that we may leave no position unexamined1 let us take another view of the subject4 ,suppose1 instead of saying regeneration is simply a change of the will1 it should be argued that a change of the will implies a change of the affections1 and this therefore is included in regeneration4 ,then ,i would ask1 whether this change of the affections is in the order of cause and effect1 or in the order of time1 prior or subsequent to the act of the will4 ,if this change is prior to any action of the will in the case1 then the sinner has no voluntary co-operation in the work2 and this brings us up once more upon the doctrine of passive regeneration4 ,the heart is changed before the subject of the change acts4 ,if the action of the will precedes the change of the heart1 then this change will be effected in one of two ways4 ,either this anterior volition does itself change the heart2 or it is a mere preparatory condition1 on occasion of which ,god changes the heart4 ,in the former case the man himself would change his own heart1 and this is self-conversion2 and in the latter alternative we have a conditional regeneration wrought by the ,holy ,ghost1 and this is the very doctrine for which we contend1 in opposition to ,calvinism4 ,if it should be said1 this change of the will and this change of the heart take place independent of each other1 that would not help the matter1 since in this view the change of heart would be passive and unconditional4 ,thus whichever way this system turns1 its difficulties press upon it still1 and it finds no relief4 ,indeed there can1 as ,i conceive1 be no intermediate ,calvinistic theory of regeneration1 and there can be but two other alternatives--either ,god must renew the heart1 independent of all co-operation on the part of the subject of this change--and this is the old doctrine of unconditional ,divine efficiency--or the first acceptable act of the will must be regeneration2 and this is the new doctrine of self-conversion4 ,let the reader1 let any one reflect closely on this subject1 and ,i cannot doubt but he will say with me1 ,there is no third alternative4 ,the nature of the case will admit of none4 ,the former theory may not contradict many of those scriptures that speak of ,divine efficiency in the work of grace upon the heart1 but it is utterly incompatible with those that urge the sinner to duty4--,the latter theory corresponds well with the urgent injunctions to duty1 so abundant in the ,scriptures1 but is wholly irreconcilable with those that speak of ,divine efficiency4 ,the true theory must answer to both2 and must also correspond with all the other parts of the ,christian system4 ,is there such a theory8 ,every honest inquirer after truth will embrace it doubtless1 if it can be presented--for truth1 wherever1 and whenever1 and by whomsoever discovered1 is infinitely to be preferred to error1 however long and fondly it may have been cherished4 ,such a theory ,i will now try to present--and although ,i may fail in making it very explicit1 and in bringing forward all its defences1 yet if the general outlines can be seen and be defended1 it will1 ,i trust1 commend itself to the favourable notice of the reader4 ,scripture ,doctrine of ,regeneration4--,i approach this subject by laying down the two following fundamental principles3-- #a4 ,the work of regeneration is performed by the direct and efficient operations of the ,holy ,spirit upon the heart4 #b4 ,the ,holy ,spirit exerts this regenerating power only on conditions1 to be first complied with by the subject of the change4 ,the first principle ,i deem it unnecessary to defend farther than it has been defended in the foregoing remarks4 ,it is not objected to by any orthodox ,christians that ,i know of1 only so far as the new views of self-conversion1 and of conversion by moral suasion1 may be thought an exception4 ,and this we have reason to hope will be an exception of limited extent and short duration4 ,the sentiment conflicts so directly with such a numerous class of scriptures1 and with the most approved principles of mental philosophy2 and has1 at the same time1 such a direct tendency to annihilate all the essential features of regeneration1 it cannot long find encouragement in a spiritual ,church4 ,it may however make many converts for a time1 for men are fond of taking the work of salvation into their own hands2 but if it should1 between such converts and the true ,church there will ultimately be a separation as wide as that which now separates orthodoxy and ,socinianism4 ,the other fundamental principle seems to follow1 almost of necessity1 from the scriptures that so abundantly point out the sinner's duty and agency1 in connection with his conversion4 ,the principle1 however1 is strenuously opposed by all classes of ,calvinists4 ,the opposite of this is in fact the essential characteristic of ,calvinism1 if any one notion can be so called2 for however much the ,calvinistic system may be modified1 in other respects1 this is clung to as the elementary germ which constitutes the identity of the system4 ,even the ,new ,divinity1 which makes so much of human agency1 does not allow it a conditional action--it allows of no intermediate volition between the mental states of worldly love and ,divine love1 as the occasion on which the transfer is made1 or the conditional hinge on which the important revolution is accomplished4 ,on the contrary1 it considers the volition itself as the transfer--the volition constitutes the entire change4 ,thus warily does ,calvinism1 in all its changes1 avoid conditional regeneration4 ,hence if ,i were called upon to give a general definition of ,calvinism1 that should include all the species that claim the name1 ,i would say1 ,calvinists are those who believe in unconditional regeneration4 ,for the moment this point is given up by any one1 all parties agree that he is not a ,calvinist4 ,but why is conditional regeneration so offensive8 ,is it because the ,scriptures directly oppose it8 ,this is hardly pretended4 ,it is supposed1 however1 by the ,calvinists1 that to acknowledge this doctrine would require the renunciation of certain other doctrines which are taught in the ,scriptures4 ,this lays the foundation for the objections that have been made against this doctrine4 ,it is objected that a depraved sinner cannot perform an acceptable condition until he is regenerated--that ,god cannot consistently accept of any act short of that which constitutes regeneration--that the idea of a conditional regeneration implies salvation by works1 in part at least1 and not wholly by grace4 ,i have mentioned these objections in this connection1 not so much to attempt1 at this moment1 a direct refutation of them1 as to advert to what ,i conceive to be the ground of the difficulty in the minds of those making the objections4 ,it appears to me that the difference between us results principally from a difference of our views in respect to the constitution and the constitutional action of the mind itself4 ,the philosophical part of our theology will be modified very much by our views of the philosophy of mind4 ,let it be granted then3-- #a4 ,that the mind is possessed of a moral susceptibility1 generally called conscience1 which lays the foundation of the notions of right and wrong1 and by which we feel the emotions of approval or disapproval for our past conduct1 and the feelings of obligation with respect to the present and the future2 and that even in an unregenerate state this susceptibility often operates in accordance with its original design1 and therefore agreeably with the ,divine will4 #b4 ,that the understanding or intellect1 which is a general division of the mind1 containing in itself several