| THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. § Frinceton, I\T. J. — Q Y BX 6195 .A7 1860 Annan, William, 1805-1882. The difficulties of Arminian Methodism / J/ lJ2^de<^a^£L<2 e/ 1 6&ce£y£i^_ ^/^^^z^> / THE DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIAN METHODISM: A SERIES OF LETTERS, ADDRESSED TO BISHOP SIMPSON, OF PITTSBURGH. BI WILLIAM ANNAN, AUTHOR OF "LETTERS ON PSALMODY," 4C. FOURTH EDITION- RE-WRITTEN AND ENLARGED. "The prejudice against religious controversy is irrational and hurtful." — Dr. J. M. Mason. " The truth is usually elicited by conflict. Agreement is the result." — Prof. Hodge. " The evils of controversy are transient : the good it produces is permanent." — Robert Hall. PHILADELPHIA: WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN, No. 606 CHESTNUT STREET. 1860. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year I860, by WILLIAM ANNAN, In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for tho Western Distric of the State of Pennsylvania. 8TKREOTYPED BY W. S. HAVEN, PITTSBURGH, PA. PREFACE. In conversation a number of years ago with an esteemed friend, tho Rev. (now Dr.) James Linn, of Bellefonte, Pa. the preparation of this work was first suggested. Three editions having been favorably received by the Christian public, the writer has been induced by the solicitations of honored brethren, to issue in an enlarged, and he hopes, improved form, a fourth edition. The work has not only been carefully revised, but in a great measure re-written. Every where the argument has been extended, and he trusts, strengthened, especially by quotations from leading Arminian authori- ties.' The Letter on "Imputed Righteousness" is entirely new, being necessary to complete the investigation of the " Difficulties of Armin- ian Methodism." It has been the aim of the author to make his book, as far as possible, a full and satisfactory expose of the polemical weak- nesses of modern Arminianism. For this end he has gone to the fountains, to the accredited authorities of Episcopal Methodism. It has been his earnest desire to make her best and ablest writers speak for themselves. In connection with Arminian errors, he has also given a concise statement of revealed truth. An entirely new feature in the re-construction of this work, is the review of the " Objections to Calvinism," a work highly eulogized by Bishop Simpson, of Pittsburgh. This book has been constantly by our side, its most important and objectionable characteristics have been fairly stated, and if we mistake not, fully invalidated ; and in not a few instances, we trust, logically thrown back upon its author and indorsers. In reading these " Objections to Calvinism," and indeed in every other work from the same general source, we are constantly reminded of Bishop Horsely's advice to his clergy, in his last charge: "Take special care," said he, " in aiming your shafts at Calvinism, that yon know what Calvinism is, * * * and that you can distinguish that which belongs to our common Christianity." It is a curious circum- stance, that in the " Refutation of Calvinism," one of his brother bishops, Tomliue of Lincoln, assailed "Justification by Faith," as one of the monstrous doctrines of the Calvinistic theology ! For thia (iii) IV PREFACE. fact we have the authority of the " Edinburgh Encyclopedia," Art. Calvinism. Well might the late Dr. Miller, of Princeton, say, that "no system was ever more grossly misrepresented or niore foully vil- lified," and "that it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker who has opposed it, who has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to understand it."* We fear the modern Bishop (at Pittsburgh), and Mr. Foster, whom he indorses, must fall under the same condem- nation. According to these authors, Calvinism is justly chargeable with "unaccountable and horrid teachings," "revolting and shameful de- formities," " inculcates licentiousness and recklessness, licenses crime;" "a man may become during life a devil in sin, but he cannot miss of heaven ;" " endangers all the interests of sound virtue and true religion ;" " dishonors and demonizes the God of the universe," &c. &c. Such, according to Bishop Simpson and Mr. Foster, are correct fea- tures of Calvinism ! Their book swarms with such misrepresentations as these, only worse, if that were possible ! And one of their chief authorities for these charitable statements, is the Presbyterian "Con- fession of Faith." Now in all Christian courtesy, we of course must Buppose that these Arminian brethren and their church, which pub- lishes "The Objections to Calvinism," really believe their own state- ments. But if the picture be a true one, it is difficult to understand Mr. Wesley, when, in speaking of our Larger Catechism, which is a summary of Calvinistic doctrines, he says that, "in the main, it is a very excellent composition."! And how could he affirm, "I believe Calvin was a great instrument of God, and that he was a wise and pious man." "John Calvin was a pious, learned, sensible man. "J Could such a man have taught a system of doctrine as foul and monstrous as Atheism itself? More than this : The Confession of Faith of our church, which Messrs. Foster and Simpson say they have demonstrably convicted of such enormities, was the work of the Westminster Assembly of Divines. AVho were the members of that Assembly ? What was their character ? Let the " Methodist Quarterly Review "$ give the answer : That Assembly included " a galaxy of illustrious persons, of unequaled brightness" — " such were the leading spirits of the body" — "stars of the first magnitude." But according to Messrs. Simpson and Foster, this "unequaled galaxy of stars" shed upon the world unequaled darkness ! * On Presbyterianisin, pp. 26, 27. t Original Sin, part 2, sec. 2. X Works, vols. i. and ii. pp. 516, 475. § Tor October, 1848. PREFACE. V Again: " That famous Confession," says the same high Methodist authority, "is iu many particulars a remarkable production" — "a well written instrument" — though "most thoroughly Calvinistic." " Whoever adopts it as the formulary of his faith, though he may err as to some speculative points, will be sound in all things essential to a saving appreciation of the way of salvation." Compare this honorable testimony with the statements of Messrs. Simpson and Foster. And what have been the practical results, the fruits of this Confession ? " The influence of the labors of the Assembly," adds the same "Meth- odist Quarterly," "has been extensive and controlling over multitudes of the better classes of the inhabitants * * * wherever the English language is spoken. To their formularies'''' — mark this ! — " millions have owed their preservation from destructive errors, their theological knowledge, and saving sober piety." And all this from a system which, in certain of its features, "inculcates licentiousness, licenses crime, and demonizes the God of the universe!" So at least say these Armiuian brethren. But has not this "wild vine" of Calvinistic growth and culture, often produced " the grapes of Sodom and the clusters of Gomorrah?" The " Methodist Quarterly" shall answer: "Ever since," — i. e. since the meeting of the Westminster Assembly — "it (the Confession) has exerted a most salutary influence in the world. By it the Romanizing tendency of the English Establishment has been kept in check ; its opposition to uniformity has perpetuated religious liberty, while its deep- toned orthodoxy has stood as a bulwark against the onsets of every form of seductive error." These are certainly not the clusters of Sodom! In confirmation of these facts, the " Methodist Quarterly " next cites Scotland as "an exemplification of the practical tendency of these form- ularies," and quotes from the Life of Alexander Henderson what is called "a felicitous statement of the case," as follows: "These (Westminster) divines have erected a monument in almost every heart in Scotland. * * * Next to the introduction of Christianity, and the translation of the Bible into the vulgar tongue, the framing of the Confession of Faith and of the Catechism, has conferred the greatest boon on every Christian in our country." This differs slightly from the picture of Foster and Simpson ! Still further : The same Quarterly has a glowing eulogy of that distinguished Calvinist, Alexander Henderson, "who wrote the prin- cipal part of the Confession of Faith with his own hand." "He was evidently of that sort of men of which martyrs are made." " His country honors his memory as that of one of her chief benefactors 1* VI PREFACE. and the whole Christian world owes him a debt -of lasting gratitude." If our Anninian brethren, Foster and Simpson, are right, the Christian world must be grateful for very small favors ! Finally, says the Reviewer: "The famous Westminster Assembly, * * * in its origin, progress and end, was like a meteor bursting suddenly into being and beaming with unwonted splendor for a season, &c." "Not so, however, were its effects. Like the genial flowers and sunshine of early spring, it imparted life and strength to what had seemed utterly dead, * * * the pledge of the coming summer and the seed time of that harvest whose reaping is yet in progress." Such were, and continue to be the fruits of a system, which in several of its distinctive features, " licenses crime and endangers all the interests of sound virtue and true religion!" And even when this Arminian Reviewer speaks of " the vexed ques- tion of decrees," it is in a tone of candor and fairness very different from that which pervades the "Objections," &c. "It may be very difficult," he says, "by the force of logic, to evade the conclusion of the Predestinarians ; it is equally difficult for them to reconcile their own views to a sense of justice and the revealed character of God. Both parties in this controversy have need to learn that some things are too high for them. If Revelation discloses truths which threaten to clash in their remote consequences, it becomes us to leave those conse- quences to God, nor dare to dim the glory of His name by limiting his natural attributes of knowledge aud power, &c." The allusion we suppose to be especially to Dr. Adam Clarke's theological foibles in regard to Divine Foreknowledge. This Reviewer writes in a spirit which cannot be too strongly recommended to certain persons, who, with presumptuous daring, "rush in where angels fear to tread." But if he imagines that the Calvinistic scheme "so hides the moral perfec- tions of God, as to make him appear as an Almighty Tyrant," we can only say that in our humble judgment, the charge is altogether without foundation, and indeed may be fairly retorted upon his own system. But where there is so much that is fair and candid, so much that does honor both to the head and heart of the Reviewer, so much to evince a spirit that bows to the supremacy of truth, even when she frowns upon him — in such circumstances we cannot feel any great dis- position to find fault. From the very numerous expressions of approval which the writer has at different times received, the following are selected : PREFACE. Vll From the late Dr. Archibald Alexander. " The subject has been treated in a fair and masterly manner. The argumentative part of the work is admirably conducted. The book should be widely circulated in our Church. Such a defense against the ungenerous attacks of many assailants, was called for, and will effectually subserve the promotion of evangelical truth." From the Biblical Repertory. " The author has proved himself to be a workman that need not be ashamed. Whoever wishes to see the objections commonly made by Arminians to the Calviuistic system fairly rolled back on their own, will find satisfaction in the perusal of this volume." From the Rev. William Engles, D. D. Editor of " The Presbyterian." " Mr. Annan was induced to undertake this work in self-defense. * * * He has furnished a popular treatise, which cannot be easily answered ; hence his book has been assailed with great violence. But we cau see no reason for so much wrath in the temper or style of this volume. He has carried the war iuto the enemy's territory. We advise Presbyterians, when assailed by Arminians, to procure and cir- culate this book." From Rev. Dr. Musgrave. " I was rejoiced to see a new edition of ' The Difficulties of Armin- ian Methodism.' It was quite time the slanders aud gross misrepre- sentations of that denomination should be repelled and exposed. Tho author has ' used them up ' handsomely, and deserves the thanks of all who love truth, honesty, honor, and rational piety." From Rev. Dr. Elliott, of the Western Theological Seminary. " The work is well executed. The author has presented the difficul- ties of the system which he assails, in a clear and forcible manner. The radical authorities which he has introduced, greatly enhance the value of the work. Those who are so fond of exhibiting the difficulties of Calvinism, will here find room for the trial of their skill in settling the difficulties of their own system. The work is cheerfully recom- mended to the patronage of an intelligent Christian public." From the late Rev. Dr. Baird, Editor of the Pittsburgh Christian Herald. " It was wise to carry the war into the territory of the assailants, and this Mr. Annan has done with ability and success." Vlll PREFACE. From a Review in the Presbyterian. " It is a work full of merit, from its rational exhibition of what may be called theological absurdities — a luminous exposure of the absurd- ities of the Arminian system. The style, from its original method, is agreeable. It includes also an able defense of the doctrine of Calvin and others. To all who can obtain the book, we say — Read." From a Review in the Christian Herald. " A successful development of the difficulties of the Arminian system. I know of no volume so well adapted to expose the weak points of Methodism. The style is popular and sprightly, the argument pointed and concise. The ' Difficulties of Arminian Methodism ' are strongly, fairly, yet succinctly stated. The volume is convenient, portable, neatly executed and popularly written. It is therefore well adapted to strengthen Presbyterians in their confidence in the truth of their own system, and guard them against the claims of arrogant Arminians." CONTENTS. LETTER I. PiOI Introductory. — Circumstances which call for the work — Remarks upon the " Objections to Calvinism," ----- 11 LETTER II. Difficulties in connection with the doctrine of Original Sin — The confused, incoherent and contradictory statements made on the subject, -.--..----28 LETTER III. Same subject, continued — Relations to the Atonement, 41 LETTER IV. Same subject concluded — State and Prospects of Infants — Free- dom of the Will, 56 LETTER V. Difficulties on the subject of Foreknowledge — Predestination, 77 LETTER VI. Same subject, continued, -------98 LETTER VII. Election — Reprobation, - - - - - - - -113 LETTER VIII. Same subject, continued, ---.--- 136 LETTER IX. Difficulties on the subject of Atonement: its nature and extent, 152 LETTER X. Difficulties in connection with " Falling from Grace," - - 173 LETTER XI. Difficulties on the subject of Justification and Imputed Right- eousness, - - -- -_.--. 192 (ix) CONTENTS. LETTER XII. PACK Difficulties in reference to "Sinless Perfection," - 204 LETTER XIII. Difficulties upon the subject of Regeneration, and the character- istics of a change of heart, ----.. 226 LETTER XIV. Difficulties in connection -with Camp Meetings, ... 242 LETTER XV. Difficulties with regard to Religious Ordinances, Abuses, &c. - 252 LETTER XVI. Difficulties of the Methodist Episcopal Form of Government — its exclusive and anti-republican character, .... 261 LETTER XVII. Difficulties in relation to certain Rights of Property, - - 273 LETTER XVIII. Difficulties in regard to the powers of the Preachers — they fix their own salaries, and provide for their payment, ... 287 LETTER XIX. Are the Preachers' Salaries well paid ?----- 292 LETTER XX. Articles and Discipline — their origin and prominent features, 301 APPENDIX I. False Quotations exposed, ---..._ 314 APPENDIX II. The Heathen World — its state and prospects, - - - 331 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. LETTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. To Bishop Simpson : Rev. Sir — I take the liberty of addressing these Letters to you, for several reasons : 1. You have been long a preacher, and for a time were one of the editors of the Methodist Episcopal church, and are well known as a zealous defender of its faith. 2. Your ministerial brethren have elevated you to a posi- tion among the chief functionaries of their ecclesiastical sys- tem, and of course you stand upon the watch-tower as a prominent guardian of its administration. 3. In a formal " Introduction" to the work called " Ob- jections to Calvinism," by the Rev. R. S. Foster, you have given your indorsement to the doctrinal caricature which he calls Calvinism. Thus you say, the "argumentation is strictly logical," " the book is very valuable," " well execu- ted," and of " great merit." The numerous extracts which appear in these Letters, will furnish appropriate illustrations of this flattering notice from your pen. Suffice it for the present to say, that to every well informed Presbyterian, it must seem marvelous, that you should employ such terms in relation to such a production. But as the act is done, and as the "Objections" are published "for the Methodist Epis- copal church" — as you have thus embarked your character as a theologian and a man of enlarged views, with that of (11) 12 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. Mr. Foster, there seems to be a propriety in directing these Letters to you. These facts will also explain why, in refer- ring to Mr. Foster's work, I couple your name with his — not only because you have indorsed his statements, but in your "Introduction" have yourself adopted some of the most offensive and injurious of them. To illustrate my meaning: in speaking of " the subject of Predestination," which you say " has for ages engaged the attention of theologians and philosophers" — you state "the questions which arise" as follows : " Is the destiny of every human being unchangeably determined before his birth, with- out reference to foreseen conduct ? Has the mind a power of choice ? Can it move freely within certain specified limits ? Will the nature of its movements and choice influence its eternal happiness?" "These questions," you add, "have in some form exercised the highest powers of the human in- tellect;" and the obvious inference which you wish to have made, is that Calvinists or Predestinarians hold the following positions, viz. that " the eternal destiny of every man is unchangeably fixed before his birth without reference to his foreseen conduct" or character as righteous or wicked — that the mind has no power of choice — that it cannot move freely — that the nature of its movements and choice have no influ- ence on its eternal happiness." Such is Predestination ! Such, according to Bishop Simp- son, are the doctrines held and taught by Presbyterians and other Calvinists. And the book which repeats and reiterates these impious statements, and attempts to fix them down upon Calvinistic churches, the Bishop indorses, and his sect publishes as one of " great merit!" Let the reader observe — Bishop S. does not affirm merely that these impieties have, by some Anti-Calvinists been considered as legitimate infer- ences from the doctrine of Predestination. That would be bad enough — but he goes much farther. These are the questions ! These are the real points which have exercised Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 13 and divided the minds of " theologians and philosophers." But so far as regards the Presbyterian church, we need hardly say that no person broaching such monstrous sentiments, could be received as a member of any of our ecclesiastical bodies — and if Bishop Simpson will undertake to prove such charges against any individual minister of our communion, we pledge our word that he shall be brought to trial, and if the Bishop shall sustain the accusation, that the guilty one shall be forthwith suspended from the office. It is no concern of ours, even though you could prove that u the Atheistical school of philosophers," " the Jewish Essenes" and " the Mohammedans," held the doctrine of Predestination, as you state it. So also it has been fashiona- ble for Arminian disputants to charge Calvinism with being nearly allied to Stoical fate. The Greek and Roman philos- ophers, called Stoics, are admitted by even Arminian authors, to have been the greatest, wisest and most virtuous of all the heathens ; and their sayings are often quoted by Arminians as a confirmation of some of the most important truths of Christianity ; particularly relating to the unity and perfec- tion of the Godhead, a future state, the duty and happiness of mankind, &c. The doctrine of Fate, as held by the Stoics, was in some respects very erroneous, though they differed among themselves. And if any of them taught the same doctrine held by others of the ancient heathen — viz. that Fate was a power which overruled and controlled both men and gods, it was of course sheer Atheism. Even Bishop Simpson will not pretend to find any thing of this sort in Calvinism. But where do we find the " philosophers and theologians" of ancient and modern times, whose sympathies and views most nearly harmonized with those of modern Ar- minians ? We find them among the followers of Epicurus, the father of Atheism and licentiousness — among the Sad- ducees, who said " that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit" — and among the Mohammedans, " one of whose 2 14 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. sects, and portions of other sects," the Bishop admits, " held the freedom of the human will," i. e. in the Arminian sense of freedom ! And last but not least, " the Jesuits," yes, " the Jesuits, who became the most indefatigable enemies of the Reformation, * * * were the advocates of (Ar- minian) free will !" Such is the testimony of Bishop S. himself ! Arminianism has great cause to be proud of her allies. In such volumes as the one which you have so profusely bepraised, it is common to find Calvinism represented as " a libel upon Deity, profane, scandalous, a system of blasphemy and impiety." But if this be true, it is really wonderful that so bad a tree should bear such "good fruit." From the par- tisan and sectarian verdict of such men as Alexander Camp- bell, of Bethany, and such preachers as Rev. R. S. Foster (whom you indorse), we appeal to the enlightened judgment of such acknowledged literary tribunals as "the British Encyclo- pedia," which contains the following, not written by a Calvin- ist : " There is one remark which we think ourselves in justice bound to make. It is this — that from the earliest age down to our own days, if we consider the character of the ancient Stoics, the Jewish Essenes, the modern Calvinists and Janse- nists, compared with that of their antagonists, the Epicureans, the Sadducees, the Arminians and the Jesuits, we shall find that they have excelled, in no small degree, in the practice of the most rigid and respectable virtues, and have been the highest honor to their own age, and the best models for imitation to every succeeding age." Such is the testimo- ny of an impartial witness, a first-rate scholar. Again : The " Edinburgh Review," which has not been suspected of a leaning toward Calvinism, says : " Who were the first formidable opponents of this doctrine (predestina- tion) in the Church of Rome ? The Jesuits, the contrivers of courtly casuistry, and the founders of lax morality. Who, in the same church, inclined to the theology of Augustine ? Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 The Jansenists, the teachers and the models of austere morals." Again : " It is a notorious and undeniable fact." remarks the Edinburgh Encyclopedia, " that wherever the doctrine and discipline of Calvin have existed and been allowed to operate, the people have been remarkable for an enlightened piety and the strictness of their moral conduct." To the same effect, hear one of your own most distinguish- ed ministers, Rev. Dr. Elliott, for several years editor of the " Western Christian Advocate :" — " The Presbyterians of every class," remarks Dr. E. " were prominent and even foremost, in achieving the liberties of the United States. They have been all along the leading supporters of constitu- tion and law, and good order. They have been the pioneers of learning and sound knowledge from the highest to the low- est grade, and are now its principal supporters. The cause of morals and good order has always found them the FIRST TO aid, and among the last to retire from its support." " The Presbyterians," adds Dr. E. " are not confounded and never will be, so long as they adhere to the Bible and to the promotion of truth and righteousness, as they have al- ways done with more or less fidelity." " Many thousands of precious souls are annually brought to a saving knowledge of Christ by their instrumentality." Will Bishop Simpson ven- ture to affirm that these are the lawful results of a system of impious and licentious dogmas, such as he ascribes to Calvin- ists ? Did Dr. Elliott regard the Presbyterian church in the light in which she is depicted by Mr. Foster ? As well inquire whether " men gather grapes of thorns and figs of thistles." As well band with the infidel and deny the truth of the inspired maxim, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Such then are some of the benign " fruits" of a system of doctrine, the character of which is drawn in your leading tracts and other publications as follows: — "It makes f all preaching vain ;' ' it directly tends to destroy that holiness, 16 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. which is the end of all the ordinances of God ;' it ' directly tends to destroy our zeal for good works ;' it has ' also a direct and manifest tendency to overthrow the whole Chris- tian revelation ;' it represents our Saviour ' as a hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common sincerity ;' it ' destroys all God's attributes at once : it overturns both his justice, mercy and truth : yea, it represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as both more false, more cruel and more unjust,' as 'an omnipresent, almighty tyrant.' ' This is the blasphemy clearly contained in the horrible de- cree of predestination.' " " Ye shall know the truth," said our blessed Lord, " and tlie truth shall make you free." Commence the inquiry at any point you please. Go back to the days of the celebrated Augustine of the fourth century. To him Mosheiin ascribes " the glory of having suppressed Pelagianism in its very birth." All acknowledge him to have been a Predestinarian of a high order. Did he hold " that the good and the bad actions of men were from eternity fixed by an invincible (or natural) necessity ?" No, he explicitly rejected, like modern Calvinists, such an impious dogma ! Bishop S. cannot be ignorant of the history of the Waldenses and Albigenses, who in the retired fastnesses of the Alps, preserved the truth for so many agea safe from the corruptions of Rome. Yet they were Predestinarians. So were the leading Reformers of the six- teenth century — as the creeds which they prepared abundantly testify. Contrast, too, the Arminianism and morals of Laud and his semi-popish clergy, and of Claverhouse and his dragoons — with " the austere morality and the fear of God" which pervaded all ranks of the Covenanters, and also of the army of Cromwell — as Macaulay assures us. In that singular camp, the historian tells us, " no oath was heard, no drunkenness or gambling was seen, * * * the property of the peace- able citizen and the honor of woman were held sacred," &c. These were the fruits of Calvinism ! And the lives of such Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 17 moderns as Thomas Scott, Legh Richmond, Bunyan, Ed- ward*, Whitefield, and a host of other Calvinists, all testify- that "a fountain that sends forth such streams of purity- must be a pure fountain." Even your own " Quarterly Re- view," in a very unfair and unfriendly notice of certain "Lives of Calvin," admits that at Geneva " his practical dis- cipline was of the severest cast." And one of the proofs is, " dancing and other amusements were strictly prohibited."* Yet this same Quarterly, when it wishes to glorify a certain Arminian preacher, speaks of " his opposition to dancing" in a very commendatory tone !f " Opposition to dancing" is good in an Arminian preacher, but hardly endurable in John Calvin ! Thus leaks out that harsh, intolerant, exclusive sectarism which lives and breathes throughout your church. This it is which prompts the extravagant eulogy of a certain Rev. Jesse Lee, who, as we are told by your highest authori- ties, near the close of the last century, abandoned " the scat- tered population of Virginia," " a country then very inade- quately supplied with the ordinances of religion" — for what purpose ? why, to carry the (Methodist) gospel to New Eng- land, " which had always," as your Quarterly admits, "been supplied with abundance of religious teachers," but where there were no Methodists ! Such is the Apostolic zeal of pure Arminianism ! No wonder that the same Quarterly elsewhere affirms, "that the spirit of sect, a spirit of early in- trusion, of facile growth and of late eradication, has without question been par too prevalent in our (Methodist) com- munion. "J Jesse Lee, in his benevolent mission to convert the adherents of the theology of Jonathan Edwards, Pwight, Brainard and Payson, never uttered a more palpable truth than this of your " Quarterly !" No, not even when at the commencement of his " momentous message to New Eng- land," as your historian Stevens tells us,§ " he pronounced the * For October, 1850, p. 584. % For April, 1850, p. 188. f For January, 1850, p. 67. § Page 41. 2* 18 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. remonstrance of Methodism against such Puritan doctrines as 1 infant damnation!"' Whether the spirit of Christ, or " the spirit of sect/' is the reigning impulse in such movements as this, let enlightened Christianity decide. The morals of the thing are patent to every discerning eye. In claiming " the Lutheran church" as " strictly agreeing with the Arminian view of Predestination/' Bishop Simpson is not more successful. No Presbyterian would object to the following statements from Professor Schinucker's " Popular Theology :" " The purposes or intentions of God are of two kinds; either causative, which refer to his own intended ac- tions : or permissive, relating to those actions which he fore- sees that his creatures will perform, and which he resolves not to prevent." " These purposes of God, either causative or per- missive, do extend to all things." "What God thus intend- ed (or purposed) in eternity, he actually executes in time." " The Divine providence, i. e. the execution of God's eter- nal purposes or intentions, extends to all things." * This, of course, includes sin. No Presbyterian could ask a clearer statement of the doctrine of his Catechism — " the decrees of God are his eternal purpose, whereby for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." Again : " This sin (of our first parents) God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory. "f In like manner, Dr. John Owen, a Calvinist of the period of the Westminster Assem- bly, and one of the greatest authorities and advocates of Pre- destination : " The decree of reprobation is the eternal pur- pose of God to suffer (or permit) many to sin, to leave them in their sin, and not giving them to Christ, to punish them for their sin. "J And the Catechism : " Our first parents, being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created, by sinning against God." Q. 13. Yet this is the scheme of doctrine which Bishop Simpson * Popular Theology, p. 95. f Confession, p. 30. J Vol. 5, p. 14. Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 19 tolls the public, denies "to the mind a power of choice" — de- nies " that the nature of its choice influences the soul's eter- nal happiness ! I" Neither will any sound Presbyterian object to Dr. Schmucker's views when he says — " The decrees of God rela- tive to the future destiny of men, were formed in view, that is, with a full knowledge of the conduct of men, * * * as is manifest from the absolute omniscience of God." "These decrees," he adds, " were formed in view (with a full know- ledge) of men's voluntary agency." So far as regards those who finally perish, our Confession expressly says, they are " passed by and ordained to wrath for their sin" — and, of course, it must have been "in view, or with full knowledge of their conduct," as Dr. Schmucker well expresses the truth. In regard to those who shall be saved, Dr. Schmucker says, " the decree of predestination to eternal life, is based on the foreseen voluntary conduct of the individuals." This expres- sion — "a decree based on voluntary conduct" — the Calvinist would not employ in reference to the finally saved. Yet per- haps even here, the difference is rather verbal than real ; for Dr. S. adds : " Our salvation is not of works, but of grace. Yes, humble Christian ! Thy works shall follow thee, not as a ground of justification, or as satisfaction to the demands of the violated law ; for Christ and his merits are the only basis OF OUR HOPE, the only satisfaction for sin. * * * But the works of the believer shall be the measure of his fu- ture gracious reward ;" i. e. " we shall be rewarded accord- ing to our works."* It will be seen, therefore, that Dr. S. admits the true and only scriptural "ground" on which " eternal life" is based. Of course, " the decree" to bestow salvation agrees with the truth of the case, %. e. it is founded on the " only basis of our hope," in " Christ and his merits;" not on " foreseen voluntary conduct." This agrees with Cal- vinism, and the difference on this point seems to be merely * Popular Theology, pp. 100, 108. 20 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. verbal, Hence there appears no very strong family likeness between the Lutheran theology and the system of Episcopal Methodism. Besides, Professor S. affirms that the Holy Spirit " produces faith" — " that what he does in time, he eternally intended or purposed to do" — which is the doctrine of Paul, viz. " God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." 2 Thess. 2 : 13. I anticipate the following objection to much that is said in these Letters : " The system here expounded is not the Cal- vinism of its original teacher. Surely John Calvin was a Cal- vinist." I reply : 1. The Presbyterian church has never held herself re- sponsible for some of the doctrines taught by the illustrious Calvin. It is true her " Board of Publication" have issued "the Institutes." But mark ! It is with several express qual- ifications. " Considering the circumstances in ichich they were written," they say, " the Institutes form an invaluable body of divinity." " Yet some of the expressions of Calvin on the subject of Reprobation may be regarded as too un- qualified, and we can no further indorse them than as they are incorporated in the Presbyterian Confession." " And it must be acknowledged that some of the doctrines therein main- tained, have been more luminously set forth in modern times." Here there is an express disavowal of some of Cal- vin's sentiments in regard to Reprobation. 2. In the book of Mr. Poster, which you and your church have indorsed, great injustice is done to Presb3'terians. You cannot be ignorant of the familiar distinction of Supralapsa- rian and Sublapsarian among those who are in common called Calvinists. This distinction had its origin in a difference of views in regard to the Divine purposes, and the doctrine of election. Calvin, Beza, Witsius, and some others, were most probably Supralapsarians. The Presbyte- rian church, on the contrary, are to a man Sublapsarian. Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 21 To charge upon Dr. Rice and other Presbyterians, as you have done, the ultra Calvinism of the Supralapsarians, is about as fair as though we should hold you responsible for the low Arminianism of Whitby and Taylor of Norwich ! These men boastod of their Arminianism ; but we should be sorry to suppose that your church is prepared to acknowledge any affinity with their gross errors. And in reference to what is now called Arminianism in this country, it was well remarked by the late Professor Stuart, of Andover, "that Arminius himself was no Arm in inn."* 3. Similar injustice is done to our church, when in "the Objections to Calvinism," you group together detached para- graphs and sentences from high Supralapsarian Calvinists, combined with fragments torn from the writings of Hill, Chalmers, Edwards and others. How easy in this way to convict Paul of denying the necessity of repentance ; for he says, " the gifts and calling of God are without repentance !" How obvious that he advocated licentiousness ; for he says, "I thank God that ye were the servants of sin!" And the Psalmist can in this way be shown to have been an Atheist; for, " there is no God !" Ps. 14. To prove the correctness of this representation, we cite one or two examples. The first is a quotation on page 23 of " the Objections to Calvinism," from the Institutes, vol. ii. p. 171. " I shall not hesitate to confess with Augustine, that the will of God is the necessity of things, and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass." But did not Mr. Foster perceive that this was not the end of the sentence ? Calvin adds, in explanation of the term "necessity," "as those things are really about to happen which he has foreseen." And ten lines farther down he says : " Their perdition depends on the Divine predestination in such a manner, that the cause and matter of it are from themselves." Again, six lines far- ther : " Man falls according to the appointment of Divine * Biblical Repository, April, 1831. 22 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. Providence ; but he falls by his own fault" — " by bis own wickedness, * * * which is the evident cause of con- demnation ;" * * * " the ground of it (his misery) he has derived from himself not from God." Such is a spe- cimen of your demonstrative proofs that Calvinists make "God the originator and cause of sin" — " that God decreed all the sins of all men" — and " that the decree and thing de- creed stand related as cause and effect."* Such is a specimen of Bishop Simpson's " strict logic." Thus Mr. Foster and he have made " this doctrine (Calvinism) to vanish with its foundations, which (they say,) have been demonstrated to be false."f Another illustration of these Arminian a demonstrations." You refer (p. 26) to the Institutes, vol. i. p. 194, as follows : " It should be considered as indubitably certain that all the revolutions visible in the world proceed from the secret exer- tion of Divine power. What God decrees must necessarily come to pass." Thus ends your extract. But this is not the close of Calvin's sentence ; for he instantly adds, " yet it is not by absolute or natural necessity." He then cites "the familiar example" of the "bones of Christ," which were capable of " being broken," " yet that they should be broken was impossible ;" because the Scripture must cer- tainly be fulfilled, " a bone of him shall not be broken." It seems that prophecy gives rise to necessity as understood by Calvin. | Such is another of Bishop Simf>son's " strictly logical" demonstrations, that according to Calvinism, " God causes men to rob, murder, blaspheme, &c. !" Without multiplying these humiliating examples of unfair quotation, we only add the closing sentence of the Bishop's "Introduction:" "We doubt not," he says, "that many, after perusing these pages (" Objections to Calvinism"), will fully acquiesce with Calvin, in terming, as he did, the decree * Objections, &c. pp. 31, 32. -f Ibid, p. 198. X For other illustrations of his meaning, see Appendix to this volume. Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 23 of Predestination a ' iiorrible decree.' " But that this statement in regard to Calvin's meaning is contrary to truth, is obvious for several reasons : (1.) Calvin never represented the Divine decree as "hor- rible" in the common acceptation of that term. Hence, when Mr. Foster refers to the same sentiment, on page 70 of the " Objections," he has it as follows : " It is an awful de- cree, I must confess." Thus we have Foster versus Simpson, preacher against bishop ! Which of them is the more cor- rect, the public must decide. Every tyro knows that the Latin term horribile often means "awful," as Mr. F. gives it. (2.) Mr. Foster's translation is that of Allen, which is generally received as reliable. But the Bishop follows "Wes- ley and other partisan controvertists, who " have no greater joy" than to heap abuse upon Calvin ! (3.) The distinguished Dr. Henry, of Berlin, in his cele- brated " Life and Times of Calvin," translates horribile de- cretum — " terror-moving decree," and says the passage " does honor to his (Calvin's) feelings." He also quotes a French author (Ancillon, Melanges Critiques, p. 37,) as affirming that instead of " describing God's decrees as horrible, Calvin simply meant that we ought to tremble at contemplating this mystery." And he adds, " so he (Calvin) himself expresses it in the French version of the Institutes." Henry also re- fers to Rivet as " saying the same thing." (4.) And to crown all this evidence against Bishop Simp- son, let it be remembered that it is a question of fact. Did Calvin really intend by the phrase, " horribile decretum," to reproach Predestination, or the doctrine of Divine decrees^ as a " horrible" doctrine, implying the ideas conveyed by the terms shocking, hideous, revolting, odious ? Let Calvin an- swer for himself. Thus Book 3, chap. xxi. sec. 1 : " We shall never be clearly convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain of God's free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal election, which illustrates the 24 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. grace of God," &c. " Ignorance of this principle evidently detracts from the Divine glory, and diminishes real humility." Again he speaks of Predestination as " the inmost recesses of Divine wisdom," and as "that sublimity of wisdom which God would have us to adore, and not to comprehend, to pro- mote our admiration of his glory." " He determined thus, because he foresaw it would tend to the just illustration of the glory of his name." To say that Calvin represented the decree of God as " horrible," is contrary to these uniform declarations, is to represent him as falling under his own solemn rebuke, Book 3, chap. xxi. sec. 4, " whoever endeav- ors to raise prejudices against the doctrine of Predestination, openly reproaches God," &c. In the light of these and many other passages, is it not wonderful that Bishop Simpson should revive this stale and ridiculous story about the " hor- rible decree ;" and which has been long since exploded ? Even John Wesley admits that Calvin was "a wise, pious man." But if so, how could he have reproached his Maker as revealing a doctrine which is " horrible ?" A doctrine, too, which he himself held and taught as scriptural ! To follow Messrs. Foster and Simpson in this way through all their professed quotations, and expose them in detail, would of course require a large volume. If a certain heathen god could be known by his foot, so may Arminianism be tested by these specimens of its "logical argumentation." Besides, many of the professed extracts are shielded from investigation by defective reference. Thus to a number of the most objectionable we find appended, "Hill," "Calvin," "Witsius," " Zanchius," &c. But Calvin's works are con- tained in twelve large folio volumes, and those of Witsius in nearly the same number ! In the same manner they refer to "Presbyterian Tracts," which are bound in ten volumes, con- taining more than four thousand pages, and to " Dick," " Edwards," " Chalmers," and others. No rational person will expect us to look through some fifty or a hundred large volumes on such an errand as this ! Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 25 We arc told in these "Objections to Calvinism," "that the book had its origin in the fact that the M. E. church had been long and grievously assailed by one of the organs" of the Presbyterian church ; and " by an accredited champion (Dr. Rice), at a time when peace and Christian union had long existed." Thus " truth and religion required it !" Of course Dr. Rice's " unprovoked intermeddling " rendered it necessary (for Messrs. Foster and Simpson) " to uncover the revolting and shameful deformities" of Presbyterianism.* But in reply, Dr. Rice assures us that " the unprovoked intermed- dling" in the particular case referred to, came from the Methodist organ, the " Western Christian Advocate," which published an article on ' Church Membership,' containing incorrect and offensive statements respecting the Presbyterian church." Here was the " intermeddling," and it was all on the Arminian side ! Again : Without referring to these more recent assaults from that quarter, we have had in our possession for more than twenty-five years, the books and tracts published by the highest authorities of your church on this subject, widely circulated, injurious to the moral character of the Presbyte- rian ministry, and designed to bring disgrace upon her doctrines and cherished usages. From one of these publica- tions^ we make the following extracts. In speaking of the Congregationalists and Presbyterians, they say : " For several years the public have been entertained with pitiful complaints against the Arminians and Methodists, for misrepresenting their doctrine, and charging them with principles of fatality, repro- bation, &c. all which they have gravely affected to deny. And that they may lull the people into favor, they have dwelt ivith seeming earnestness on the general invitations of the gospel, free agency in man, and universal atonement of Christ ; hut with all their ingenuity they have not been able to conceal from * Soe " Objections," pp. 13, 138, ifcc. f Soo tract, " Duplicity Exposed." 26 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. I. the well informed, the cloven foot of their peculiar tenets, un- conditional election and reprobation." — pp. 1, 2. Again : " Notwithstanding the pitiful whining about their being misrepresented, they are as high-toned Predestinarians at this day as ever they were." " We say," continues the tract, " they believe the doctrine of eternal and unchangeable decrees, of unconditional election and reprobation, of the uni- versal agency of God, by which he worketh all things in all men, even wickedness in the wicked" — " because he chooses on the whole that they should go on in sin, and thereby give him a plausible pretext for damning them in the flames of hell forever." " We do not mean to blame any person for believing the above stated doctrine, if they cannot conscien- tiously disbelieve it ; but we do and must blame them, when they dissemble their belief by sometimes saying they do not believe what we know they indiistriously teach." — pp. 8, 9. Again they say : "The object of this tract is not to con- trovert or disprove the horrid sentiments it discloses, but simply to demonstrate that such sentiments are held and propagated, while many who affect to disavow them, are en- deavoring to suit them to the popular taste by exhibiting them in a disguising dress. We blame not people who honestly believe, but we blame those who disbelieve what they openly profess and teach." — pp. 9, 10. The substance of these quotations may be collected at one view from such passages as the following : " To dissemble with the public, by artifice conceal our real sentiments, professing one thing while we industriously circulate, another ;" " that they may lull the people into favor, they have dwelt with seem- ing earnestness" — "dissemble their belief" — "disbelieving what they profess and teach" &c. &c. It would be easy to fill pages with similar deliverances extracted from your standard publications. These declara- tions will serve to qualify such brotherly expressions as the following, on pages 15 ; 188, of your " Objections : " " Toward Let. I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 27 the Presbyterian church I have cherished sentiments of the profoundest attachment from my early boyhood. * * These sentiments remain to this hour." "I must be allowed to cherish love for your church." " Would that you had been content to enjoy peace, and left your neighbors to pursue their own vocation," &c. Such then is the neighborly love of these Arminian breth- ren. If their statements were generally believed, the effect must be to degrade us from our ministerial standing, as unworthy of countenance among all honorable and righteous men. Not content with endeavoring to show that our system of doctrine legitimately leads to certain impious consequences, they publish us from Dan to Beersheba, as guilty of deliberate and designed dishonesty, because we are not willing to think with them in this matter, but refuse to adopt a thousand impieties of the Arminian brain. " If these charges are not true," said a preacher to some Presbyterians, " why are they not contradicted and refuted V \Ye have been driven, therefore, to the unpleasant alternative, either of standing before the public as confounded by a sense of guilt, our forbearance construed to our disadvantage, and our love of peace made a pretext for more violent assault ; or of taking up the pen to assert and prove our innocence, and to direct the course of public justice, so as to strike those who are really guilty. The interests of truth will not permit us to be silent. To ourselves, our children, and the church of God, we owe it, to let the truth be known. And if in de- fending the precious cause of our Master, and vindicating our good name, we are compelled to publish some things which seem to bear heavily upon those whom we wish to call Chris- tians, we appeal to the candor of every reader, to say, ichere must rest the responsibility. 28 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. LETTER II. ORIGINAL, OR BIRTH SIN.— ARMINIAN CONTRADICTIONS AND INCOHERENCES. Rev. Sir — In order fully to comprehend the nature and excellence of the gospel method of salvation, it is obviously proper, in the first place, to examine minutely the moral dis- ease of which it is the Divinely appointed remedy. I ask, therefore, your close attention, whilst we proceed to test by Scripture and reason, the views of Arminians upon the great cardinal doctrine of Original Sin, or as your Discipline terms it, « birth sin." Among the Articles of Religion published for the Methodist Episcopal church, and (along with the Discipline,) recom- mended to all their people, " next to the Word of God," the 7th is in the following terms : " Original Sin standeth not in the following of Adam (as the Pelagians vainly talk), but it is the corruption of the nature of every man, that naturally is engendered of the off- spring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually." This article, as expounded by one of your leading authori- ties, describes "the lapsed condition into which the first act of disobedience plunged the first pair and their whole posteri- ty," and "the death threatened to Adam" and "his whole pos- terity," is admitted to be "the fullness of death," or •' death temporal, spiritual and eternal."* The article is essentially Calvinistic so far as it goes, though defective in some particu- lars. But the great matter of surprise is, that such correct and scriptural views of man's fall and its far-reaching results, have been incorporated in a system otherwise Arminian. That such an attempt to mingle "iron and clay " in the same * Watson's Institutes, chap. 18, pp. 220, 241. Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 29 doctrinal structure, involves you in the strangest incoheren- ces and contradictions, we purpose to show as we proceed. Indeed the utter impossibility of reconciling these sound Calvinistic views of " birth sin " with other essential features of the Arininian scheme, was felt by its original advocates. " These early defenders of that scheme, came out boldly and fearlessly with their doctrine." Whatever else they were, they were men of discernment, sufficient at least to perceive the absolute incongruity of the fundamental principles of Cal- vinism and Arminianism, and the utter futility of the attempt to interweave light with darkness, as your system does. Such logical reasoners as Borraeus, Corvinus, Venator, and the older remonstrants, could never be brought to undertake so fruitless a labor. Take a few examples : " It is perversely said that Original Sin makes any one guilty of death." "That which we have by birth ("birth sin") can be no evil of sin, because to be born is plainly involuntary." "Original Sin is neither a sin properly so called, which should make the posterity of Adam guilty of God's wrath ; nor yet is it a punishment of any sin on them." "It is against equity that one should be accounted guilty of a sin that is not his own, * * * who in regard of his own will is truly innocent." "Infants are simply in that estate in which Adam was before his fall." "Adam sinned in his own proper person only, and there is no reason why God should impute that sin unto infants."* Such are a few of the doctrinal extremes to which the early Arminians logically pushed their system. If Bishop S. and his brethren of the present day, profess to repudiate such results, we should be sorry to put a harsh construction upon their conduct. It is not the prerogative of any man to judge the motives of his neighbor. We do not allege, there- fore, " that the old forms of the Arminian system are so repulsive the people will not receive them, * * and modern * See Dr. John Owen's ■' Display of Armiuianisin," where the quotations axe given in the original Latin. 3* 30 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. Methodists have assumed new positions, not only to conceal their doctrine, but if possible to defend it."* Far be it from us to accuse our Arminian brethren with " disingenuousness and cowardice, if not with downright duplicity, for thus shun- ning and covering up the more repulsive features of their system."* Their error, we would fain hope, belongs rather to the head than the heart. " If any man," remarked the eloquent Baptist, Robert Hall, " says he is an Arminian, the inference is that he is not a good logician." The great inconsistency of this attempt to patch Arminian- ism with shreds of Calvinistic doctrine, has been also felt by some of the more modern anti-Calvinists. Whitby, who is one of Mr. Foster's authorities against us, speaks contemptu- ously of " God's imaginary compact with Adam, that if he prevaricated, he should procure not only to himself but to all his posterity, the death both of the body and soul." " This," he says, " manifestly contradicts the express word of God."f And he talks of " the forged compact between God and Adam, to justify this imputation of his sin to his posterity." So also Dr. John Taylor, of Norwich, who is favorably noticed and quoted by Dr. Clarke, in some of his expositions of the Epistle to the Romans, maintains that the death which entered by sin of "one man" (Rom. 5 : 12), is no more than that which we all die when the body returns to dust •" and he argues at length to prove that death and affliction come on Adam's poster- ity, not as a punishment or calamity, but as a benefit, especially as connected with the resurrection. J But how the " resur- rection to damnation," which comes to the wicked, can be re- garded as a benefit or " advantage furnished through grace in Christ," is not easily understood. Both Taylor and Whit- * The language hero used is quoted from Dr. Fisk's " Discourse on Pre- destination," published by the General Conferonco, through their Book Con- corn. It is directed against Calvinists. pp. 34, 35, 36 f Discourses on the Five Points, pp. 7, 8. J For the extracts which prove these statements, see Edwards on Original Sin, ch. 1, 4. Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 31 by stand high among the assailants of Calvinism ; and the " Discourses on the Five Points" have often furnished wea- pons to the enemies of that system. They are sad illustra- tions of the facility with which consistent logical Arminian- ism finds " a lower deep" in blank Pelagianism, leading to such results as " that the consequences, guilt and corruption of Adam's sin were confined to his own person — that new- born infants are in the same situation with Adam before the fall," &c. How close to this dark gulf of error, the leading Methodist brethren verge in their attempts to harmonize their conflicting sentiments, will appear in the sequel. With such facts before us, we proceed to examine the Difficulties of the Arminian scheme. I. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism in refer- ence to the Doctrine of Original Sin. — The con- fused, incoherent, and contradictory Statements made upon this subject. 1. " The corruption of nature" taught in the article above quoted, into which Adam's sin " plunged all his posterity," and by which " man is inclined to evil and that continu- ally," is manifestly the fountain whence flows all actual sin, the root of all bitterness, an evil of fearful magnitude, a curse of tremendous extent. Who then is the guilty author of this dread calamity, by which corruption, and misery, and death, are handed down from generation to generation ? Is it the infant or the parent ? Must we trace it back to Adam, the primitive ancestor of tho race ; or must we impute it to the Creator himself? In answer to these questions, the Method- ist Standard of doctrine says not a word ; and the members and ministers are left to believe and teach, upon this subject, whatever is right in their own eyes. Men may adopt their Articles and Discipline, and yet maintain that God is the author of sin, the originating cause of that " corruption of nature" by which " man is inclined to evil aud that continu- 32 . DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. oily," and thus the author of all sin. This, their religious teachers may hold and inculcate, and yet, so far as appears, be good Methodists. The whole subject is submitted to the freak, or faucy, or frenzy, of each individual, whether preacher or ordinary member. Now, it is well known to be a favorite topic of declamation, among these opposers of Presbyterianism, that our system leads inevitably to the adoption of the forementioned mon- strous doctrine of the origin of sin. Long, and loud, and oft repeated, are their asseverations to this effect ; and they do not hesitate, as we have seen, to charge us, who reject the thought with abhorrence, as guilty of a want of candor, or something worse. But what says the Confession of Faith of the Presbyterian church upon the subject of the author of sin ? " The sinfulness thereof (viz. of sinful actions) pro- ceedeth only from the creature, and not from God, who being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin." Ch. 5. sec. 4. And this, be it remembered, is a declaration, to which all Presbyterian ministers and elders, at their ordination, solemnly give their assent and approbation. A man may be a good preacher of Methodism — he will resist no regulation among men, nor violate any ministerial oath, who holds and teaches that God is the author of sin; but the fundamental principles of the Presbyterian church for ever forbid to such a person an entrance into her ministry or eld- ership, under the penalty of a conscience perjured before earth and heaven. Again : the " corruption of nature " taught by the Article is necessary and unavoidable. Man brings it into the world with him; and he can no more avoid being the child of sin- ful parents, and of course, the child of a corruption by which "he is inclined to continual evil," than he can determine the time and place of his birth. He is therefore necessarily and unavoidably, " without any preceding fault or offense of his," "very far gone from original righteousness, and inclined to Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 33 evil and that continually." But Dr. "W. Fisk, speaking as the organ of the General Conference, tells us, " that if God holds men responsible for what is unavoidable, nothing more could be said of the most merciless tyrant." (Disc, on Predes. p. 13.) It follows, therefore, that though "man is inclined to evil and that continually," yet he is not " responsible" for this wickedness, because it is unavoidable ; in other words, " Original Sin" is no sin, but a very innocent, harmless thing, which none but a " merciless tyrant" would ever consider deserving of punishment ! Nevertheless, Dr. Fisk further assures us (p. 30,) that "all depravity, whether derived or contracted, is damning in its nature." Here we are back on the old ground : Original Sin is unavoidable, therefore it is no sin ; but still it is " dam- ning in its nature !" How is this ? The Doctor will tell us : " Guilt is not imputed, until by a voluntary rejection of the gospel remedy, man makes the depravity of his nature the object of his choice." " By a voluntary rejection of the gos- pel remedy." But, Rev. Doctor, does not your seventh Ar- ticle teach "a corruption of nature, by which man is inclined to evil and that continually ?" And if he be inclined to con- tinual evil, then is he inclined to this very evil of rejecting the gospel remedy. It is idle, therefore, on your own princi- ples, to talk of a voluntary (or sinful) rejection of the gospel remedy, when man is necessarily and unavoidably inclined to reject it. Of course, it can be no sin to reject it; and God would be a " merciless tyrant" to "impute guilt" for rejecting the remedy. How then can a depravity which none can avoid, which none but "merciless tyranny" could regard as deserv- ing of punishment, be said to be " damning in its nature ?" In reply to this reasoning, a writer in defense of Dr. Fisk, whilst admitting that man is by " nature inclined to evil con- tinually," asserting, too, that this " destroys the freedom of his will," and that it would be mockery for the Divine Being to set before him life and death, and invite him to choose 34 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. life, " when he was morally incapable of such a choice ;" yet thinks he relieves the subject of the difficulty, by stating that " Dr. F. assumes man as graciously assisted to make a volun- tary choice." In other words, man is by birth the heir of a depravity which " unavoidably inclines him to continual evil." It follows, therefore, according to Dr. F. that he has no power of voluntary choice, and is not a free moral agent, until "graciously assisted," and made capable of voluntary choice; and thus, the Dr. continues, "through the grace of the gospel, all are born free from condemnation." p. 30. Which is about the same as to say, that man is enabled " by grace" to escape a condemnation which, being previously unavoidable, it would have been merciless tyranny to execute. A wondrous act of grace, truly, to assist the sinner to avoid a punishment which none but a tyrant could inflict ! A strange idea of the grace of the gospel, that it comes in to render men capable of sinning, deserving of punishment for their sin, and liable to a " condemnation" which, but for this grace, a righteous God could not justly execute upon any de- scendant of the apostate pair ! 2. The article quoted above, as expounded by leading Ar- minian authors, makes God the author of all sin, except that which produced the fall. Let us look at this subject : The providential arrangement, agreeably to which " the first sin plunged all Adam's posterity in corruption and death," as Watson abundantly proves, was obviously not the natural constitution which now prevails between the father and child. No such dreadful and wide-spread consequences now attend the parental relation. Of course, the original constitution which secured such fatal results must have been peculiar, extraordinary, supernatural ; in other words, it was a special "covenant" made and appointed by the God of providence, for the special circumstances of our first parents. This is not denied by Watson, who quotes approvingly the following statements of Arminius : Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 35 "The tenor of the covenant into which God entered with our first parents was this — that if they continued in the fa- vor and grace of God by the observance of that precept (viz. ' thou shalt not eat of it/ &c.) and others, the gifts which had been conferred upon them should be transmitted to their pos- terity ;* * * * but that if they should render themselves unworthy through disobedience, their posterity should like- wise be deprived of those favors ; * * * hence it fol- lowed, that all men who were to be naturally propagated from them, have become obnoxious to death temporal and eternal, and have been destitute of that gift of the Holy Spirit or of original righteousness. This punishment is usually called a privation of the image of God and original sin."* This is clear and explicit. Will Bishop Simpson and other Arminians look at it for a few moments. Here was a " Covenant," or Divine Constitution, made with our first parents. Of course, God was its Author. It was extraor- dinary and supernatural, and the results which were to follow in the course of Providence, were of Divine origin and appointment. In virtue of this Divine ordination, " fallen man, including all his posterity," were plunged into a state of corruption and misery, became, " inclined to evil, and that continually," inherit a corrupt nature or spiritual death, and " are born liable not only to bodily death, a part of the penalty, but that is sufficient to show," says Watson, " that they arc born under the whole malediction. "f Such, Bishop S. is the arrangement under which, by Divine appointment, all men are born! Such, " the punishment" which God appoints for all men, including infants of every age ! In the language of your favorite, Foster, we ask, " How came these miserable crea- tures in their condition of sin and wretchedness ? You must answer, They were put there by the decree or appointment of God."J And this "whole malediction," viz. "death — * Institutes, vol. ii. p. 78. f Watson's Inst. vol. ii. p. 58. % Objections to Calvinism, p. 88. 