distinct susceptibilities or powers1 may1 in an unregenerate state of the mind1 be so enlightened and informed on the subjects of ,divine truth as to perceive the right and the wrong2 and as to perceive also1 to some extent at least1 the way of salvation pointed out in the ,gospel4 #c4 ,that the affections and propensities 7sometimes called the heart7 are the principal seat of depravity--and these are often arrayed in direct hostility to the convictions of the judgment and the feelings of moral obligation4 #d4 ,that the will1 or that mental power by which we put forth volitions1 and make decisions1 while it is more or less1 directly or indirectly1 influenced by the judgment1 the conscience1 and the affections1 is in fact designed to give direction and unity to the whole mental action2 and it always accomplishes this1 where there is a proper harmony in the mental powers4 ,but by sin this harmony has been disturbed1 and the unholy affections have gained an undue ascendancy1 so that1 in the unregenerate1 in all questions of preference between ,god and the world1 in spite of the judgment1 of conscience1 and of the will1 the world is loved and ,god is hated4 #e4 ,that in those cases where we cannot control our affections by a direct volition1 we may1 nevertheless1 under the promptings of conscience1 and in the light of the judgment1 resolve against sin--but these resolutions1 however firmly and repeatedly made1 will be carried away and overruled by the strength of the carnal mind4 ,this shows us our own weakness1 drives us to self-despair1 until1 under the enlightening influences of grace1 and the drawings of the ,spirit1 the soul is led to prayer and to an abdication of itself into the hands of ,divine mercy1 through ,christ2 and then1 and on these conditions1 the ,holy ,spirit changes the character and current of the unholy affections--and this is regeneration4 ,in laying down the preceding postulates ,i have endeavoured to express myself with as much brevity1 and with as little metaphysical technicality as possible2 for the reason that they are designed to be understood by all4 ,bating the deficiencies that may on this account be noticed by the philosophical reader1 ,i think it may be assumed that these1 so far as the powers and operations of the mind are concerned1 embrace the basis and general outlines of what we call conditional regeneration4 ,i am not aware that they are in opposition to an one principle of ,scripture theology1 or mental philosophy4 ,and if this process is found consonant with reason and ,scripture1 in its general features1 it will be easy to show that its relative bearings are such as most happily harmonize all the doctrinal phenomena of the ,gospel system4 ,we plant ourselves then upon these general positions1 and as ability will permit1 or truth may seem to justify1 shall endeavour to defend them against such objections as may be anticipated1 or are known to have been made against any of the principles here assumed4 #a4 ,it may be objected perhaps that this is making too broad a distinction between the different mental powers1 giving to each such a distinctive action and operation as to infringe upon the doctrine of the mind's unity and simplicity4 ,it is believed1 however1 the more this point is reflected upon by an attentive observance of our own minds1 or the minds of others1 the more satisfied shall we be that the principles here assumed are correct4 ,that there are these distinct properties of mind no one doubts4 ,it is in accordance with universal language1 to speak of the intellect1 of the conscience1 of the will1 and of the affections1 as distinct properties of the mind4 ,the properties of mind are as clearly marked by our consciousness1 as the properties of matter by our senses4 ,and although1 in consequence of the invisibility of mind1 there is doubtless a more perfect unity in each individual mental property1 than in each distinct quality of matter1 still each of the mental qualities has its appropriate and distinctive character4 ,calvinists themselves acknowledge this4 ,they allow we have a moral sense which tests good or evil1 even in an unregenerate state2 they allow the intellect may perceive and approve of truth1 even when the heart rejects it2 they allow that to perceive and to judge1 to feel moral obligation and to will1 are distinct operations of the mind2 and that our perceptions and our conscience may be right1 when our affections are wrong4 ,so far then we are agreed1 and so far they make distinctions in the mind1 as wide as any that have been claimed in the principles above laid down4 ,theologians1 ,i grant1 have1 in many instances1 confounded in their reasonings the will and the affections4 ,and this has also sometimes been done by writers on the philosophy of the mind4 ,but it is most evident1 ,i think1 they have done this without good reason4 ,mr4 ,locke says1 ,i find the will often confounded with several of the affections1 especially desire1 and one put for the other4 ,this he thinks is an error1 of which any one who turns his thoughts inward upon what passes in his own mind will be convinced4 ,rev4 ,professor ,upham1 of ,bowdoin ,college1 ,maine1 himself a ,calvinist1 as is generally supposed1 in a late excellent treatise on the will1 asserts1 and clearly proves1 ,i think1 that the state of the mind1 which we term volition1 is entirely distinct from that which we term desire4 ,nay1 he proves that desires and volitions are often in direct opposition4 ,hence as love implies desire1 our volitions may often conflict with our love4 ,and this is precisely the state the awakened sinner is in when he would do good1 but evil is present with him4 #b4 ,it may be said1 and has sometimes been said1 that this view of the subject involves a contradiction2 that it is the same as to say1 the man wills against his preference1 or in other words1 he wills what he does not choose4 ,i cannot answer this objection better than by an argument in ,professor ,upham's work1 already alluded to1 in which he says1 of a similar objection on this very subject1 ,it will be found on examination to resolve itself into a verbal fallacy1 and naturally vanishes as soon as that fallacy is detected4 ,it is undoubtedly true that the common usage of language authorizes us to apply the terms choice and choosing indiscriminately to either the desire or volition2 but it does not follow1 and is not true1 that we apply them to these different parts of our nature in precisely the same sense4 ,when the word choice implies desire at all1 it has reference to a number of desirable objects brought before the mind at once1 and implies and expresses the ascendant or predominant desire4 ,at other times we use the terms choice and choosing in application to the will--when it is applied to that power1 it expresses the mere act of the will1 and nothing more1 with the exception1 as in the other case1 that more than one object of volition was present1 in view of the mind1 before the putting forth of the voluntary act4 ,it is in fact the circumstance that two or more objects are present1 which suggests the use of the word choice or choosing1 in either case4 ,but the acts are entirely different in their nature1 although under certain circumstances the same name is applied to them4 ,hence he adds1 ,the contradiction is not a real1 but merely a verbal one4 ,if we ever choose against choosing1 it will be found merely that choice which is volition1 placed against that choice which is desire4 ,and this is nothing more than to say that volitions and desires may conflict with each other1 which we know to be the fact in numerous instances4 ,if in reply to the foregoing1 and in farther defence of the objection1 it should