36 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. temporal, spiritual, and eternal," (Watson, chap. 18) — this " punishment of the privation of the image of God" (Ar- minius and Watson,) is necessary and unavoidable by any child of Adam ! If the worthy Bishop and his favorite Foster, will open almost any page of their " Objections to Calvinism," their eye will quickly light upon an epithet of sufficient horror for a case of this sort ! So true is it, that our Arminian brethren have fallen into the pit which they had dug for their Calvinistic neighbors ! Thus they repre- sent the all-merciful Creator as the author of all the most malignant forms of sin, and of the dreadful sufferings which flow from it. 3. Leaving Bishop S. and his Arminian brethren to choose between the sentiment of Dr. Fisk, viz. that, " through the grace of the Gospel all are born free from condemnation," and the opposite sentiment of Watson, viz. that "all are born under the whole malediction," — both which contradictory statements are published in the accredited writings of the General Conference; let us look a little further into this curious scheme of Arminianism. " The whole malediction," " the punishment under which all are born," as Arminius and Watson affirm, is represented as falling upon creatures who are perfectly guiltless ! To substantiate this statement, let Bishop S. open Mr. Foster's book, which he so highly applauds : " The doctrine," (of Cal- vinism,) he says, " is, that mankind were viewed as fallen in Adam, and all of them under condemnation and deserving of death." "But, if it be said the wrong is not in their remaining unregenerate, but in their being so in the first instance, I reply, neither are they to blame for this, because it was entirely without their consent. They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for this." * But if these conclusions be just, these Arminian Doctors should immediately propose * Objections to Calvinism, pp. 90, 166. Much moro of the same sort is found in the book. Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 37 an alteration in the title of their seventh Article. Instead of " Original or Birth Sin" it should read, " Original or Birth Misfortune!" There is obviously no sin in ine case. In like manner, the " Methodist Magazine/'* in reviewing this work in a former edition, remarks as follows : " To us it is as manifest as the meridian light, that to suffer the tem- poral consequences (viz. of " the original offense,") is one thing, and to lie under the guilt of the first offense so as to be liable to eternal punishment, is quite another." Again, "the offspring of our original ancestors may be unavoidably involved in the consequences of their original offense, without being consequently and necessarily involved in the guilt of their original act." Here it is asserted that all the offspring of Adam are involved in " the temporal consequences " of his first sin, viz. " death — temporal and spiritual," as Watson states them — but without lying under the guilt of that or any other offense. In other words, all men inherit, unavoid- ably, original or birth sin — are " inclined to evil, and that continually," and suffer death; but, still, this " punishment" falls upon those who are not " involved in guilt," i. e. though guiltless of sin, either original or actual, they are compelled to suffer such dreadful " punishment ! " But, what is guilt ? It has been well defined to be " the state of any being justly charged with crime." It follows that these great and una- voidable evils, viz. " death — temporal and spiritual," are inflicted as a "punishment" upon persons ''justly chargeable with no crime," for they are without guilt. And all these forms of "the malediction " are "transmitted to Adam's posterity," as the necessary and unavoidable fruits of that original " covenant," of which God was the author, as both Arminius and Watson affirm. Thus, this Arminian cove- nant inflicts dreadful penalties upon the guiltless — even upon helpless infants. And they are unavoidable as the time and place of their birth. * For July, 1S39. 4 30 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. But while the " Methodist Magazine " teaches that " the offspring of Adam are unavoidably involved in the temporal consequences of the first sin, without being involved in its guilt," as just stated, the reviewer shrinks with horror from the thought that " one man or a single child of our fallen race " " is liable to eternal punishment on its account." And to say that one such person " ever finally perished, merely through the imputation of Adam's sin," he denounces as " a blasphemous imputation on the character of God." But, here is a confounding of two things essentially distinct — to be "liable to eternal punishment," is one thing, and to "finally perish" is an entirely different thing. The liability "merely through Adam's sin," Calvinists maintain ; but "the final perdition " of any soul for the same cause alone, is no part of our creed. Besides, the reviewer here comes in direct conflict with the ablest standard writer in the Arminian ranks. Mr. Watson reasons conclusively as follows : " The justice of this (viz. " eternal death from the federal charac- ter of Adam,") is objected to; but it is sufficient to say, that if the making the descendants of Adam liable to eternal death because of his offense be unjust, the infliction of tem- poral death is so also; the duration of the punishment making no difference in the simple question of justice. If punishment," he adds, "whether of loss or of pain, be unjust, its measure and duration may be a greater or less injustice, but it is unjust in every degree."* This reasoning is per- fectly conclusive, and places the reviewer in a bad pre- dicament. If " liability to eternal death " on account of Adam's sin, be unjtist, so, reasons Watson, must be " the infliction of temporal death on the same account." Now, as the reviewer maintains the latter, i. e. " the infliction of temporal death," he must necessarily admit the former, viz. " liability to eternal death." " The fact," says Watson, " of infanta being born liable to temporal death ; a part of * Institutes, vol. ii. pp. 55, 56. Let. II. ORIGINAL SIN. 39 the penalty, is sufficient to show that they are born under the whole malediction," viz. "death — temporal, spiritual aud eternal." Thus, as he well reasons, by admitting the justice of temporal death, " we are in precisely the same difficulty as when the legal result is extended farther," viz. so as to include " liability to eternal death," Yet, of these same children of Adam, Bishop S. and Mr. Foster say : " They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for this." So that " the whole malediction " rests upon the guiltless! Such are some of the confused, incoherent and contradictory statements put forth by these Arminian brethren. Such, a few of the curious logical results of this attempt to interline the Arminian scheme with scraps of Calvinism ! The best method of escape from this entanglement, is to say, with some earlier Arminians, " That which we have by birth, (" birth sin,") can be no evil of sin," &c. " Infants are sim- ply in that estate in which Adam was before the fall." Or, take the Pelagian ground, "Adam's sin hurt no one but him- self ! " " And death is threatened as a benefit to mankind ! " It is needless to enlarge further upon the proofs of this sin- gular feature of the Arminian scheme, viz. punishment without guilt. We must not omit, however, one other ex- tract, which we take from Dr. Fisk, the ablest American writer on the subject, as follows : " Guilt is not imputed (" to man born depraved,") until, by a voluntary rejection of the gospel remedy, he makes the depravity of his nature the object of his choice." * But, if this be true ; if "guilt is not imputed" to children until they be- come old enough to choose or refuse " the gospel rem- edy," why do they suffer the penalty of " temporal death?" Why are they subject to the "privation of the image of God," as Arminius assures us, and which he terms • L a punishment?" If "guilt is not imputed to them," how * " Discourse on Predestination and Election," p. 30, Moth. Tract, No. 131. 40 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. II. can they be " born under the whole malediction," as Watson affirms. Did David teach this doctrine : " Behold ! I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me ? " Did Paul teach that men are born guiltless ? Of Christians of his day, he says : " We all were, by nature, children of wrath, even as others." Yet, according to the Arminian scheme, "guilt was not imputed to them," though they were, " by nature, children of wrath ! " Indeed, as Watson most conclusively reasons, if these guiltless children may suffer " temporal death," with equal certainty may they suffer " eternal death " — " the measure or duration of the punish- ment may be a greater or less injustice, but it is unjust (and of course, impossible with God,) in every degree." It fol- lows, therefore, that if Arminians taught the " horrible doc- trine of infant damnation," they would not more surely charge the Creator with injustice than with their present notions, viz. " that corruption, misery and death are the sad inheritance of infants," while they are chargeable only with "sin which they could not avoid/' or, rather, "guilt is not imputed to them at all ! " Thus, by the plain showing of its own most zealous defenders, the Arminian scheme is convicted of this great inconsistency, viz. "punishment without guilt;" i.e. "pun- ishment without any just liability to suffer ! " Other strange features of the scheme we reserve for future Letters. Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 41 LETTER III. ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN— ITS RELATIONS TO TIIE ATONE- MENT— MEN BECOME SINNERS ONLY BY FREE GRACE. Rev. Sir — We propose now to examine with some care the logical relations of " Original or Birth Sin " to the Atonement. The Scriptures abundantly teach that " Christ died for our sins" — "died the just for the unjust, to bring us to God." But it is demonstrable on Arminian principles, that the Redeemer came into the world, not "to save men from sin," but rather to put them into a capacity of sinning, since it is only in consequence of his death and the grace revealed in it, that guilt becomes chargeable upon any indi- vidual of the race, except our first parents. In proof of this position, observe the following : 1. All the posterity of Adam are born with " a corruption of nature," whereby they are " inclined to evil, and that continually." 2. These sore evils are as necessary and unavoidable as the event of natural birth. 3. No person is "to blame for a (corrupt) nature which was forced upon him ; to which he never con- sented, and which he never could avoid. His first parent may be to blame, but he cannot be resjmnsible." " No being in the universe can censure him ; " * since it would be to blame and punish a person chargeable only with necessary and unavoidable sin, destitute of freedom of will, and "mor- ally incapable of a good choice." 4. But through the grace abounding in the Atonement, " the destructive effects of derived depravity are counteracted." f Man's "freedom of will" is restored; he is "graciously assisted to make a vol- untary (i. e. a sinful) choice," and he thus becomes respon- sible and blame-worthy. But if no remedy — no grace — had been provided, man's condition as a fallen creature "would * Foster's Objections to Calvinism, p. 121. f Dr. Fisk, p. 30. 4* 42 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. have been his misfortune, not his fault, and he would have been no more to blame than /or having red hair." * Now, if these things are so, then it is plain that, inde- pendently of the death of Christ and the grace of the gospel, we could never have been chargeable with sin ; and of course Christ did not die to atone for the sins of any of the fallen race, except our first parents, since, but for his death and the grace accompanying it, no others could have sinned, or at least, their sins being unavoidable, they would not have been "responsible" for them. But if this is so, it will follow that the " grace of the gospel," instead of being any real favor toward mankind, is the greatest curse that could ever befall them. If, without the bestowment of grace, men could not have been held "responsible" for their conduct, they would have remained free from criminality; the righteousness of God could never have suffered them to be sent to hell; and his goodness, we may suppose, would have bestowed upon them eternal life. But now, alas ! in conse- quence of the coming of Christ, and of grace being given them to deliver them from unavoidable sin and " merciless tyranny " — now they are all exposed to inexcusable blame and endless ruin ! Again : If this derived depravity be necessary and una- voidable, where was the " grace" in Christ's dying to " counteract its destructive effects ? " If we must suppose " the shedding of blood " in some way necessary to save man from being held " responsible " for unavoidable corruption ; or in other words, to save him from " merciless tyranny." it would seem rather an act of justice, both to God and the creature. The Lord of the whole earth oaves it to himself to DO right. To say, then, that " through the grace of the gospel all are born free from a condemnation " which none but a tyrant could execute, is to confound all distinc- tion between those rights which eternal justice exacts, and * Reply to Faii-child's " Great Supper," p. 34. Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 43 the unmerited favors which grace freely bestows. It is in fact to resolve the whole scheme of mercy into the payment of a DEBT, at least, so far as it respects all the offspring of Adam. But we need not say how utterly subversive is such a view of the first principles of the gospel, which is contin- ually represented as the blessed fruit of the most distinguished love, as the "unspeakable gift" of pure, unmerited mercy. Thus does Dr. Fisk's great argument against the doctrine of decrees (whether correctly or incorrectly applied, we inquire not now,) recoil upon himself. Like him of old, who defied the armies of Israel, Arminianism loses its head by the stroke of its own favorite sword. That these are legitimate deductions from Arminian pre- mises, is obvious. " It has been established," says Watson, (vol. ii. p. 67,) " that the full penalty of Adam's offense passed upon his posterity." And he elsewhere admits that " Paul represents all men under condemnation, in conse- quence of their connection with the first Adam ; " and, again, that " by one man's disobedience many were made, constituted, accounted and dealt with as sinners, and treated as though they themselves had actually sinned;" p. 397, 54, 55. The full penalty which has passed upon all men to their condemnation, he represents (p. 55,) as consisting in three things. 1. "The death of the body." 2. "Death spiritual" — "thus it is, the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked." 3. " A third consequence is, eternal death ; " or, as the language is varied on page 399, " a conditional liability to eternal death." Now, it will scarcely be denied that these are evils of the most awful char- acter that can befall mankind, being nothing less than death temporal, spiritual and eternal. And we are told that they have passed upon men, as the " full penalty," or righteous " con- demnation " of Adam's offense, in consequence of a connec- tion with him which they could not escape, if they were born at all. Here, then, is a triple curse, including death tempo- 44 DIFFICULTIES OF APtMINIANISM. Let. III. ral and spiritual, and a liability to eternal death, which no descendant of Adam has power to shun, and which is visited upon every child of his, " on account of sin " which is abso- lutely " unavoidable," in consequence of his connection with his first parents. We leave Dr. Fisk and his admirers to inform the public, whether this be the arrangement of a most " merciless tyrant ; " or whether, in their zeal against Predestination, they have not digged a ditch and fallen into it themselves. Again : The three-fold penalty which has passed upon all men on account of unavoidable sin, we are further told by Watson, is relieved by the fact that " all are born under a constitution of mercy, which actually existed before their birth;" vol. ii. p. 398. "A constitution of mercy!" Mercy for what, and for whom ? Why, for men who are implicated in sin, for which, L>r. Fisk says, none but a tyrant could hold them " responsible," it being "unavoidable." We submit to these gentlemen the task of showing the infi- nite mercy and grace of the plan by which men are saved from the penalty and condemnation of the Divine law; while at the same time they assure us, that to leave them in that state would be an act of high-hauded injustice and " tyran- ny." Truly, grace is no more grace, according to this scheme. It is hardly strict justice, or the payment of a moral debt. It supposes the most merciful Grod to create men under an arrangement or constitution by which all are plunged into an abyss of unavoidable sin and condemnation to death and misery. It then supposes him to provide a "constitution of mercy," by which only some are saved; whereas, if they had been only left to themselves, and no mercy and grace provided, they would have been "inclined to evil, and that continually ; " of course they would have " had no freedom of will left," and could not have been held "responsible" for their sins! Thus, all men would have been blameless and harmless, without rebuke, and justly Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 45 exposed to no misery, either in this world or the world to come. It will not relieve the Armiuian scheme, to say with Dr. Fisk and the General Conference, that Adam was our " fede- ral head," and that " by his unneccssitated sin, he and in him all his posterity became obnoxious to the curse of the Divine law." * This is true. It is sound Calvinism, viz. that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin ; and so death has passed upon all men, for that (or in whom, Adam) all have sinned." Rom. 5 : 12. John Wesley, too, seemed, at least at times, to understand this subject : " The sufferings of all mankind (including infants) which are entailed upon them by the sin of Adam, are not the result of mere mercy (as Taylor of Norwich taught) but of justice also. In other words, they have in them the nature of punishments, even on us and our children. Therefore," continues Wes- ley, " children themselves are not innocent before God. They suffer ; therefore they deserve to suffer." f But what will Bishop Simpson and Mr. Foster say to this ? Their doctrine is — "They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilt)/ for this — they remain unregenerate, and are not to blame for this, because it was entirely without their consent." J Very different this from Wesley: " They suffer — therefore they deserve to suffer I" The great cardinal truth, that Adam was " the federal head and representative" of the whole race, solves the mys- tery of infant guilt and suffering in the Calvinistic scheme. No principle of government is more universally recognized and approved than that which involves millions, especially women and children who have no voice in their election, in the responsibilities incurred by their representatives; as in war, and other heavy liabilities and sore calamities. But * Discourse on Predest. p. 3 . . f Doctrine of Original Sin, part 'i, sec. 2. J Objections to Calvinism, p. 166. 46 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. in. what relief will the representative character of the first man bring our Arminian brethren ? It simply enables them to remove the knotty entanglement a little farther back. It exhibits the God of infinite mercy as constituting a federal relationship between Adam and his posterity, in virtue of which " death temporal, spiritual and eternal," are visited upon them as the " full penalty" of sin which, as to all the descendants of the first pair, was absolutely necessary and un- avoidable, and for which they are " no more responsible than for having red hair;" or, as Bishop S. and Mr. Foster express it, "they were born corrupt and so cannot be guilty for this," &c. Thus the "merciless tyranny," which they so earnestly denounce and charge upon Calvinism, is reduced to a system. It is provided for by a Divine " covenant," as Arminius and Watson term it ; it is executed in the order of nature and providence originally enstamped upon creation ! And to crown the whole scheme of contradiction, " a constitution of mercy" is introduced, the results of which are, to make the children of men responsible and guilty, and justly exposed to the curse; and thus "the grace of the gospel" proves to be a far greater evil than the original calamity ! If there had been no grace, according to this scheme, there could have been no sin, no punishment, no suffering, no sorrow among the poster- ity of Adam ! Of course, there was every reason of benevo- lence why Adam should have had posterity. " The state of all mankind," says Mr. Wesley, " did so far depend on Adam, that by his fall they all fall into sorrow, and pain, and death spiritual and temporal. And all this is no ways incon- sistent with either the justice or goodness of God." This is sound Calvinism; but he immediately adds a proviso: All this is perfectly consistent " with the justice and goodness of God :" " Provided, all may recover through the second Adam whatever they lost through the first." But if this be SO, then it is the coming of the second Adam, " and the grace of the gospel," which alone vindicates " the justice and good- Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 47 ness of God" in the fall of Adam's posterity " into sorrow, and pain, and death." But as God is supremely just and good, there could, of course, have been no such fall, if there had been no "second Adam" — and no "grace of the gos- pel." * Thus the offspring of Adam are indebted to pure (/rare for this dreadful " fall into sorrow, pain and death ;" which otherwise would have been neither just nor good, and so altogether inconsistent with the character of the righteous Ruler of the universe ! Thus we reach the strange conclu- sion, that to Divine grace alone we must trace these sorrow- ful calamities which afflict mankind, these wide-spread and desolating ruins of the fall ! Nor does it help the matter in the least, that this scheme supposes the all-wise Creator to have entered into " a covenant" with Adam, including cer- tain terms and conditions, involving certain consequences upon himself and his posterity in the event of his fall ; but that to suppose " the Judge of all the earth" to carry into effect those terms and conditions, which he himself had prescribed, would be an impeachment of both "his justice and good- ness !" So that nothing less than the sacrifice of God's own Son, the infinite grace of that exalted victim, is sufficient to relieve the eternal throne of such a stain and "justify the ways of God to men." Can this be the true idea of gospel grace, viz. a compensation for the hardships, the injustice, the cruelty which mankind must have suffered from the first covenant, if they had been doomed to endure precisely what an infinitely just and good God had threatened to inflict ? All the leading authors on the Arminian side of the ques- tion admit, and several of them largely demonstrate, that the original threatening : " in the day thou eatest thereof that, shall surely die" — included both Adam and his posterity. Thus Wesley : "In and through their first parent, all his posterity died in a spiritual sense (not merely a temporal death * For the foregoing extract from Wesley, see his work on Original Sin, part 3, sec. 6. 