be urged1 that there could be not only no motive for the volition in this case1 but that it would in fact be put forth against all motive1 since the feelings of the heart would be of a directly opposite character1 ,i reply1 that it is not true that there would be no motive for the action of the will1 in opposition to the sinful affections4 ,it is seen already that the judgment in the awakened sinner is against continuing in sin1 and the rebukes of the conscience for the past1 and its admonitions for the future1 are powerful motives in opposition to the unholy affections4 ,the feelings of compunction and of moral obligation gain great accessions of strength1 moreover1 from the terrors of the ,divine law1 which alarm the fears1 and from the promises of the ,gospel1 which encourage the hopes of the awakened sinner4 ,and it is especially and emphatically true that under the existing influence of these fears and hopes1 the voice of conscience is most effectual in prompting the sinner to flee from the wrath to come1 and lay hold on the hope set before him4 ,can it be said then that there is no motive for a volition1 or a mental effort that shall conflict with the unsanctified affections8 #c4 ,again it is said1 for every inch of this ground is disputed1 that the action of the mind under such motives is purely selfish1 and cannot therefore perform conditions acceptable to ,god4 ,to this it may be replied1 that to be influenced by motives of self preservation and personal salvation is not criminal2 nay1 it is commendable4 ,in proof of this but one argument is necessary4 ,god moves upon our fears and hopes1 for the express purpose of inducing us to forsake sin1 and serve him2 and he applies these motives to man in his unregenerate state4 ,this is so obvious a fact1 it is presumed none will deny it4 ,but is it wrong for us to be prompted to action by those considerations which ,god himself urges upon us8 ,if he attempts to excite our fears and hopes to prompt us to a course of self preservation1 can it be wrong for us to be influenced by this means1 and in this direction8 ,i should hardly know how to hold an argument with a man that should assert this--and yet this sentiment is implied in the objection now under examination4 ,beside1 these acts conditional to regeneration are not wholly1 perhaps not chiefly1 from motives of personal interest4 ,our moral feelings have a great part in this work4 ,and it is principally by arousing an accusing conscience that fear and hope aid in the performance of the conditions of regeneration4 ,but whatever proportion there may be of the ingredients of personal fear and hope in the feelings that enter into this conditional action of the mind1 it is certain that the fear of the consequences of sin1 and the hope to escape them1 are not themselves criminal1 much less then are they capable of rendering a complex state of the mind1 of which they are but a part1 unacceptable to ,god4 ,indeed this objection to a mental act1 merely because it is prompted by self love1 has always been to me a matter of wonder4 ,selfishness is a term which we generally use in a bad sense1 and we mean by it that form of self love that leads us to seek our own gratification at the expense and the injury of others1 or in opposition to the will of ,god4 ,but that self love which leads us to seek our own highest interests1 and especially our eternal interests1 without injury to others1 and in accordance with the ,divine will1 is never thought criminal1 ,i believe1 except where one has a particular system to support by such a notion4 ,but that system is itself of a doubtful character which requires such an argument to sustain it4 #d4 ,another objection which has been made to one of the principles above laid down is1 that it is the province of the will to control the affections1 and not the affections the will2 and that the will always possesses the power to do this1 even in an unregenerate state4 ,if so1 then man has power1 at any time1 by an act of the will1 to love ,god4 ,let him try--let that unholy sinner try4 ,can he succeed8 ,you say perhaps1 for so the ,calvinists have said1 ,he can if he will2 that is1 he can will to love ,god if he does will to love ,god6 ,this is no great discovery surely1 and it is certainly no proper answer to the question4 ,i ask it again1 ,can he1 by a direct act of the will1 love ,god8 ,do you say1 by varying the form of the answer1 ,he can if he chooses8 ,if you mean by choice the act of the will1 this is the same answer over again1 the folly of which is so apparent4 ,but if you mean by choice the desires of his heart1 then your answer amounts to this3 ,if the desires of the heart are in favour of loving ,god1 he can1 by an act of the will1 love him4 ,but if the desires of the heart are in favour of loving ,god1 the love is already begotten1 and there is no need of the act of the will to produce it4 ,in that case your proposition would be1 the sinner can love ,god by an act of the will1 if he loves him6 the absurdity of which is too evident to require comment4 ,it is thus that the coils of error run into each other in endless circles4 ,but1 perhaps1 to help the argument1 if possible1 it may be urged that the will can decide in favour of a closer examination1 and by voluntary attention may get such strong perceptions of truth as will give it the voluntary power over the heart4 ,to this ,i would reply1 in the first place1 this is giving up the argument1 it is acknowledging that certain preparatory acts of the will are necessary before the mind can love ,god--but this is conditional regeneration4 ,and it may be farther maintained1 in opposition to this sentiment that the mere perception of truth1 even when united with conscience1 and personal fear and hope1 is not sufficient to give the will power over the unrenewed affections4 ,in proof of this1 ,scripture might be adduced2 but reserving the ,scripture argument for the present1 we may quote good ,calvinistic authority in proof that the will may be enthralled by the affections4 ,professor ,upham says1 ,whenever there is a want of harmony in the mind1 there is always a greater or less degree of enthralment4 ,and then he proceeds to show how the mind may be enslaved by the propensities1 appetites1 affections1 and passions4 ,he illustrates2 for example1 the progress of this enthralment in the case of an appetite for strong drink2 which1 like a strong man armed1 violently seizes the will1 binds it hand and foot1 and hurls it into the dust4 ,again he says1 ,there are not unfrequently cases where the propensities and passions have become so intense1 after years of repetition1 as to control1 or in other words1 enthral the voluntary power almost entirely4 7,treatise on the ,will47 ,dr4 ,griffin1 also an able ,calvinistic writer1 says1 in decided terms1 ,the judgment of the intellect and the decisions of the will are both controlled by the heart4 ,the idea of the enthralment of the will1 however1 may be objected to on another ground1 viz4 that if admitted it would destroy accountability1 since none are accountable for what they cannot avoid4 ,but ,i have not said they cannot avoid it2 neither have ,i said we are not voluntary either in keeping or discarding the unholy heart4 ,i assert directly the contrary4 ,every probationer decides whether he will be holy or happy4 ,but his decisions to be holy are effectual only when he seeks that from ,god which he cannot do for himself4 ,then1 and then only1 will ,god give him the victory over the old man1 with the deceitful lusts of the heart4 ,but this is conditional regeneration4 ,having said thus much in defence of the philosophy of the principles laid down1 the way is prepared to show that they accord with ,scripture1 and to defend them with the doctrine which we build upon them from the supposed ,scripture objections which have been urged against them4 ,but this will furnish matter for another number4 ,,number ,,xv4 ,,regeneration1 ,,continued4 ,in proposing and vindicating1 in the preceding number1 those views of the philosophy of mind which are supposed to throw light upon the process of regeneration1 it was not intended to be intimated that a knowledge of this theory is necessary in order to experience the new birth4 ,in the practical purposes of life men do not ordinarily stop to analyze their mental states before they judge1 feel1 and act4 ,they have the practical use of their mental faculties1 and that suffices4 ,in this way the most ignorant and the most unphilosophical may be saved4 ,why1 then1 it may be asked1 is it necessary to enter into this analysis at all8 ,to this it may be replied1 that whenever we can trace the adaptation of the provisions of grace and the reason of the ,divine requirements to the known facts and laws of the human mind1 it will strengthen our confidence in the economy of grace1 increase our admiration of the wisdom and goodness of ,god1 and sharpen our weapons of defence against the cavils and assaults of an opposing skepticism4 ,but especially is this philosophical examination necessary whenever a superficial or an erroneous philosophy would force upon us an erroneous theology4 ,the metaphysical mist with which some theories have veiled the doctrine of regeneration1 and the delusive and distorted views that have resulted from this obscuration1 may be removed and corrected by the radiance of a pure philosophy4 ,but as human philosophy is1 at best1 more likely to err on these subjects than revelation1 the former should always be corrected or confirmed by the latter4 ,how is it in the case under examination8 ,how do the assumed opinions correspond with revelation8 ,let us glance again at our positions4 ,the principal points assumed are--that there is often a conflict between the feelings of moral obligation on the one hand1 enlightened as they are by reason and by grace1 sanctioned as they are by fear and hope1 and the unholy affections on the other2 that under the promptings of the moral feelings the will frequently puts forth its strength to resist and subdue the unholy affections1 but in every such case the effort fails when unaided by the sanctifying grace of ,god--and that victory is finally gained by a conditional act of the will1 through which1 or on occasion of which1 ,god subdues the passions and changes the heart4 ,these views have been vindicated1 as being in accordance with the philosophy of mind4 ,the question now is1 ,are they sustained by ,scripture8 ,i answer1 ,yes1 most clearly4 ,if the ,apostle ,paul had attempted1 by a set argument1 to illustrate and affirm these views1 he could not have done it better or more explicitly than he has done in the latter part of the #gth1 and the first part of the #hth chapters of the ,epistle to the ,romans4 ,i see1 says the apostle1 another law in my members1 warring against the law of my mind1 and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin1 which is in my members4 ,the law of sin in his members was undoubtedly the carnal mind1 the unholy affections4 ,these warred against the law of his mind1 his enlightened judgment1 his feelings of moral obligation2 and in this warfare the former were victorious1 and carried captive the will2 so that the good that he would1 he did not1 and the evil that he would not1 that he did4 ,to will was present with him1 but how to perform1 he knew not4 ,see the entire passage1 for it beautifully illustrates our whole theory4 ,here is the conflict1 the struggle between conscience and sin2 here is pointed out the seat of sin1 viz4 the flesh or carnal mind1 which is but another name for the unsanctified affections and appetites2 here is the will struggling to turn the contest on the side of duty1 but struggling in vain2 every effort results in defeat--it is taken captive1 and overcome4--,despair finally settles down upon the mind1 as far as personal strength is concerned1 and the anxious soul looks abroad for help1 and cries out1 ,who shall deliver me from the body of this death6 ,then it is that deliverance comes6 ,jesus ,christ1 the ,saviour of sinners1 sets him free6 ,professor ,stuart1 of ,andover1 himself a ,calvinist1 has shown most conclusively1 what ,arminians have long contended for1 that this portion of revelation refers specifically to the work of regeneration4 ,but whether this be granted by every ,calvinist or not1 no man can deny but that the grand philosophical principles heretofore contended for1 are here fully illustrated--the same division of the mind--the same conflict--the same thraldom of the will1 and the same deliverance1 through faith in ,jesus ,christ our ,lord4 ,the same principles1 in part at least1 are recognized in ,gal4 v1 #ag1 ,for the flesh lusteth against the ,spirit1 and the ,spirit against the flesh2 and these are contrary the one to the other1 so that ye cannot do the things that ye would4 ,in short1 all those passages where the difficulty of subduing the carnal mind1 of keeping the body under1 of crucifying the old man1 all those passages that speak of a warfare1 an internal conflict1 and the like1 recognize the principles here contended for4 ,these principles1 so frequently adverted to in the ,scriptures1 are proved to be in exact conformity with experience4 ,who that has passed through this change1 but remembers this conflict1 this war in the members8 ,who but recollects how his best resolutions were broken as often as made2 and how1 after various and vigorous efforts1 his heart seemed to himself to grow worse and worse8 ,he found secret treason lurking in his bosom even when he was trying to repent of his past disloyalty4 ,the more he strove against its power1 ,he felt the guilt and sin the more4 ,every additional effort sunk him apparently but the lower in the horrible pit and miry clay1 until the ,lord heard his cry1 until the ,lord brought him up1 and set his feet upon a rock1 and established his goings1 and put a new song in his mouth4 ,that the ,scriptures speak of a conditional action of the mind1 preparatory to the work of regeneration1 appears from express passages1 as well as from the general tenor of that numerous class of scriptures which enjoin duty upon the sinner1 and predicate justification and salvation upon those duties4 ,john i1 #ab1 has already been quoted and commented upon1 in which the new birth is suspended upon receiving ,christ1 or believing on his name4 ,the many cases of healing the body1 by ,christ1 are evident illustrations of the healing of the soul4 ,in fact1 we have good reasons for supposing that1 in most of these cases at least1 the soul and body were healed at the same time2 and this was always on the condition of asking and believing4 ,john iii1 #ad1 #ac1 ,as ,moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness1 even so must the ,son of man be lifted up2 that whosoever believeth in him should not perish1 but have everlasting life4 ,here our ,saviour shows the analogy between the cure of the ,israelites by looking at the brazen serpent1 and of sinners by looking to ,christ4 ,but how were the ,israelites healed8 ,by the conditional act of looking at the brazen serpent4 ,so looking at ,christ is the condition of healing the soul4 ,take away this condition and the whole analogy is destroyed4 ,let this condition be understood1 and the text will accord with others1 equally expressive of conditions4 ,look unto me and be ye saved1 all the ends of the earth4 ,seek first the kingdom of ,god and his