48 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINTANTSM. Let. III. as Taylor had argued). By this " one man, sin entered and passed upon all men/'* Of course, this was threatened in the " covenant" with Adam. Watson also conclusively proves that " death eternal" was involved in the same threat- ening. " In or through Adam, guilt (exposure to just pun- ishment) came upon all men."f Thus far their scheme is Calvinistic. But how do they reconcile this including of Adam's offspring under the curse, with " the justice and goodness" of God ? Why, says Adam Clarke, " God pro- vided a Redeemer." And but for this provision "it would have been unjust to permit them to propagate their like in such circumstances that their offspring must be unavoidably and eternally wretched." J But this is the same as to say, that the all-knowing, most wise and true God made a threat- ening, which both his justice and goodness forbid him to execute ! And, of course, it follows, that He never intended to execute it ! For how could God intend to execute a threatening, which would be an impeachment of his attributes of justice and goodness ? As well may we affirm that He makes promises which He cannot in justice and goodness per- form, and which He never intends to perform ! But this is sheer blasphemy. It is plain, therefore, that the position which " the grace of the gospel" holds in the Arminian scheme is this — to make it right and good for God to execute his threatenings, which otherwise would have been unjust and cruel — threatenings which he never could have intended to execute, because they were contrary to his justice and mercy ! The whole scheme is therefore resolved into the payment of a debt to the in- jured creature, and it is absurd to say with the Apostle, " the grace of God bringeth salvation." He should rather have said, " Thanks be unto God for his unspeakable justice, which pays the righteous demands which mankind have upon * Original Sin, part 2, sec. 1. f Clarke's Com. on Rom. 5 : 14. X See his Com. on Rom. 5, near the close. Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 49 him for the injuries they suffered under the original threat- ening, ' tlwu shall surely die !' " Such are some of the strange inconsistencies — to use no harsher term — of Arminian grace ! That we have correctly understood the Arminian scheme, is further evident from the following argument abridged from Watson : " It is not denied that the will in its purely natu- ral state and independent of all grace, can incline only to evil. But the cpuestion is, whether it is so left, and whether, if this be contended for, from whatever cause it may arise, whether from the influence of circumstances or co-action, or from its own invincible depravity, it ren- ders him punishable who never had the means of pre- venting his will from lapsing into this diseased state, who was born with this moral disease," &c. " We reply," says Wat- son, " that this is only true when the time of trial is past, as in devils and apostates ) and then only because they are per- sonally guilty of having so vitiated their wills," &c. " They themselves are justly chargeable with this state of their wills and all the evils resulting from it. But the case is widely different with men who, by their hereditary corruption, and the fall of human nature, to which they were not consenting parties, are born with a will averse to all good."* But if this be a correct view of the case, it follows necessarily that if men had been left in that " purely natural state," and the children of Adam had been born without any interference of grace, without any atonement, they could not have been " held to be culpable ;" they would not have been " punish- able" for original depravity, nor "for any of the evils result- ing from it." So that if the posterity of Adam had only been so fortunate as to have had no grace provided for them, not a soul of them could have been culpable, or punishable. Thus it is to grace we must impute all the guilt and misery which have ever befallen men, excepting only our first pa- rents, who became sinners without grace. And even Adam and * Institutes, vol. ii. pp. 437, 433. 5 50 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. Eve, as we will presently show, could not have committed, according to this scheme, more than the first transgression, inasmuch as it is expressly affirmed that they thereby lost their "freedom of will," which was restored by grace! From all which it follows that " the grace of the gospel" was in- deed a great favor, so far as respects the pardon of the first sin, but that ever since, it has been " evil and only evil con- tinually !" But perhaps the Arminian will reply, that but for the grace provided in the atonement of Christ, Adam must have speed- ily perished, and of course could have had no posterity. " Had our first parents," says Watson (vol. ii. p. 395), " died ' in the day' they sinned, which, but for the introduc- tion of a system of mercy and long suffering, for any thing that appears, they must have done, the human race would have perished with them," &c. And on page 398, he speaks of the opposite opinion as a Calvinistic " assumption" — "one of the great and leading mistakes" of the Calvinists, and as great presumption to assume it as a truth, that they would have multiplied their species only for eternal destruction. But if Arminians correctly describe their own system, it is obvious that, so far as respects the posterity of Adam, the probability of their existence would have been at least as great without grace as with it. Without " the grace of the gospel," as they explain it, mankind would have been neither culpable nor punishable for their conduct, as Watson himself affirms. They would all have been born in a guiltless state, where they would deserve neither blame nor punishment for original depravity; and "they could not have been held to be culpable for any of the evils resulting from this invincible depravity" "because their wills could have inclined only to evil." It is folly, therefore, to talk of "multiplying their species for eternal destruction." They would have been mul- tiplied in a perfectly guiltless state, deserving neither blame nor punishment. And certainly such a state would have Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 51 been no less worthy of the Supreme Kuler, than the present state of things; viz. an arrangement of Arminian grace, in which they are u shapen in iniquity, and in sin do their mothers conceive them;" and worse still, only a part of these " children of wrath" are certain to be saved, while thousands were known to the Divine Mind as infallibly certain to be miserable for ever for their sin. It is plain, therefore, that on this scheme, it would have been far better, it would not have been unjust at all, as Dr. Clarke affirms, but both right- eous and good, " to permit them to propagate their like in suck circumstances," and without any " system of mercy," which on Arminian principles only had the effect to render them justly " punishable" and exposed to endless destruc- tion. Nor does this doctrine of Arminian grace harmonize more logically with other aspects of the subject. In regard to Adam, Watson affirms that the sentence, " In the day thou eatest thou shalt surely die," was to be executed "in the self-same day of the transgression ;" in other words, Adam must have died, and so could have had no posterity. But Dr. Clarke says it means " literally, a death, thou shalt die. From that moment thou shalt become mortal and shalt continue in a dying state till thou die. This we find literally accomplished." * So also, President Edwards has shown conclusively, that the expression among the Hebrews, "in the day," does not necessarily signify immediate death, or that the exaction of the sentence should be within twenty-four hours from the act, particularly not the punishment in its full extent." The force of the phrase implies (1.) " a realcon- nection between the sin and the punishment, as in Ezek. 33 : 12, 13." (2.) " That Adam should be exposed to death by one transgression, without a second trial. 1 Kings 2 : 37. Solo- mon says to Shimei : On the day thou goest out * * * thou shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die, i. e. he should be liable to death for the first offense." (3.) " Be- * Com. on Gon. 2 : 17. 52 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. III. sides," reasons Edwards, " God did not oblige himself to execute the punishment in its utmost extent in that day. It was in part executed immediately. Adam lost his inno- cence, died spiritually, became corrupt, miserable, helpless, mortal."* " Adam," he continues, " was that day subjected to the curse of the law and condemnation to eternal perdi- tion." "In the language of Scripture, he is dead, i. e. in a state of condemnation to death ; just as the believer immedi- ately 'hath etei-nal life abiding in him/ i. e. hath the begin- ning of eternal life. So there was nothing in the threatening that bound God to execute the full punishment at once, nor any thing that determined that Adam should have no poster- ity." All these things were reserved in the power of the Creator. So, in like manner, the believer, who " hath eter- nal life," will at death and judgment receive a vastly greater degree of the same gracious reward. And the angels that sinned, did not receive their full punishment, which is re- served to the end of the world. These examples show that it is in perfect harmony with other Divine dispensations, both of goodness and severity, that Adam should be permitted to live, though threatened with death. But suppose we adopt Watson's view, viz. " that the sen- tence of death (" temporal, spiritual and eternal," as he explains it,) was to be executed in the self-same day Adam fell." The first and immediate consequence, we are assured, would have been the entire loss of " freedom of will." And though this loss — Adam having "had his trial, and become personally guilty of having vitiated his will " — would not have exempted him from being justly chargeable with sin ; his posterity, according to Watson, " being born with a will averse to all good," would not have been "punish- able." Besides, as the original law did not demand instanta- neous punishment, but would have been satisfied with the execution of its threatening at any time " in the day " of * Original Sin, p. 436. Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 53 transgression, it can never be shown that the same sovereign- ty which might justly have granted a respite of a day, could not have added a month, or a year, or many years, to beings who would have propagated a race of men meriting neither blame nor punishment. But whatever we may think of this matter, it is plain that Watson's great argument against ** the Calvinistic assumption " must fall to the ground. On Arniin- iau principles, it is evident the. offspring of Adam could never have sinned at all, if they had not become sinners by grace ! Further : The Arminian notion of the freedom of the will implies " indifference ; " or, in the language of President Edwards, " that equilibrium whereby the will is free from all antecedent bias." But, owing to the fall, man becoming " inclined to evil and that continually," could have no such freedom of will ; therefore, he was no longer a free agent ; therefore, he could commit no more sin, for none but a free agent can violate a moral law. Hence, mankind must have fallen into a state resembling " sinless perfection." Watson admits the fact of this loss of freedom and of capacity to good or evil. Hence, he quotes Arminius, affirming that " the will of man, with respect to true good, is captivated, destroyed and lost, and has no powers whatever, except such as are excited by grace." He also calls this condition of the will " an invincible inclination to evil ; " and maintains that " in its purely natural state," " the will can incline only to evil." Of course, as he affirms, on Arminian principles, they could have sinned no more if " the grace of the gospel" had not stepped in to render mankind blame-worthy, and ex- pose them to sin and its punishment.* As to the case of our first parents (to say nothing of the * This singular notion that man by the fall lost his " freedom of will," and became a sort of machine, appears to be quito a favorite foaturo of Ar- minian theology. Thus : "One of tho first and unconditional results of this grace (of God) was the endowment of man with free will, * * * that attribute in man which constitutes him a Jit subject of rowards and punishments, * * * a propor subject <>j moral government." Por- 5* 54 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM Let. III. fallen angels), it might be argued that they, too, having lost their " freedom of indifference," and having become corrupt and " inclined to evil continually " and invincibly, could have sinned no more. But he replies, that " the original act being their own and in their power, they were justly chargeable with the state of their wills and all the evils re- sulting from it." This conclusion is by no means self-evi- dent. Suppose a man of choice to deprive himself of reason, would he be bound to perform moral acts, of which he has become utterly incapable ; or could he be punished for not performing them, and made to suffer eternal torments for the neglect, just as though he were in possession of all the necessary powers of moral agency.* The same reasoning applies to the case of our first parents, after they had lost their freedom of indifference. Their first sin must . have been their last, but for grace ! That we have not been drawing a caricature of the doctrinal views of Arminian Methodism, is further apparent from the following extracts from the stereotyped volume of doctrinal tracts, which were originally bound with the Disci- pline. " We say, man hath his freedom of will, not naturally but hy grace." " We believe that in the moment Adam fell, he had no freedom of will left." And after quoting Baxter and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, ch. 9 — " God hath endowed the will of man with that natural lib- erty, that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity determined to good or evil " — the writer (Wesley) adds — " Sure, here is as much said for free will as any man needs ter's Compendium of Methodism, pp. 288, 289. This is the same as to say that, but for gospel grace, Adam and all his posterity would not have been "fit subjects of either rewards or punishments .' " Again: "The human family would be completely unmanned." Of course, they would have been " mere machines." * For an ablo discussion of this point, the reader is referred to the " Bib- lical Repertory," conducted principally by the Professors at Princeton, N. J. Soo tho July No. 1831. Let. III. ORIGINAL SIN. 55 to say, and perhaps more." In other words, the Presbyterian doctrine says all that nod to be said on the subject. This caudid admission of their great chief, should silence " the hard speeches " which are so commonly and fluently uttered against Presbyterians, denouncing us as denying free-agency, and representing man as a mere machine, which acts only as it is acted upon. Among the great lights of modern Arminianism, perhaps no writer stands higher than Dr. Adam Clarke, the author of the Commentary. In addition to the quotations already given, the following are his sentiments upon the topics now under review : " Had man been left just as he was when he fell from God, he in all probability had been utterly unsal- able ; as he appears to have lost all his spiritual light and un- derstanding, and even his moral feeling." " As they (Adam and Eve) were, so would have been all their posterity, had not some gracious principle been supernaturally restored to enlighten their minds, to give them some knowledge of good and evil, of right and wrong, of virtue and vice, and thus bring them into a salvable state." * But if this be a true statement, our first parents, having sunk into a condition in which they had "no moral feeling, no knowledge of right and wrong," were no longer moral agents. Of course, they could perform neither holy nor unholy acts ; they could sin no more, until grace restored their freedom, and enabled mankind to commit all the sin that has flowed from the first transgression. Thus God is represented as the author of all sin since the fall ! The society of devils, moreover, accord- ing to this theory, is as pure from actual sin as that of the angels around the eternal throne ! Nor is it conceivable that, on this scheme, there can be any punishment of a sinful being, who in the act of sin has blotted out conscience, moral feel- ing, and all sense of right and wrong, unless there be also punishment by grace I * Discourses, p. 77. 56 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. The result of the whole is, that we have original sin which is no sin — depravity without fault, " inclination to evil " without criminality, the penalty of the law inflicted upon those who are not subjects of law, and wondrous "grace" to deliver us from a punishment which we do not deserve ! And now, most reverend and worthy Bishop, permit me, in closing this Letter, to retort the language which you have commended as applicable to our system : " Truth constrains us to say, we have found what appears to our mind great con- fusion, perplexity and contradiction, arising out of the diffi- culties of the (Arminian) doctrine." * If you can invent any method of scriptural exegesis or logical .reasoning by which it is possible to reduce this chaos to order and harmo- nize its repulsive and discordant elements, you will do more to earn an earthly immortality than all those who have pre- ceded you in the same cause. In our next Letter we hope to close the discussion of the important topic of Original Sin and its relations. LETTER IV. ORIGINAL OR BIRTH SIN. — STATE AND PROSPECTS OF IN- FANTS.— SCRIPTURAL VIEWS OF DEPRAVITY. — FREEDOM OF WILL NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE TRUE DOCTRINE OF THE CONTROL OF MOTIVES. Rev. Sir — In order properly to understand the relations of " Original Sin" to the state and prospects of infants, espe- cially such as die before they are capable of moral action, let us look briefly at several points which are conceded by Ar- minians. i. " The full penalty of Adam's offense passed upon all * Foster's Objections, p. 29. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 57 his posterity." Watson's List. vol. ii. p. 67. Of course, as be affirms, " the threatening* pronounced upon the first pair have all respect to their posterity as well as to themselves." p. 52. ii. " The provision made in the gospel does not affect the state in which men are born — the fact of their being born liable to (temporal) death, a part of the penalty, is sufficient to show that they are born under the whole malediction." Watson, vol. ii. pp. 66, 58. iii. " If it was righteous to attach that penalty to man's offense, it is most certainly righteous to execute it." vol. ii. p. 100. Of course, it would be " righteous to execute the full penalty" (" death temporal, spiritual and eternal,") upon " the posterity of Adam." No language could express more plainly the positions of Calvinists, than the three items just quoted. No terms could utter more explicitly the great scriptural trutb, that by the fall, all mankind are under " the wrath and curse" of God — "are bom under the whole malediction" — and, of course, in- fants, as part of that " posterity," are justly liable to suffer " the full penalty." But is not this the same as teaching the horrible doctrine of " infant damnation V By no means. Men may be liable i. e. justly exposed to great evils, which they will never suffer. So it was with all the redeemed now in glory, and so it waa and is with all who die infants. Through " the grace of the gospel," they are washed, sanctified and saved. No Calvinist, so far as known to us, has ever denied this blessed and con- solatory truth. Even Calvin, in reply to the objection that u infants who are incapable of believing, remain in their con- demnation," replies thus : " I oppose a contrary argument. All those whom Christ blessed are exempt from the curse of Adam and the wrath of God. And as infants are blessed by him, it follows that they are exempted from death."* * Inst. vol. ii. p. 520. 58 DIFFICULTIES OF AKMINIANISM. Let. IV. But the point of divergency where the two schemes of doc- trine separate is this : On what principle are infants saved ? Arminians affirm, as was shown in our last Letter, that " the provision of a Redeemer" was demanded as a matter of right, otherwise the full execution of the threatening on the poster- ity of Adam would have been palpably imjust I The gospel, therefore, was a remedy for the severity, injustice and cru- elty with which God's covenant threatened the children of Adam ! Of course, the Arminian idea of grace is the pay- ment of a just debt ! To speak of the gospel as a method of grace and mercy, when both justice and goodness would have been sacrificed if the offer of salvation had been with- held, is the most absolute folly. These remarks will prepare the way for a series of observa- tions on the subject of the state and future prospects of in- fants. 