righteousness4 ,seek the ,lord while he may be found4 ,god hath determined that all nations should seek the ,lord1 if haply they might feel after him1 and find him1 though he be not far from every one of us4 ,will any one pretend to say that this looking and seeking implies regeneration8 ,this is mere assumption2 where is the proof8 who would ever infer this idea from the ,scriptures themselves8 ,what6 is the sinner regenerated before the malady of his soul1 the poisonous bite of sin1 is healed8 ,has he found the ,lord before he has sought him8 ,and must he seek after he has found him8 ,the kingdom of ,god is religion in the soul--it is righteousness1 peace1 and joy in the ,holy ,ghost2 and when we are regenerated1 we have it in possession1 and have therefore no need to seek it4 ,but we are commanded to seek the kingdom of ,god2 this1 therefore1 must be a work preparatory to1 and conditional of regeneration4 ,come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden1 and ,i will give you rest4 ,take my yoke upon you1 c4 ,to be restless1 and not to have on the yoke of ,christ1 is to be unregenerate2 but such are to come and take the yoke1 and then1 and on that condition1 they will find rest to their souls4 ,the ,spirit and the bride say1 ,come1 c1 and whosoever will1 let him come and take of the water of life freely4 ,to take of the water of life is to be regenerate2 but to this end we must come1 and must first will in order to come4 ,behold1 ,i stand at the door and knock2 if any man hear my voice and open the door1 ,i will come in and sup with him1 and he with me4 ,before ,christ is in the soul1 there is no regeneration2 but before he will come in1 he knocks1 and the sinner must first hear1 and then open the door1 and on this condition ,christ comes in and imparts his grace4 ,but it is useless to proceed farther in quoting particular texts4 ,they might be extended indefinitely1 with a force and pertinency that cannot be evaded3 all going to establish the fact that the work of grace on the heart is conditional4 ,will any one pretend to deny1 that the unregenerate sinner is called upon to seek1 ask1 repent1 believe1 c8 ,and what do such scriptures mean8 ,the acts of the mind here enjoined must constitute regeneration1 or they must follow regeneration as an effect of that work1 or they must precede it as a necessary and required condition4 ,to say that these acts are the very definition of regeneration itself--are only synonymous terms to express this renewal of the heart1 is to make regeneration consist in exercises merely--is in fact to make it the sinner's appropriate and exclusive work2 unless it can be shown that this commanding the sinner to ask1 c1 is nothing more nor less than a promise that ,god will ask1 seek1 repent1 and believe for him6 ,but this will hardly be pretended2 and the idea that these acts do themselves constitute the new birth1 has already been seen to be defective and indefensible4 ,to suppose that these acts follow regeneration1 as an effect or fruit of the change itself1 is to deny them that position and relation in which they are actually placed by the word of ,god4 ,it makes one seek1 after he has found2 ask1 after he has received2 repent and believe1 after he is possessed of that salvation1 to obtain which these duties are enjoined4 ,the phraseology to suit this theory1 should evidently be of an entirely different character4 ,when the sinner asks what he shall do to be saved1 the answer should be--,nothing until ,god renews the heart2 and then as a fruit of this you will of course seek1 ask1 believe1 c4 ,if1 indeed1 the sinner is to do nothing until ,god renews him1 why is it necessary that he should first be awakened8 ,why is the command addressed to him at all8 ,why does not the ,holy ,spirit immediately renew the heart1 while the transgressor is stupid in his wickedness1 instead of calling after him to awake1 flee1 and escape for his life8 ,do you say you can give no other reason than that it pleases ,god to take this course with the sinner1 and to call up his attention to the subject before he renews him8 ,i answer1 then it pleases ,god that there should be certain preparatory acts of the mind in order to regeneration3 and this is in fact admitting the principle for which we contend1 and this more especially if it be acknowledged1 as it evidently must be1 that these preparatory mental states or acts are1 to any extent1 voluntary4 ,thus1 not only is the absurdity of making these acts the result of regeneration most apparent2 but in tracing out the consistent meaning and practical bearing of those scriptures that are addressed to the unconverted1 we find them establishing the third alternative1 that these acts of the mind are preparatory to regeneration1 and are the prescribed conditions on which ,god will accomplish the work4 ,thus the ,scripture argument is found to confirm the philosophical view of the subject1 and both are strengthened by ,christian experience4 ,the doctrine of conditional regeneration1 therefore1 is confirmed by a threefold argument1 no part of which1 it is believed1 can be easily overthrown4 ,against it1 however1 there are several strong objections urged1 which have already been mentioned1 and which we are now prepared to hear and examine4 #a4 ,it has been objected1 that to admit human agency and co-operation in this change1 is to deny salvation by grace4 ,but how does this appear8 ,suppose the very conditions are by a gracious appointment--suppose the operations of a gracious system are in this way better adapted to a moral government--suppose this conditional action of the mind to be itself the result of a gracious influence1 enlightening the understanding1 and quickening and arousing the moral sense--finally1 suppose these conditions not to be efficient1 much less meritorious causes1 by which the mind either changes itself1 or renders itself more morally deserving of the ,divine favour--,i say suppose all this1 and then show if you can1 how such conditions can detract at all from the grace of this salvation4 #b4 ,it has been objected1 that since man never is what he ought to be until he is renewed and made holy1 therefore any act short of that which either constitutes or implies regeneration cannot be acceptable to ,god--,god cannot consistently approve of any step that falls short of man's duty4 ,it is his duty to be holy1 and therefore any thing short of this is sin1 and consequently cannot be accepted as a condition4 ,we should be careful to discriminate between things closely related1 and yet actually distinct from each other4 ,it is one thing to be pleased with the character of the mind as a whole1 in view of its relations to the ,divine law and its necessary qualifications for heaven1 and another thing to be pleased with a particular mental state1 or conditional volition1 in reference to its adaptation to a proposed end1 or a specific object4 ,for instance3 the ,calvinists think that an awakened and an anxiously inquiring sinner is in a more suitable state of mind to receive the blessing of regeneration1 than one perfectly stupid and thoughtless4 ,if they do not1 why do they try to bring sinners to thoughtfulness8 ,why do they try to awaken them to a sense of their danger1 and make them tremble under the view of the ,divine displeasure8 ,or why do they call their attention to ,gospel provisions and a crucified ,saviour8 ,is not this a preparatory process8 ,and have they the ,divine warrant for such a course8 ,is this the method which the ,divine ,being takes to save his rebellious subjects8 ,then1 doubtless1 this method is well pleasing to him3 and in reference to this specific end he has in view1 he is pleased with each successive step in