1. The Romish doctrine represents the salvation of infants as dependent upon baptism. Hence Papists make it the duty even of women, the nurse for example, to baptize a new- born child, if death should be imminent.* Hence they have their limbus infantum, a place somewhere between heaven and hell, where unbaptized infants are supposed to remain in a state of insensibility. A sentiment nearly resembling this was held by some of the earlier Arminians, such as Episco- pius, Curcellseus and others, who taught that persons dying in infancy always remain in an infantile state, having no more ideas in the future world than they had in this. Neither early nor later Calvinists have ever held such an un- worthy doctrine as this, or one approaching so nearly to " in- fant damnation !" 2. Even Watson, though for the most part calm and de- cent in stating the views of his opponents, affirms that the Calvinistic system " brings with it the repulsive and shocking * In his controversy with Hughes, Dr. Breckinridge hintod the actual ex- istence of ante-natuni baptism among Romanists. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 59 opinion of the eternal punishment of infants." Bishop Simp- son ami Mr. Foster think there is "abundant evidence" of the truth of the charge.* With a great show of candor, how- ever, they add that " this horrible doctrine is now so univer- sally disclaimed, that we suppose a reformation has been wrought, &c." This great change among Calvinists they as- cribe to " the exposure of the horrors of the system" by Ar- minians ! But it so happens that the same unworthy artifice was employed by Fletcher in his fourth Check, nearly ninety years ago : " Calvinists," he tells us, " are novo ashamed of consigning infants to the torments of hell." This was written in 1772. If the Bishop and Mr. F. have read the fourth Check, they ought to have known that their "now" is nearly a century out of date, and proves to be an old Arminian stratagem, altogether unworthy an honorable controvertist. If the Calvinists of former or latter times were chargeable with this revolting dogma, we have not discovered the evi- dence in their writings. Francis Turretine, one of the dis- tinguished theological successors of Calvin at Geneva, pub- lished his system of Theology a hundred years before the time of Fletcher. In the only place which we have noticed where he speaks of the prospects of the infants of "infidels and pagans," he says : " Christian charity bids us hope (nos jubeat sperare) that they are saved." And in reply to the objection that "without faith it is impossible to please God," Turretine says : " They (infants) please God on account of the satisfaction of Christ imputed to them for remission of their sins, though themselves incapable of apprehending him by faith." And again, he quotes Matt. 19 : 14, " Of such is the kingdom of God." " For although they are adduced as an example of humility for adults, yet Christ includes (not excludes) infants themselves in the promise. "f No doubt * Objections to Calvinism, p. 209. f Inst. Thenl. Locus 15. Quaestio 14. The work is the text-book at Princeton, and a standard authority throughout the world. 60 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. there was a Fletcher or a Foster of Turretine's day, to prac- tice the same small ad eaptandum artifice, viz. " Calvinists have now become ashamed of consigning infants to hell !" So also Mr. Toplady, who died in 1778, one of the most able and decided opponents Wesley ever had. No man ever sus- pected him of a disposition to disguise any opinions he might think worth holding. Yet on this very subject of " infant damnation" he says : " I testify my firm belief that the souls of all departed infants are with God in glory — that reproba- tion hath nothing to do with them." Again : " Such as die in infancy are all undoubtedly saved."* And Dr. John Owen, whose first work was published in 1642, says : " It follows unavoidably, that infants who die in infancy, have the grace of regeneration and as good a right to baptism as believers themselves."f And that eminently pious and judi-s. cious commentator, Dr. Scott : " Infants are as capable of regeneration as grown persons. And there is ground to con- clude, that all those who have not committed actual trans- gressions, though they share in the effects of the first Adam's offense, will also share in the blessings of the second Adam's gracious covenant."! Hundreds of similar testimonies might be adduced, but these should suffice to admonish Arminians of the importance of committing to memory the command- ment, " Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigh- bor." It is humiliating, indeed, to find even so sober a contro- vertist as Watson, guilty of a similar unworthy artifice : " That some under the sentence of reprobation, die in their infancy is, probably, what most Calvinists allow." Observe how guarded — "probably what most Calvinists allow !" Just enough said to convey the broad inuendo, but not enough to alarm conscience with the thought of uttering an untruth ! Again, he says : " If their doctrine be received, it * Works, pp. 58, 142. f Works, vol. xxi. p. 550. % Com. on Matt. 19 : 14. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. Gl (the death of infants who are reprobates) cannot be denied." But this is mere reckless assertion without the shadow of proof. There is no feature of the doctrine of Election which requires us to believe any infant to be lost. It is just as easy and logical to believe all who die in infancy to be of the elect, as to believe all who die regenerate to be of the elect. Cal- vinists can and do deny the reprobation of the one class, just as consistently as the other. Viewing the race as one great family of " the lost," it is perfectly natural and logical to hold that all who die infants are " chosen in Christ from the mass unto eternal glory" — just as easy as to believe that He who gives and takes life at his pleasure, can manage the affairs of his providence so wisely that this result shall be infallibly secured. If our Arminian brethren cannot compre- hend so plain a deduction, it is their fault, not ours. 3. One of the strangest mysteries of this feature of the Arminian system, will appear in the following contrast : " All are born under the whole " They are born free from con- malediction." — Watson. demnation." — Fisk. " Derived depravity is damning in " They were bqrn corrupt, and so its nature."- — Fisk. cannot be guilty for this." — Foster. "By the obedience of ono (Christ), "As to infants, they aro not, in- righteousness is imputed to all in- deod, born justified and regenerate, fants, and they stand justified before Original sin is not takon away, as to God " — " they are in a state of favor infants, by Christ." — Watson. or justification." — Fletcher. "Every punishment supposes the "The guilt or the punishment of offender might have avoided the of- Adam's sin is charged upon his wholo fense for which he is punished, other- posterity, a main part of which pun- wiae to punish him would be palpably iihment consists in that original (un- unjust." — Wesley. avoidable) defilement, in which they are born." — Goodwin, approved by Watson. This curious contrast, extracted from the ablest publica- tions of the General Conference, teaches that infants are born under the curse, but not under condemnation — are justified, but not pardoned — are punished, but suffer no punishment — are originally defiled, and thus suffer "palpable injustice." 6 G2 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINTANTSM. Let. IV. 4. But no such mystery hangs around other statements from the same source : " All are born," says Wesley, " under the guilt of Adam's sin, and all sin deserve eternal misery." "Infants, too, die; therefore, they have sinned — by original sin." But here arises the question : How are these infants to be saved ? " In the ordinary way," replies Wesley, u they cannot be saved, unless this stain be washed away by baptism." " The benefit is to be received through bap- tism in particular, to which God hath tied us, though he has not tied himself." " Indeed, where baptism cannot be had, the case is different; but extraordinary cases do not make void a standing rule." * This appears plain enough. With- out baptism, no infant can ordinarily be saved, unless in ex- treme cases, where baptism cannot be had ! " What, then, becomes of the thousands of infants who die unbaptized, but who might have had baptism if their parents had desired it ? And to fix the meaning beyond doubt, we are told : " It is certain, by God's word, that children who are baptized, dying before they commit actual sin, are saved." The baptized are " certainly saved " — but then what becomes of the un- baptized, of whom we are told : " It has been proved that this original stain cleaves to every child, and that thereby they are ' children of wrath,' and liable to eternal damna- tion." These were the sentiments of Wesley ; and his fol- lowers publish and circulate them widely. If they wish to discover " infant damnation," let them look at home ! It is obvious that thousands die in infancy unbaptized, but who lived where " baptism could have been had." Of course, "their stain was not washed away by baptism," and we are assured that, "in the ordinary way," such infants "cannot be saved." Now, as such infants do not fall under " the extraordinary cases," they are infallibly lost ! There is no method of avoiding this logical conclusion. 5. It has long been a favorite device of sectarian bigotry • Doctrinal Tracts, pp. 246, 251. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 63 to misrepresent and hold up to detestation the views of the Preshyterian church on this topic. Finding that the uniform tenor of the writings of our leading authors and preachers furnish no foundation for their imputations, Anniuiaiis have labored hard to torture our Confession of Faith into some declaration such as would suit their purpose. We are charged with the everlasting perdition of infants, chiefly on two grounds : (1.) " The Confession no where expressly affirms that all who die in infancy are saved." But, neither does the Meth- odist Book of Discipline teach that doctrine. Of course, it follows that the preachers must hold " infant damnation ! " And what renders this more probable is, that they are taught in their form of baptism to say that " all men are conceived and born in sin," and " to call upon God, the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this child that ichich by nature he cannot have;" that he would "wash him and sanctify him with the Holy Ghost;" and that he (the child) "may be delivered from God's lorath." Now, does not all this plainly prove that they regard the child as an object of God's wrath ; and that if he were to die in that state he would be lost? Does it not further prove that the preachers believe the child in danger of such an awful fate ? else why should they pray so fer- vently for his deliverance from it — that is, a deliverance from a fate which could not possibly befall him ? In other words, why should they pray that God would not hold the child un- der his wrath ; that he would not do a thing which, them- selves being judges, would be "palpably unjust," and which would exhibit him as a " most merciless tyrant?" A strange sort of prayer, truly ! How evident, therefore, is it, that whatever the preachers may say, their own Discipline incul- cates "infant damnation!" (2.) A second ground of the charge against Presbyterians, of teaching that some infants dying in childhood are lost, is, that our Confession employs 64 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. the phrase, " elect infants/' which is said to imply that some who die in childhood are non-elect. Not to repeat what has been often said," that the objected phrase is perfectly consist- ent with the persuasion that all infants dying in infancy are elected or saved by grace from among the lost family of man- kind, and of course that they will not be wanting when the " Son of man shall gather his elect from the four winds of heaven " (Matt. 24 : 31) : not to urge the fact that the Scriptures no where, in so many words, reveal the salvation of all such, though giving many sweet and precious intimations of the truth of the doctrine : let us try the force of this Arminian battery upon its authors. The Methodist Book of Discipline (Form of Baptism, p. 105,) employs a phraseology similar to that of our Confession : " Grant," say they, " that this child, now to be baptized, may ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children." This of course cannot refer to election to national privileges or family immunities — but, as the term " elect " is applied to a particular individual, it must mean "personal election." And, as they most violently maintain that this necessarily implies the opposite reprobation, it follows that the terms " elect children " unavoidably teach the horrible doctrine of "reprobate children." Thus, this heavy artillery of Methodist Ar- minians recoils upon themselves. A few victories of this sort will ruin their cause. And to add to the mystery of the transaction, the very " elect child " then being baptized, is in danger of becoming a reprobate, and, of course, of being lost ! The proof is at hand — the preacher as he performs the service, is required to pray most fervently, that the child may remain one of the elect — " ever remain in the num- ber of thy faithful and elect children," i. e. not become a reprobate and perish ! So evident is it that the Discipline teaches the horrible doctrine of " infant reprobation." * * The venerable Dr. L. Boechor, in spoaking of the calumnious charge made against Calvinists, of holding " infant damnation," says : " I have Lbt. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 65 But there is still a greater mystery connected with this subject. We are accused by our opponents with maintaining that some infants are forever lost. We think, however, that on the principles of Arminian Methodism, no infant can possibly be saved. What is salvation ? Does it not imply deliverance from the guilt, pollution, and just punishment of sin ? Are not infants declared (Meth. Discip. p. 103,) to be "conceived and born in sin," and of course, under its guilt and pollution? Are not these evils unavoidable? And is it not repeatedly affirmed in the standard writings of Methodism, that for God to hold his creatures responsible for what is unavoidable, would be "palpably unjust," and worthy the government only of a " merciless tyrant ! " What then are infants to be saved from? From an act of u palpable injustice " on the part of their Judge ? From the grasp of a " merciless tyrant ? " Most manifestly, therefore, on these principles of Methodism, NO INFANT CAN BE SAVED, simply because no infant needs salvation ! With respect to all the vast multitude of the human family who have gone down to the grave, not knowing " their right hand from their left," Christ u has died in vain." Their song will not be, " Unto Him that loved us, and washed us from our sius in his own blood " — for they never stood in need of " washing." Their song will rather be, " Unto Him that by His providence cut short our days, and saved us from living any longer in the body — which was the greatest evil we had any reason to fear ! Thanks be to Him, who thus snatched us from exposure to Arminian grace, which would have restored our ' freedom of will ' and made us responsible sinning creatures and liable to everlasting torments ! Thanks never soon or heard of any (Calvinistic) book which contained such a senti- ment, nor a man, minister or layman, who believed or taught it. And I feel authorized to say that Calvinists, as a body, are as far from teaching it as any of those who falsely accuse them. Such persons should commit to memory without delay the ninth commandment — -"Thou shalt not boar false witness against thy neighbor." 6* G6 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. Tbe to death, the king of terrors, who delivered us from such a scheme of grace, from such a system of mercy. Or rather, if we owe any gratitude at all, it is because we have received no more than bare justice — that which was our righteous due, and which a holy God could not have withheld — l for we were born corrupt, and cannot be guilty for that ['"* Such, on strict Arminian principles, would be the song of infants in heaven ! Before closing this Letter, let us look for a few moments at the scriptural view of the subject, which is involved in so many strange contradictions. The tendencies of the Arminian scheme are plainly to "reproach our Maker." In the "covenant" made with Adam, that system represents God as " a hard master." To execute the terms of that covenant upon the posterity of the fallen pair, would have been injustice, cruelty, &c. To shield the character of the Lawgiver from these righteous and true imputations, was the object of " the system of mercy ! " The gospel, God's greatest and best gift, is, after all, only a fair and equitable " compensation " for outrageous wrong ! To heal this outrage, " whatever was forfeited in the first Adam, has been either restored or compensated for by the second Adam." | Thus, the " Holy One of Israel " wipes away the stain which otherwise must have blotted the purity of his government. Calvinists, on the other hand, view "the covenant" with * Objections to Calvinism, p. 166. In another place Mr. Fostor says : " How was he to blame for an existence and nature which were foreod upon him — which never at any period he consented to, and which he never could avoid ? " It is to be regretted that our Methodist brethren are verging so rapidly toward the Pelagian scheme of Taylor of Norwich, who was also an Arian. President Edwards quotes him as follows : " If we come into the world infected with sinful and depraved dispositions, then sin must bo natu- ral to us ; and if natural, then necessary ; and if necessary, then no sin ; * * nor can it in any respect be our fault, being tohat we cannot help." Even Mr. Wesley solidly refuted theso fundamental heresies of Taylor. See his work on " Original Sin," in reply to that arch-horotic. f Meth. Quart. Rev. April, 1854. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 67 Adam as like all others of God's works, originally "very good." " But our first parents being left to the freedom of their own will, fell from the estate wherein they were created by sin- ning against God." * " By the disobedience of one, many were made sinners." "Adam," says Watson, "is to be re- garded as a public man, the head and representative of the human race." f " By the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation." Was this a harsh, cruel, unjust arrangement? Far from us be such blasphemy ! Ap Wesley well remarks, " That deadly wound in Adam" pre pared the way (created the necessity) for " the greatest in- stance of Divine love." Besides, it was the shortest way for man to obtain everlasting happiness. By this method, one man's perfect obedience for a short time, would have secured eternal life to all mankind ; whereas, had each stood bound for himself, it must have remained in suspense to many a* least, until their personal probation had expired; and no one can tell how large a number would have failed in the trial and perished for ever ; perhaps more than now perish. This method also appears reasonable and kind ; because it was the safest method. As Wesley has truly observed : " Unless in Adam all had died, being in the loins of their first parent, every descendant of Adam must have pcrsorially answered for himself to God. It seems to be a necessary consequence of this, that if he had once fallen, once violated any command of God, there would have been no possibility of his rising again ; there was no help ; but he must have perished without remedy." " Who would not rather be on the footing he is now ? Who would wish to hazard a whole eternity upon one stake ?" " Where then is the man that presumes to blame God for not preventing Adam's sin? Should we not rather bless him from the ground of the heart for therein laying the grand scheme of man's redemption ?" J * Shorter Catochisui, Q. 13. f Watson's Instit. X See his sermon on " God's love to fallen man." 68 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. Adam was obviously the most proper person to be the cove- nant head of all mankind. As their common parent, he was equally related to all, and had the strongest motives and best opportunities to persevere in perfect obedience. The most wise, holy, just and good Grod having chosen him for their head, none of his posterity, if they had been all alive and on the spot, could without attempting to be wiser than their Maker, have refused their cordial consent. Would it have been either more wise or more merciful, to have ordered that each individual should enter the world in the immaturity of his being, while yet his faculties of body and soul were in the imperfect and undeveloped state, then, to stand his trial for weal or woe ; or that oue should be appointed, strong and vigorous, in all the perfection of that original manhood, which the all-wise Grod pronounced " very good" — that such a one should be given us, in whose hands should be placed our des- tiny, and by whose conduct should be decided the future character of his posterity ? Could every child of Adam have looked on when the scheme was ordained in the councils of eternity, true modesty would have dictated the right answer to these inquiries. And had the result been the establish- ment of the whole human family in perpetual holiness and happiness, every tongue would have celebrated the wisdom and extolled the benevolence of so wise and wonderful an arrangement. Another topic in this connection, deserves a little fur- ther notice. Arminians, with all their talk about " de- rived depravity," its " damning nature," &c. plainly teach that a man born with a sinful disposition, a depraved na- ture, is born with such a necessity of sinning as perfectly excuses him. To relieve men of this inherited necessity, and in part restore these original ruins of the fall; in a word, to impart " freedom of will," and make man a blame-worthy creature, is, in their view, one of the great and blessed results of "the grace of the gospel!" Wonderful grace, indeed, Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 69 which takes away man's just and righteous excuse, and makes him guilty and justly condemned ! But it is not true that because we are born with corruption of nature, we are there- fore excusable for it. This notion of Arminians is inconsist- ent with the common sense of mankind. We often say of a person of a savage, malicious, murderous disposition, " it is just like him, and like his father and grandfather before him. They were always naturally a brutal and ferocious family. And this son is a worthy child of such parents." But docs this ever strike the common mind as a sufficient apology for murder, rape, arson ? If a man do a murderous deed, insti- gated by a cruel and revengeful disposition, we make no in- quiry whence he derived that disposition, or what it was that originated his murderous choice. And the more determined and impulsive this bent of the will for murder, the more atro- cious the act, even though he developed a thirst for blood in childhood ! Such is the common judgment of all mankind. The disposition may have been transmitted as a constitutional bias from father to son; but that rather aggravates the crime than offers an apology for it. Apply the same reasoning to the inherited depravity of our fallen nature. "There is not," says an eloquent writer^ " a more effectual way of bringing this to the test than by supposing one man the object of great provocation and injustice from another. Let a neighbor in- flict upon you some moral wrong. Do you pause to inquire whence he has derived the selfishness or the malice under which you suffer? If it be under some, necessity which vio- lates and thwarts his disposition to do you a kindness, you feel no resentment, no spirit of retaliation. But if he be in- cited by the strength of his depraved passions — say a ma- licious disposition to do you harm — so far from this furnish- ing an apology, you feel that the obstinate tendency <>r bias of his will to injure you, only adds to the turpitude of his conduct. The more hearty the will, choice, or impulse you saw he had to hurt or traduce or defraud you, the more would 70 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. you hold him to be the culpable subject of your most just and righteous indignation.* This is unquestionably the only true and common sense view of the subject. The stronger a man's bent or inclination to do evil, the more wicked his act. And whether this inclination, bent or bias of the mind, be derived from an immediate parent, or through a line of twenty generations of malicious and evil disposed ancestors, or from Adam himself, alters not the nature of the act. That advocate would render himself ridiculous, who should plead before a jury for the acquittal of the deliberate murderer, on the ground that he had inherited a murderous bias from his parents, and therefore could not avoid the crime ! If these be correct conclusions, they invalidate the labored disserta- tions of Arminians,")" on the subject of necessitated will, coerced volitions, unavoidable choice, &c. Mr. Fletcher, though not often very discriminating, caught a glimpse of the truth, when he wrote as follows : " All we assert is, that whether a man chooses good or evil, his will is free, or it does not deserve the name of will." And he afterward quotes with strong approval as his " very sentiments," the follow- ing : " God does not force any man to will either good or evil ; but man, through the corruption of his understanding, naturally and freely wills that which is evil." J This is sound doctrine, but modern Arminians utterly reject this view. Man's corruption, they tell us, destroys his "freedom of will;" his inherited depravity is attended with a bias, or bent of inclination to evil, which is a perfect excuse for his crimes, if such they can be called ! It is the province of " free grace" to disarm corruption of its power in all, so far as to make them sufficiently free to become guilty and righteously condemned ! * Abridged from Dr. Chalmers on Rom. 5. f The Aruiinian doctrine is, that man's natural or inherited dopravity, corruption, or tondoney to sin, destroys his liberty and would make him ex- cusable, if grace had not, interfered to restore his " free will." X See his fourth Chock. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 71 Messrs. Simpson and Foster labor with great zeal to con- vict our system of " absolute necessity," and call it " fate/' "blasphemy," "infinite absurdity," &c. They ridicule the idea that "motives exercise a controlling force over us."* "We admit that the word force might be understood to convey an idea altogether inconsistent with freedom ; for, as Fletcher truly says, " will is free, or it does not deserve the name of will." Yet we read of the force of argument, the force of rea- soning, &c. But what is the meaning of the word motive in connection with acts of the mind ? Watson defines it : "'Not physical causes, * * * but reasons of choice, views and con- ceptions of things in the mind, * * * in consideration of which the mind itself wills and determines."}" Very well. But do not motives, i. e. reasons of choice, views and concep- tions*' of what is most reasonable, right, fitting, desirable — do not these and similar reasons "control," i. e. govern, determine, decide the choice of the mind.| Certainly they do in all rational beings. The opposite is true only in the case of persons who have been deprived of reason 1 It is evident, therefore, that Messrs. Foster and Simpson have adopted a theory of will which suits only that unfortunate class of beings who have lost the balance of their minds, and whose will or choice is not " controlled by reason!" The only college on earth where this sort of liberty is taught and exemplified in its perfection, is an insane asylum ; for only there the choice or preference of the soul is governed by no " reasons — no views and conceptions" of what is right, rea- sonable, rationally desirable, &c. ! There the inmates decide without, and even ayainst reasons. The doctrine of necessity, i. e. of the certainty that the mind will act in a particular way under certain circum- * Objections, Ac. p. 228. f Inst. vol. ii. p. 440. + Tlu< motim is that, particular consideration which being presented to tho mind DETERMINES it to act."— Moth. Mag. July, 1S39, p. 259. 72 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. stances, is simply this — "Every rational and well balanced mind will certainly and freely choose that which, on the whole, under any given circumstances at the time of action, appears to its reason and intelligence to be fittest and best." The strength or power of these u reasons, vieivs and concep- tions" in other words, of these motives, is so far from de- stroying man's liberty of will, that they are of the very essence of moral freedom — for without such reasons, he is insane and utterly irresponsible ! It is obvious then, that volitions are not necessitated, except in the sense of their future certainty, i. e. they are not forced, in the sense of con- straint or compulsion. " The idea of compelling a man to hate or love any object, is perfectly absurd. * * * That every one will choose that which, on the whole, in the act of choice, he prefers, is certain." This is only to say that the mind chooses what it does choose. To assert that the mind chooses in any act of will, what in that act it does not prefer, is only to say that it chooses contrary to its choice — which is a contradiction." A man may, indeed, perform external ac- tions by constraint, i. e. contrary to his preference or choice — but that is another thing entirely. But, say Messrs. Simpson and Foster : " Is not every man conscious to himself that his former course of (wicked) con- duct might have been different from what it was — that, under precisely the same circumstances, his volitions and acts might have been different."* In the sense we suppose intended, this is not denied. The whole obscurity arises from con- founding certainty with physical necessity. When Calvinists speak of necessity in matters of the will, they mean certainty of existence. To illustrate the importance of this distinction, take the following example : " If a man of plain sense should be informed by prophecy that he would certainly kill a fellow- man the next day or year, and that he would be actuated by malice, it would never enter his mind that he should not be * Objections, p. 230. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 73 guilty of any crime, because the action was certain before it was committed. But, if you change the terms and say that he would be under a necessity to perpetrate the crime ; that, being absolutely certain, he could not possibly avoid it ; im- mediately the subject becomes perplexed and involved in dif- ficulties — for every man of common sense feels that he can- not be justly accountable for actions which he could not ])ossibly avoid; and that, for what he does from absolute necessity, he cannot, in the nature of things, be culpable. These terms include the idea of a compulsory power acting upon us, not only without, but in opposition to our own will. A necessary event, in this sense, is one which cannot be volun- tary or free ; for if it were spontaneous, it could not be neces- sary ; these two things being diametrically opposite." * Agreeably to this reasoning, a voluntary action may be as certain of future existence, as a voluntary action that has already taken place is certain of past existence. The absolute certaint3 r of David's adultery, for example, does not now forbid its being a voluntary action ; so, neither, did the abso- lute future certainty of the same act (or, what Calvinists mean by necessity in moral things,) forbid its being voluntary and blame-worthy, though infallibly known to the Divine mind a thousand years prior to its commission, or even from eternity. "A voluntary action may therefore be as certainly future as any other. If an action be voluntary, it is free, and the idea of a necessary, or, as Arminians say, a necessitated voli- tion, is absurd and contradictory." "j" And as regards the influence of a natural bias or bent of the mind to destroy its freedom, no one can doubt that in the holy soul of the man Christ Jesus, this bent or bias to virtue and holiness was perfect, unchangeable ; and his will infallibly certain as that of God himself, always to choose in one way. If the term * Biblical Repertory for 1831, pp. 159, 160. f Ibid. 7 74 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. necessity is ever allowable when speaking of the will, wo might say that God is necessarily holy and just and true in all his volitions and actions — yet such a use of the term ■would be obviously improper, if anything more were meant than perfect and immutable certainty to do right. Every one is familiar with the fact that the influence of motives, i. e. "reasons, conceptions or views in the mind," depends, to a great extent, upon the temper or frame of tho mind : and nothing is more common than for men to regulate, moderate, and by long practice to gain the mastery over per- verse tempers and inclinations. If, for example, the temper of the soul be toward the indulgence of hatred or" malice against a neighbor in any given case, a very small and trifling " reason or conception " of wrong received, will lead to vio- lence and even to murder — because " the reason," in that frame of the soul, appears very strong. But to another per- son, and, indeed, to the same man in other states or frames of the mind, the " reason," and of course the act, will seem perfectly contemptible, and he will be amazed at his own folly. Now, as man is responsible for the frame or temper of his soul, which often makes " the worse appear the better reason," so is he responsible for the strength or " controlling power " of the " conception " or motive which persuaded him to commit any crime — say murder, as in the case supposed. But, replies the Arminian, does not this doctrine suppose necessity, i. e. that man acts without freedom ? Certainly not. It supposes the man to be a rational, intelligent being, liable, indeed, to the influence of bad frames, habits or tem- pers of mind. It further supposes, not that he always acts under the impulse of "reasons" which are really the wisest and best, but he acts from those motives which at the mo- ment impress him as the best and most fitting under all the circumstances. In a very short time, indeed, he may correct his error and curse his folly, because the frame or temper of his mind having changed, " the reason and conception," i. e. Let. IV. ORIGINAL SIN. 75 the motive, loses its persuasive power. But, as these frames, habits or tempers of the miud form the ground-work of the ■intentions, they, to a great extent, make the act what it is in morals. We agree with Fletcher, therefore, that to talk of a neces- sitated will or choice, in the sense of co-action, is to talk nonsense. Such a use of the terms is absurd — just as it would be to talk of logical affections, or a round square, or a dark light, or a loving hatred, or any other absurd collocation of terms. A man may be necessitated to a bodily action against his will — but the will itself is of its own nature always free, and the motives, i. e. "the reasons or concep- tions " which lead to choice, are essential to the rational na- ture of the mind — without them it is neither sane nor morally responsible. And the strength of these motives is very much, in any given case, what a man makes it. But here the inquiry may arise : How far is the Divine Being concerned in original depravity and the acts which flow from it ? No Calvinist teaches that God infuses sin into our nature. As a just punishment of the original fall of ouf first parents, man has lost original righteousness — and the consequence, viz. depravity of nature, invariably follows. This was true of Adam, and is true of his posterity — as like produces like. And as regards the sinful actions — say of the murderer or adulterer, Wesley makes the following distinctions : " God supplies such a wicked person with the power to act, which he cannot have but from God ; he does this knowing what he (the murderer) is about to do. God, therefore, produces the action which is sinful. It is his work and his will (for he works nothing but what he wills), and yet the sinfulness of the act is neither his work nor will." * Calvinists take no stronger ground than this. And then, as regards those frames, tempers and habits of the soul, which are the fruits of original depravity — in an- * Original Sin, part 3, sec. 7. 76 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. IV. swer to Dr. John Taylor's inquiry — " Can those propensities be sinful, which are neither caused nor consented to by me ? " Wesley replies : " Spite, envy, and those other passions and tempers which are manifestly discernible even in little children, are certainly not virtuous, not morally good. And these exist before they are consented to, &c. ' Tempers con- trary to the nature and law of God are natural,' i. e. inherited as part of our nature. These tempers do exist in us ante- cedent to our choice." "Actual sins," adds Wesley, "may proceed from a corrupt nature, and yet not be unavoidable. But if actions contrary to the nature of God were unavoid- able^ it would not follow that they were innocent." * In these instances, Mr. Wesley was refuting the doctrines of that celebrated Pelagian, Taylor of Norwich, who bitterly denied original sin. This fact accounts for these and similar statements from his pen. Messrs. Simpson and Foster would do well to take a few lessons from him on that topic. They would thus discover that they agree much more closely with the Pelagian Taylor than with Mr. Wesley. Far from him be such sentiments as the following : " Neither are they to blame for this, because it was entirely without their consent. They were born corrupt, and so cannot be guilty for that." -j" Mr. W. refutes with great force of logic, the same sentiment expressed by Taylor, in pretty much the same words ! What- ever may have been his errors, Wesley could say with David and others — ' Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me." " The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not subject to his law, neither indeed can be." "And we (Christians) were by nature children of wrath, even as others." This is not the language of men who taught — "They were bom corrupt, and therefore could not be guilty ! " These are strange developments in Arminian theology. * Miso. Works, vol. ii. p. 278. f Objections to Calvinism, p. 166. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 7T The system appears to be passing into the frozen regions of Pelagianism. The scraps of sound doctrine which at first adhered to it, and which, like salt, for a time preserved the mass from putrefaction, are becoming more and more unpal- atable to the leaders. If they continue thus to " walk in the counsel" of Pelagians, and " stand in the way" of such errorists as Taylor of Norwich, they may soon be pre- pared to " sit down " with scorners such as Belsham, Priestley, et id genus omne. But we hope better things of Arminian Methodism, though we thus speak. LETTER V. FOREKNOWLEDGE— PREDESTINATION. Rev. Sir — The volume which your Book Concern has published and which you have recommended as " very valu- able," " of great merit," &c. occupies more than a hundred pages with the subject of "eternal decrees," "election and reprobation." The views of Presbyterians are caricatured as follows : "The doctrine is, that God decreed" — " in the sense of originator, author and cause" — "whatsoever comes to pass" — "each particular sin of every man." "Murder, rob- bery, blasphemy, &c." — " they could no more avoid these crimes, than resist the fiat of Omnipotence" — "their creation was in order to their sins." * We have selected these items as furnishing a comparatively mild statement of our views, as Messrs. Simpson and Foster understand them. The quotations you profess to make from certain authors, in order to fasten upon our church this and similar blas- phemy, have already been exposed in part ; and, in general, are much in the style of your favorite tract: "Dialogue between a Predestinarian and his friend." As a minute examination * Objections to Calvinism, p. 31. 7* 78 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. of the extracts professedly given by Wesley, the author of that tract, will be found in the Appendix, we refer the reader to it, for fair specimens of Arminian accuracy and reliable- ness in matters of this sort. The great theological work of Calvin, " the Institutes," has always been one of the principal magazines whence have been drawn these weapons of Arminian warfare. Yet in publishing this work, our Board of Publication, as we have shown, make several distinct exceptions to his views, espe- cially on Reprobation. Even admitting, therefore, what is far from the truth, that Calvin's views are correctly stated by our Arminian brethren, how absurd in them to employ hun- dreds of pages in contending with such "a man of straw I" If any body could be found in any church under heaven, will- ing to father the sentiments which the Bishop charges upon us, Mr. Foster's book might possibly be of some use in that partic- ular quarter! But, as the matter now stands, every well informed Presbyterian will feel only amazement, that so much good paper and ink have been worse than wasted in battling with a pure figment. We repeat, the Supralapsarian theory, grossly caricatured as it is in these " Objections to Calvin- ism," is not the scheme of doctrine held by the Presbyterian church. It cannot be questioned that Turretine, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, and a host of other Calvinists, have al- ways been admitted, even by Arminians, to be men of the first order of genius. And they all agree that such repre- sentations of our doctrines as we have quoted from your " Objections," are calumnies — that " God is not, and cannot be, the author of sin ;" and they express with Calvin their " deep abhorrence of such blasphemy." * No wonder, there- fore, that in attempting to fasten such blasphemous senti- ments upon Presbyterians, the Rev. R. S. Foster finds " great confusion, perplexity and contradiction" in the Calvinistic doctrine ; but he humbly hopes it will not be charged to his * Calvin's Letter to Bullinger, January, 1552. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 79 " willful blindness !" * No, we rather think Mr. F. did the best he could. But intelligent men will be apt to suspect that Mr. F. has imagined " contradictions," only because he was incapable of comprehending the scheme of Calvinism — of tracing its logical relations, or perceiving its legitimate results. With these preliminary remarks, we take up a second source of Arminian Difficulties — that mysterious perfection of the Divine nature, according to which " known unto God are all his works from the foundation of the world." II. The Difficulties of Arminian Methodism in con- nection WITH THE DOCTRINE OF DlVINE FOREKNOW- LEDGE. The Foreknowledge of God seems never to have been a favorite in the body of divinity current among Arminians. Long before the days of Wesley, such early anti-Calvinists as Episcopius and others, called it " a troublesome question" — " a thing disputable, whether there be any such thing or not, though possibly it may be ascribed to God" — they say, that "it were better it were quite exploded, because the dif- ficulties that attend it can scarcely be reconciled with man's liberty" — and that "it seems rather to be invented to cru- cify poor mortals than to be of any moment in religion." f So also, Vorstius, another great prophet of their own, affirms " that God oft times feareth, suspecteth, and prudently con- jectureth that this or that evil may arise" — and others, " that God doth often intend what he doth not foresee will come to pass." To such daring extremes were these men driven in their zeal to set aside the doctrine of Predestination. " This troublesome question," appears also to have given no small annoyance to Mr. Wesley. He seems to have con- * Objections, p. 29. | Dr. Owen's " Display of Arminianbui," p. 71. The original Latin is tlicro ijuoted. 