the process4 ,he is pleased when the shiner pays attention to the word2 he is pleased when he is awakened1 and when he begins to tremble and inquire1 ,what shall ,i do to be saved8 ,this is just as he would have it1 and just as he designed2 although the entire character of the sinner is not acceptable to him until he is made holy4 ,the very principle1 then1 objected to by the ,calvinists is recognized by their own theory and practice4 ,now if we say ,god is pleased to accept of the sinner's prayer1 and faith1 and sorrow for sin1 as a condition of what he will do for him1 what propriety is there in replying1 ,god cannot accept of any thing short of a holy heart8 ,we know he cannot approve of a heart until it is holy2 but he can approve of certain feelings and volitions as suited1 according to the ,divine appointment1 to be the condition on which he will make the heart holy4 ,do you ask on what ground he accepts of this8 ,i answer1 on the ground of the merits of ,christ2 the ground on which the whole process rests4 ,god does not accept of the prayer1 repentance1 and faith of the regenerate1 because they are regenerate1 and by reason of their holiness2 but their acceptance is wholly and continually through ,christ4 ,through the same medium and merits the prayer of the inquiring sinner is heard and answered4 ,if your servant had left you unjustly1 and deserted the service he was obligated to perform1 and you should finally tell him1 if he would return and resume his duties you would forgive the past1 and accept of him for the future1 would it be inconsistent to say1 you were pleased when he began to listen to the proposal1 and pleased when he took the first and every succeeding step1 as being suitable and necessary to the end proposed1 although1 in view of his duty and your claim1 you would not be pleased with him1 as your acceptable servant1 until he was actually and faithfully employed in your service8 ,let it not be inferred from the above that ,i advocate a gradual conversion4 ,i do not4 ,i believe when ,god renews the heart he does it at once2 but the preparatory steps are nevertheless indispensable to the accomplishment of this work4 ,and ,god is well pleased with the first step of attention on the part of the sinner1 and with every succeeding step of prayer1 anxious inquiry1 feeling of moral obligation1 purpose to forsake sin1 looking after and attempting to believe in ,christ1 not because these are all that he requires1 but because they are the necessary preparatives for what is to follow4 #c4 ,the foregoing remarks will prepare the way to meet a similar objection to the last1 and one to some extent the same in substance4 ,it is this3 ,are these conditional acts of the mind holy or unholy exercises8 ,if holy1 then the work of regeneration is accomplished already1 and therefore these cannot be the conditions of that change4 ,if unholy1 then they can be no other than offensive to a holy ,god1 and therefore cannot be conditions well pleasing to him4 ,in addition to what has been already said1 having a bearing upon this question1 it may be stated that the terms holy and unholy may be equivocal1 as used in this connection2 and thus the supposed dilemma would be more in words than in fact1 more in appearance than in reality4 ,this dilemma is urged in the argument under the idea that there can be but the two kinds of exercises1 holy and unholy4 ,and this may be true enough1 only let us understand what is meant4 ,if by holy exercises are meant those in which the entire feeling is on the side of ,god1 ,i readily answer1 ,no1 the mind before regeneration has no such exercises4 ,if by holiness is meant1 that the judgment and conscience are on the side of truth1 ,i answer1 ,yes1 this is the state of the mind when it is truly awakened by the ,holy ,spirit and by ,divine truth4 ,it is entirely immaterial to me1 therefore1 whether the objector call the exercise holy or unholy1 provided he draw no special inferences from the use of a general term that the positions here assumed do not authorize4 ,sure ,i am that the objector cannot say there is nothing in the exercises of the unregenerate1 awakened sinner1 such as ,god would have for the end proposed1 until he is prepared to say that a fear of the consequences of sin1 an enlightened judgment1 the remorse of conscience for the past1 the feelings of obligation for the future1 and the hope of victory over sin through ,christ1 all combining to induce the sinner to flee for refuge1 and lay hold upon the hope set before him1 are all wrong1 and not as ,god would have them8 ,but when a man is prepared to say this1 it is difficult to see how he could be reasoned with farther1 for he would seem to have given up reason and ,scripture4 ,and yet who does not know that these are the exercises of the soul awakened to a sense of sin and its consequences1 even while as yet his unholy affections hang upon him like a body of death3--,yea1 who does not know that it is this body of death1 from which he cannot escape1 and this abhorrence of sin and its consequences1 that rein him up1 and incline him to a surrender of his soul into the hands of ,christ1 from whom1 as a consequence1 he receives power to become a son of ,god4 ,but what is the motive8 it is asked1 is not this unholy8 ,and pray what does this inquiry mean8 ,if by motive is meant the moving cause out of the mind2 that cannot be unholy1 for it is the ,holy ,spirit1 and the holy word of ,god1 that are thus urging the sinner to ,christ4 ,if by motive is meant the judgments and feelings of the mind1 that prompt to these voluntary efforts to avoid sin and its consequences1 these are the enlightened understanding and the feelings of obligation1 already alluded to1 which1 ,i repeat1 the objector is welcome to call holy or unholy as he pleases2 all ,i claim is1 they are what ,god approves of1 and are the necessary conditions of his subsequent work of renewing the heart4 ,but perhaps it may be asked here1 ,is not the sinner1 in the performance of these conditions1 partly converted8 ,i answer1 ,this again depends entirely upon what you mean by conversion4 ,if by conversion you understand the whole of the preparatory work of awakening and seeking1 as well as the change of the heart--then of course you would say he is partly converted4 ,if you mean by conversion only a change of views and a consequent change of purpose1 by which the sinner determines to seek1 that he may find the pearl of great price--the blessing of a new heart and of forgiveness1 then you would say he is wholly converted4 ,but if you mean1 by conversion1 the change of heart itself1 the washing of regeneration1 and the renewing of the ,holy ,ghost1 then not only is not the work done1 but it is not begun4 ,the way of the ,lord is prepared and the renewal will follow4 ,thus the objections that have been thought so formidable against the doctrine of conditional regeneration are found1 on a closer inspection1 to be more in appearance than in reality4 ,they receive their influence1 as objections1 rather from their indefiniteness and the ambiguity of terms1 than from any intrinsic force4 ,there is1 however1 one form more in which an objection may be urged in a general way against the ideas of the new birth here advanced4 ,and as ,i wish fearlessly and candidly to state and meet1 if possible1 every difficulty1 it will be necessary to touch upon this4 ,it may be urged that the only exercises that can be claimed as conditions of regeneration on ,bible grounds are repentance and faith2 for 'repentance toward ,god and faith in our ,lord ,jesus ,christ' are laid at the foundation of all ,gospel requirements4 ,whenever the awakened sinner came to the apostles to know what he should do to be saved1 they always met him with1 ',believe on the ,lord ,jesus ,christ1 and thou shalt be saved4' ,whenever the apostles went out to preach the ,gospel1 they preached 'every where that men should repent4' ,but1 continues the objector1 if repentance and faith are the only duties or exercises which can be claimed as conditions1 it is evident there are no such conditions2 for repentance and faith1 so far from being conditions of regeneration1 are either the new birth itself1 or are ,christian graces1 implying the new birth4 ,the premises1 in the above objection1 will not be denied4 ,repentance and faith are supposed to be the ,gospel conditions of regeneration4 ,but it is denied that these are necessarily regeneration itself1 or that they imply regeneration in any other sense1 than as antecedents to it4 ,there are1 it is acknowledged1 a repentance and a faith that are ,christian graces1 and imply the new birth4 ,this is the faith that is the substance of things hoped for4 ,it is that principle of spiritual life which the ,christian has in his soul when he can say1 ,the life that ,i now live ,i live by faith in the ,son of ,god4 ,this is that repentance1 also1 which keeps the soul continually at the foot of the cross1 and leads it constantly to feel1 ,every moment1 ,lord1 ,i need ,the merit of thy death4 ,but because repentance and faith are the necessary characteristics of the ,christian1 and because they are the more perfect as the ,christian character ripens1 it does not therefore follow that there are no repentance and faith conditional to the new birth4 ,the very fact that repentance and faith were urged by ,christ and his apostles1 as the initiatory step to salvation1 proves the opposite of this4 ,they do not say1 ,repent and believe the ,gospel1 and this is salvation1 but1 ,repent and believe1 and ye shall 7on this condition7 be saved4 ,and surely it is unnecessary to prove here that salvation in the ,new ,testament generally means a meetness for heaven or holiness4 ,our blessed ,saviour was called ,jesus1 because he saved his people from their sins4 ,beside1 it may well be argued1 that faith and repentance are acts of the mind1 and cannot therefore be considered as the new birth itself1 unless the mind converts itself1 especially since they are enjoined duties1 and must therefore be voluntary acts4 ,it is no where said that ,god repents and believes for us2 but it is expressly and repeatedly taught1 that ,god renews us4--,repentance and faith1 then1 are our work1 but regeneration is his4 ,i know it is said in one place1 ,acts v1 #ca1 that ,christ was exalted to give repentance to ,israel4 ,but the act itself of repentance cannot be said to be given4 ,this would be an absurdity4 ,how can any one give me a mental act8 ,hence ,dr4 ,doddridge1 although a ,calvinist1 very candidly and very justly remarks1 on this passage1 that to give repentance signifies to give place1 or room for repentance1 to sustain which interpretation he quotes ,josephus and others who use the phrase in this sense4 ,if then repentance and faith are enjoined upon us1 as our duties1 and if they are every where spoken of as prerequisites in the work of salvation1 and as preparatory steps and conditions to the process of holiness1 how can it be otherwise than that these are antecedent1 in the order of nature1 to regeneration8 ,it may farther be argued1 in support of this view of faith and repentance1 that no sin can be forgiven until repented of--repentance therefore must precede remission of sins4 ,this ,i suppose ,calvinists allow1 but they say that1 in the order of nature1 the heart is renewed before sin is forgiven--and that repentance1 therefore1 which is either the new birth itself1 or the immediate fruit of it1 is a condition of justification1 but not of regeneration4 ,if this be correct1 then the soul is made holy before it is forgiven4 ,but ,st4 ,paul informs us1 ,romans iv1 #e1 that ,god through faith justifieth the ungodly4 ,if then there be any antecedence in the order of the two parts of the work of grace1 we must suppose that justification has the precedence1 and that regeneration follows1 and hence repentance and faith precede regeneration4 ,indeed ,i cannot see why repentance is not as necessary to remove the sin of the heart as to forgive the sin of the life4 ,if ,god will not forgive sin without repentance1 will he renew the heart without it8 ,has he any where promised this8 ,if not1 but if1 on the contrary1 he every where seems to have suspended the working out of our salvation in us1 upon our repentance1 then may we safely conclude--nay1 then we must necessarily believe that we repent in order to be renewed4 ,the same may be said of faith4 ,faith in fact seems to be the exclusive channel through which every gracious effect is produced upon the mind4 ,the sinner cannot be awakened without faith1 for it precedes every judgment in favour of truth1 and every motion of moral feeling1 and of course every favourable concurrence of the will4 ,the sinner never could throw himself upon the ,divine mercy1 never would embrace ,christ as his ,saviour1 until he believed4 ,hence the ,scriptures lay such great stress upon faith1 and make it the grand1 and indeed the only immediate condition of the work of grace upon the heart4 ,repentance is a condition only remotely1 in order to justifying faith2 agreeable to the teaching of ,christ1 ,and ye1 when ye had heard1 afterward repented not that ye might believe on him4 ,but faith is necessary immediately1 as that mental state directly antecedent to the giving up of the soul into the hands of ,divine mercy4 ,and shall we still be told that faith is not the condition of regeneration8 ,the order of the work seems to be--#a4 ,a degree of faith in order to repentance4 #b4 ,repentance1 in order to such an increase of faith as will lead the soul to throw itself upon ,christ4--#c4 ,the giving up of the soul to ,christ as the only ground of hope4 #d4 ,the change of heart by the efficient operation of the ,holy ,spirit4--,now on whichever of these four stages of the process1 except the first1 the objector lays his finger and says1 ,that is not a condition of regeneration1 for it is regeneration itself1 it will be seen that that very part is conditional4 ,if1 for instance1 he fix on the second stage1 and contend that that is regeneration1 which ,i call repentance in order to regenerating faith2 even that would be conditional regeneration1 for it is preceded by faith--and so of all that follow4 ,and surely no one will pretend that what ,i call the first stage1 the faith which precedes awakening and remorse of conscience1 and the exciting alternations of fear and hope in the anxious and inquiring sinner1 is regeneration4 ,and if this first degree of faith is not the change1 then it is utterly inconsistent to talk of unconditional regeneration1 for this faith stands at the head of all that follows--it is a mental act necessarily preparatory to the whole work4 ,and as we shall presently see1 it is an act that depends upon the agency of the will4 ,hence we are brought again to our conclusion1 that the change called the new birth is effected by the ,holy ,spirit1 on the ground of certain conditional acts of him who is the subject of the change4 ,but the very nature of repentance and of faith1 the very definition of the two mental states expressed by these terms1 it is said1 proves that a person1 to possess them1 must be regenerate2 or at any rate1 that these states cannot be conditions of regeneration1 to be performed by the sinner4 ,let us attend for a moment to this objection in detail4 ,what is repentance8 ,it is1 say some ,calvinistic writers1 a change of mind4 ,the original means this1 and so it should have been rendered2 and if it had been so rendered1 it would have set this controversy at rest4 ,but what if we should grant 7what ,i do not believe7 that the original word means this1 and this only1 still it would not follow that the change of mind called the new birth is meant by this term4 ,a change of judgment is a change of mind--a change of purpose is a change of mind--any change of the general current of feeling1 such as that from carelessness and stupidity in to a state of anxiety and earnest inquiry1 what shall ,i do to be saved8 is a change of mind4--,and such a change of mind indispensably precedes regeneration4 ,no person ever1 from being a careless1 hardened sinner1 becomes an anxious and earnest inquirer after salvation1 without an important change in his judgment1 moral feeling1 and volitions4 ,hence this definition does not at all help the objector1 unless he can prove that the ,scriptures always mean by this term that change which they elsewhere call the new birth4 ,indeed1 since we have already shown that repentance is our work1 and the renewing of the heart exclusively ,god's work1 it follows incontrovertibly1 that the change of mind called repentance is not the new birth4 ,if repentance meant that change of mind called the new birth1 then the regenerate would be often born again1 and that1 too1 without backsliding2 for those who are growing the fastest in grace repent the most constantly and the most deeply4 ,again3 it is objected1 that faith is not a voluntary state of mind1 and therefore cannot be considered a condition1 performed by the sinner1 in order to regeneration4 ,to believe is doubtless1 in many instances1 perfectly involuntary4 ,there are numerous cases in which a man is obliged to believe1 both against his will and against his desires4 ,there are other cases1 again1 in which the will is not only much concerned in believing1 but in which its action is indispensable in order to believe4 ,and the faith of the ,gospel is pre-eminently an instance of this kind4 ,faith1 saith the word1 cometh by hearing4 ,but hearing implies attention2 and every deliberate act of attention implies an act of the will4 ,a man can no more leap1 by one transition1 from a state of entire carelessness into the faith that justifies the soul1 than he can make a world4 ,but he can take the steps that lead to this result4 ,to believe to the saving of the soul requires consideration1 self examination1 a knowledge of the object of faith1 or the truth to be believed1 earnest looking1 and prayerful seeking4 ,but is there no act of the will in all these8 ,it is said that the ,spirit takes of the things of ,jesus ,christ1 and shows them unto us4 ,and it is doubtless true1 that the soul cannot get such a view of ,christ as encourages him to throw himself unreservedly upon the mercy of the ,saviour1 until the ,spirit makes1 to the mind's eye1 this special exhibition of the things of ,christ4 ,but when does he do this8 ,does he come to the sinner when he is careless and inattentive1 and show him the things of ,christ8 ,no6 it is only to the inquiring and self-despairing sinner1 who is earnestly groaning out the sentiment in the bitterness of his heart1 ,who shall deliver me from the body of this death8 ,and is there no voluntary action in all this8 ,but it will perhaps be wearisome to the reader to pursue these objections farther4 ,i should not have gone so fully into this part of the subject1 but for the fact1 that this sentiment of unconditional regeneration is considered the strong hold of ,calvinism4 ,this point moreover appears to have been but slightly handled by most of the anti-,calvinistic writers2 and therefore ,i have felt it the more necessary to attempt an answer to all the most important arguments that are adduced in opposition to our view of this doctrine4 ,i am far from thinking ,i have done the subject justice1 and may have cause perhaps hereafter to acknowledge that some of my minor positions are untenable1 and that some of my expressions need modifying or explaining1 although ,i have used what care and circumspection my time and circumstances would permit in reference not only to the doctrine itself1 but also in reference to the forms of expression4 ,and as it respects the leading doctrines here inculcated1 ,i repose upon them with entire confidence4 ,however the theory clashes with that of many great and good men1 it is believed to be the only theory that will consistently explain the practice and preaching of these very men4 ,it is1 in my view1 the only theory that will satisfactorily and consistently explain those great and leading principles by which evangelical ,christians expect to convert the world to ,christ4 ,and1 if this be true1 the sooner the ,christian ,church is established on this foundation1 the better4 ,we have already seen that a mixture of error in the essential doctrines leads to various mutations from extreme to extreme of dangerous heresy4 ,how long before the ,church shall be rooted and grounded in the truth6 ,may ,he who said1 ,,let ,,light ,,be2 ,,and ,,light ,,was1 hasten that glorious day6 ,,the ,,end4 ,footnotes #a ,many objections have been made1 by the reviewers1 to my manner of stating the doctrine of predestination4 ,it is objected1 that the great body of ,calvinists believe1 no more than the ,arminians1 that ,god efficiently controls and actuates the human will4 ,on a careful1 and ,i hope1 candid revision of the subject1 however1 ,i cannot satisfy myself that the objection is valid4 ,i am quite sure ,god must control the will1 or he cannot1 as ,calvinists teach1 secure the proposed end1 by the prescribed means4 ,it is readily granted that ,calvinists deny such a control as destroys the freedom of the will4 ,but it is the object of the sermon and of the following controversy to show that ,calvinistic predestination is1 on any ground of consistency1 utterly irreconcilable with mental freedom4 ,how far this has been done1 of course1 each will judge for himself4 #b ,it seems1 to the author of the sermon1 but little better than trifling1 to object1 as some have1 to this argument on foreknowledge1 that ,god must predetermine his works before he could certainly know what would take place2 and hence1 in the order of cause and effect1 he must decree in order to know4 ,it is readily conceded1 that1 in the order of nature1 the ,divine ,being could not foreknow that a world would certainly exist1 until he had determined to create it4 ,but was there no prescience back of this8 ,did he determine to create a universe1 independent of a view of all the bearings in the case8 ,if so1 he created at random and in ignorance4 ,if not1 then a view of all the results preceded his determination to create2 and thus we are led irresistibly to the doctrine of the sermon1 that ,god foreknows in order to predestinate4 #c ,the review of the sermon1 in the ,christian ,spectator1 is understood to be from the pen of ,doctor ,fitch1 professor of divinity in ,yale ,college4 #d ,see ,christian ,spectator1 ,vol4 iv1 ,no4 #c4 #e ,a part of this sermon has lately been published1 in a tract form1 and circulated with the avowed purpose of counteracting the influence of the sermon on predestination4 #f ,a man was afflicted with the hydrophobia4 ,when his paroxysms were coming on he was aware of it1 and gave warning to his friends to be on their guard1 that he might not injure them4 ,suppose1 however1 he knew of a sure remedy1 but voluntarily neglected to avail himself of it4 ,would he not in that case be guilty1 not only of all the evils that might result to others from his malady2 but also of self murder8 ,and yet this man's madness was entirely beyond the direct control of his will4