80 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. founded Foreknowledge with Omniscience. In his sermon on Predestination he says, " If we speak properly, there is no such thing as Foreknowledge or After-knowledge in God" — and one of his modern disciples adds doubtfully, "If we may apply the term Foreknowledge to the Deity." We are disposed, however, to think that Peter spoke quite as "prop- erly" as either, when he said "with the eleven," "Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and with wicked hands have crucified and slain." And again, 1 Pet. 1:2, " Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father," &c. The founder of Methodism had sufficient discernment to perceive, that the fact of the Divine mind comprehending all time and all eter- nity at one glance, and as present in one view, does not in the least relieve the difficulties which beset the subject of Foreknowledge. Hence in writing to Dr. Robertson, in an- swer to the inquiry, " How is God's foreknowledge consist- ent with our freedom ?" he candidly replies, " I cannot tell." * And in his essay on Original Sin he says, " My understand- ing can no more fathom this deep (how God produces the nature which is sinful without willing sin), than reconcile man's free will with the foreknowledge of God." j" The atheistical sentiments above quoted from the early Arminians, we have no right to charge upon Bishop S. and his brethren, unless they avow them. Nor will Christian charity permit us to accuse them of "duplicity" and "arti- fice," because they do not print and preach such " strictly logical " inferences from their avowed principles. J These logical perplexities, however, which candor and fairness have extorted, including those from Wesley, are important. It is well known that it is a common contrivance of his followers * Misc. Works, vol. iii. p. 219. f Ibid, vol. ii. p. 277. J We leave such carnal weapons to Bishop S. and his brethren who have published such tracts as " Duplicity Exposed," &c. &c. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 81 to decry and denounce Calvinism on this identical ground. " It is impossible," they say, " to reconcile the doctrine of decrees with man's freedom ; " and they are exceedingly abundant in pointing out the dreadful consequences which flow from this alleged fact, and in showing that all Presby- terians should at once forsake the faith of their fathers, and come over to the Arminian camp. But if we were to admit their allegations against our system to be true to the full ex- tent, yet the question returns — " What advantage hath the Arminian ? or what profit is there in Methodism ? " Has not your "great master of logic," as you call him, declared that he " cannot tell " how your own doctrine of Fore- knowledge can be reconciled with our freedom ? First cast out this beam from your own eye, and then shall you see clearby to extract the mote from ours. Honestly show us that you hold and teach only doctrines which can be main- tained consistently with human liberty, and then we will be- lieve you sincere, when you attempt to preach down Calvinism as destructive to the doctrine of man's freedom and account- ability. The Scriptures are so express, and the prophecies are so plain and form so essential a feature of Divine revelation, that modern Arminians have not been able to resist the over- whelming evidence of the infinite foreknowledge of God. Hence, in a leading tract they say — " To know is so essential to God, that the moment he ceases to know all that is, will be, or might be, under any possible circumstances, he ceases to be God." * They evidently feel, however, that such a statement is attended with very serious embarrassments. " Should it be asked," inquires another of their ablest writers, " how entire freedom of action agrees with this knowledge, I answer, I cannot tell." " The plain truth is, the subject is too far removed from the province of our faculties and the sphere of human science, &c." " We must rest till it shall please God * Fisk on Predest and Election. 82 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. to develope what has been hitherto locked up in the treasury of eternal wisdom." * The Gordian knot which our Arminian brethren find so perplexing, was readily solved, or rather, was rudely cut by Socinus and his followers, thus : " God made no other decree than that of saving such as believe, obey and submit to the gospel. These things depend on the human will — what de- pends on the will is uncertain : an uncertain object cannot be an object of certain knowledge : God therefore cannot cer- tainly foresee whether my condition will be eternally happy or otherwise." "j" Most Arminians of the present day will agree with us that this is stark atheism ! Who can believe in a God who every day is learning something new — who is ignorant to-day of what will occur to-morrow ? Again : In speaking of " human or contingent actions," the Methodist Magazine J doubtfully remarks — "■ If God foresee or foreknow them at all, he sees them just as they are." " He sees at the same time what class of motives or principles will preponderate," &c. Exactly so — but where did the reviewer learn that the Calvinistic system " con- founds" — "makes no distinction between" "foreknowledge and decree ? " Any Calvinist who should broach such an absurdity, would hardly be considered a fit candidate for a class in a Sabbath school. There are indeed some Methodist authors who affect to see no difficulty in reconciling freedom and foreknowledge. Mr. Watson, however, candidly admits that " this forms a difficulty " — for example, "how to recon- cile the Divine warnings, exhortations and other means adopted to prevent the destruction of individuals, with the certain foresight of that terrible result." " In the case of man," he acknowledges, " the infallible prescience or foreknowledge of * Meth. Mag. vol. iii. p. 13. -)■ Saurin, vol. ii. p. 108. X For July, 1839. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 83 failure would, in many (all?) cases, paralyze all effort."* Nothing was ever more truly said — and if he had only recalled to mind, that the Armiuian holds it as an essential feature of his scheme, necessary to shield the Divine char- acter from foul and blasphemous aspersions — (viz. ''insin- cerity," "crocodile tears," &c.) that the omniscient God designed, planned, purposed the salvation of such lost ones and expended the most astonishing and inconceivable means and efforts to secure this end, even the incarnation and suffer- ings and death of his eternal Son — if Mr. Watson had seriously contemplated how unworthy a reflection it casts upon the all-wise God, to employ all these infinite and un- speakable means to secure a result which was already infi- nitely certain not TO take place — it might have led him wisely to caution his Methodist brethren against the suppo- sition that their scheme of doctrine is the privileged Goshen of light, while all around hangs Egyptian darkness ! We desire to speak it with the deepest reverence for the Divine character, but it ought not to be disguised that Arminianism in this aspect of the system, represents the all-wise Saviour as suffering and dying — for what? why, with a design or intention to disappoint his own infallible foreknowledge .' Absit blasphemia ! The Socinian boldly cuts this knot — "God cannot certainly foresee man's voluntary actions or his destiny ! " The pressure which all intelligent Arminians feel at this point of their system, is not obscurely indicated by their unavailing struggles to relieve it from its difficulties. "Certainty," says Watson, "is no quality of an action at all ; it exists properly in the mind foreseeing and not in the action foreseen." " When, therefore, it is said, what God * Theol. Inst, part 2, ch. 4. The extreme caution of some Arminian authors on this subject, is curious: "Did not God foreknow who would reject the gospel and be lost? We presume he did!" Porter's Com- pendium, p. 231. 84 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. foresees will certainly happen, nothing more can be reasonably meant than that He is certain that it will happen ; so that we must not transfer the certainty from God to the action itself." This is ingenious, but sophistical. It is not true, as Wat- son affirms, that the proposition — "What God foresees will certainly happen" — can mean no more than that He is cer- tain it will happen. That is all that the proposition refers to God — but a very little reflection will satisfy any one that the terms have also a direct reference to the nature and exist- ence of the action itself. "Certainty" is as really "a quality of an action," as uncertainty or contingency, which are es- sential to the notion of Arminian liberty. To make this obvious, we will take the example of David's murder in " the matter of Uriah." No one will question that now that wicked act is infallibly certain — a fixed fact, so that the proposition which affirms its past existence, is in- fallibly true ; so true that no mathematical axiom can be more so ; true as that twice two are not twenty ; and true apart from the -perception of its truth by any mind. This we think no Arminian will hesitate to concede. But there was a period, a thousand or ten thousand years before David's crime, when it was just as infallibly known to the Infinite mind, as it is now. No one can doubt this. At that period, the proposition which affirmed the future exist- ence of David's act of murder was just as infallibly true, apart from any perception of its truth, as the other which now affirms its past existence. And if we suppose God to have communicated the knowledge of that act to the angels a thousand years before it took place, they would have felt that its certainty was an infallible feature of David's exist- ence, but in no way dependent on their perception of the truth — in other words, its certainty of future existence be- longed to the act, not to their mental perception of the act. And if, for any period within the one thousand years antece- dent to David's existence, we were to adopt Dr. Clarke's no- Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 85 tion — suppose it possible for the Divine Being, say for twenty- four hours, " to choose not to foreknow " David's crime, would there be no certainty of its future existence for the same length of time ? Or now that the act is done, suppose it possible that God for one year should " choose not to know " it, would its certainty then cease ? So it would seem, if Watson is correct. These statements, if we mistake not, show conclusively that there is a certainty of existence and of truth, which belongs to morals as well as mathematics, and which is altogether distinct from the certainty of percep- tion in the mind which conceives the truth or foresees a fu- ture moral act, so that the certainty belongs not so much to the mind as to the act itself. It appears demonstrable, therefore, that the infallible fore- knowledge of God implies the infallible certainty of the future existence of that which is foreknown. Of course, we cannot suppose the future volitions of moral agents, known as they are to God with perfect distinctness and with all their circumstances, to be uncertain. This would be to say that he certainly knows an event will infallibly be, while at the same time he knows it to be so uncertain that it may not be, i. e. he knows that he may be mistaken ! In other words, he knows the proposition which affirms the future existence of an event, to be certainly true ; and yet he knows the same proposition to be so uncertain that it may be untrue ! If the event be indeed uncertain that "is known to the Divine mind, how then can he know it to be certainly future ? Of course, his foreknowledge would be mere conjecture ! For how can he know the certainty of an event, and at the same time know its uncertainty ? But, replies the Arminian, " God's foreknowledge can have no more influence in causing an event, say the sinner's im- penitence and ruin, than our after-knowledge." " To foresee an event does not cause it to take place." * Very true ; no • Compendium of Meth. p. 222. Moth. Mag. July, 1839. 8 86 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. Presbyterian will dispute that point. Foreknowledge in God proves, not causes, the certainty of the event foreknown. All infallible knowledge, whether it be foreknowledge or after- knowledge, demonstrates the thing known to be infallibly certain, i. e. that the event, action, volition, perfectly does or will correspond with the knowledge. Such is the infallible truth in the case. Knowledge is founded in certainty ; but the cause of the certainty is another matter, and not now under consideration. We maintain, and we trust have proved, that the Arminian doctrine of infinite foreknowledge in God, carries with it and demonstrates the infallible certainty of all the future volitions and moral conduct of men ; unless God may mistake and his knowledge be mere conjecture. The same certainty attends the doctrine of Decrees ; they render the free evil actions of men certain, but exert no causative or compulsory influence. Man, as a moral agent, performs all his actions in connection with the all-wise and perfect^cm of the Infinite One. But God is not the author of his evil actions, except as before explained by Wesley, viz. " He sup- plies the power whereby the sinful action is done. God, therefore," he adds, " produces the action which is sinful. It is his work and his will (for he works nothing but what he wills). And yet the sinfulness of the action is neither his work nor will." * This is sound Calvinism, understanding by the term " will" God's efficient design or purpose. Yet we cannot deny, if we believe the Scriptures, that God also restrains, bounds, governs and directs the evil actions of the wicked for the wisest and holiest ends and objects; although they think not so, but have far other objects in view. Thus, in the case of the crucifixion of Christ — " he was delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ; yet was by wicked hands crucified and slain." Take another view of the connection of foreknowledge with the certainty of future events. There must be a certainty in * Original Sin, Works, vol. ii. p. 277. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 87 things themselves, to he the ground of their hcing certainly known. For how is it possible infallibly to know or discern the certainty of things or events, if there be no certainty in those events to form the ground of this certain knowledge ? Wo admit, therefore, that " the Divine foreknowledge does not cause the event ;" and taking Dr. Fisk's view, that " God knows an event, because it is certain," * this only more plainly proves the certainty of that event. " It demonstrates the existence of the event to be so settled, that it is as if it had already been, inasmuch as in effect it already exists ; it has already had actual influence and efficiency, viz. to produce the effect of infallible prescience. And as the effect supposes the cause, it is as if the event had already an existence.""}" Thus, then, if " God knows events because they are certain," as Dr. Fisk affirms, then he knows all the future volitions and free acts of men, "because they are certain;" of course, God's infallible foreknowledge proves or rather assumes that those volitions are infallibly certain to take place. But here Dr. F. comes in direct conflict with Watson, who says : "We must not transfer the certainty from God to the action itself * * "in any sense." J Much of the obscurity and perplexity which Arminians find in this subject, is owing to their peculiar notions of the true nature of liberty. They say freedom implies a self- determining power, by which the mind in the exercise of choice, or the faculty of willing, determines its own acts ; and* this exercise of self-determination is essential to the freedom of the act. But this self-determining exercise of will, is itself an act of will ; and in order to be free it must also flow from a previous exercise of self-determination, and that from a previous self-determination, and so on ad infinitum. So chat if we ascend to the first free act, there must still be * Discourse on Predest p. 6. Tract No. 131. f Edwards on the Will, part 2, sec. 12. X Thool. Inst vol. ii. p. 430. 88 DIFFICULTIES OF AKMINIANISM. Let. V. a self-determination, or free act of the will, to make that first act a free act; which involves the contradiction of an act of the will before the first act. So also, their strange notion that liberty of the will implies indifference, or entire freedom from antecedent bias. Of course, the idea of the mind acting from its vieics of the strongest reasons of choice, its perceptions of the greatest good, and being directed by such motives as these in its choice, is with them absurd; for they hold that any bias of this sort destroys freedom ! The mind must be able by some act or exertion of its inherent power, to put itself in a state of indifference ; and then in that state it can perform free acts, i. e. it can choose against its perception of the strongest rea- sons, or without any reasons, or any other bias. But this is surely very self-contradictory ; for President Edwards has clearly demonstrated that as every free act must be performed in a state of freedom, the Arminian notion that freedom of the will implies indifference, leads to the gross absurdity that the soul chooses one thing rather than another, at the very time that it has no preference or choice ; or that there may be choice, while there is no choice. Edwards has also demonstrated that the idea of contingence as understood by Arminians to belong to the actions of men, excludes all connection between cause and effect (in reference to this matter), and supposes many events to take place with- out any ground or reason of their occurring rather than their not occurring. And that to suppose the Divine Being to have infallible foreknowledge of the volitions of men, while there is no ground or reason of their existence rather than their non-existence, is to suppose him to know without evi- dence, or to know a thing certainly which is uncertain; or to know the certainty of an event, while at the same time he knows its uncertainty I Truly, it is not wonderful that Wes- ley " could not tell" how to reconcile foreknowledge with this strange mass of contradictions. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 89 Again : u If an event be certainly foreknown, it must have a certain future existence, of which certain existence there must be some reason or ground. For as every free agent has the liberty of acting or not, or of performing a different action from the one which he eventually performs, if there existed no reason why the one took place and not the other, all knoiolcxhje of the action before it occurs is necessarily excluded. It would be to suppose knowledge without the least foundation for that knowledge in the object. God can- not know that something exists where there is nothing. God cannot see that an effect, yet future, will certainly be pro- duced, if he does not know any cause of its existence." (Bib. Repertory, vol. iii. 1831.) If it be alleged that there is no other ground or reason of the future existence of the event necessary to be supposed, in order to infallible foreknowledge, than the free agency of the creature, it is the same as to say that it is infallibly known that a creature will choose or prefer one course of action before another, because he is at liberty to choose either; or, in other words, that he will cer- tainly, in a given case, choose to act in a particular manner, because he is at perfect liberty to choose to act in the directly opposite manner, which is absurd. If there be such a thing as Arminian liberty, it is obvious, therefore, that there can be no such attribute of the Divine mind, as infallible and universal foreknowledge. If, on the other hand, we admit with the Scriptures the doctrine of Foreknowledge, it destroys for ever the baseless fabric of Arminian freedom. It is not surprising, therefore, that the doctrine of Fore- knowledge should be in no very good odor with our Method- ist brethren. This is inferrible, among other reasons, from the fact, that their Articles and Book of Discipline are entirely silent upon the subject; nor is it any where noticed in a volume of 240 pages, professing to be an exhibition of the faith of Christians. It is said, indeed, that the book mentions the Divine wisdom, which includes foreknowledge ; 8* 90 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. but if men who " spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" make a distinction between these perfections of God, and give to each its separate place and prominence in their system, it would be both safe and modest not to attempt to improve upon their divinity. Another most conclusive proof that Arminians are sorely perplexed with such subjects as Foreknowledge, freedom the will, &c. is found in their misstatements of the views of Calvinists. For example, Watson, one of their best informed writers, expounds the views of President Edwards as follows : "The notion inculcated is, that motives influence the will, just as an additional weight thrown into an even scale poises it and inclines the beam. This," he adds, " is the favorite metaphor of the necessitarians, * * * representing the will to be as passive as the balance; or in other words, * * annihilating the distinction between mind and matter."* And in destroying this baseless fabric of his own raising, he speaks of " the mind being obliged to determine by the strongest motive, as the beam is to incline by the heaviest weight." But this is a gross caricature of Edwards' views. "All allow" says Edwards, "that natural (or physical) im- possibility wholly excuses. * * * As natural impossi- bility wholly excuses and excludes all blame, so the nearer the difficulty approaches to impossibility, the nearer the person is to blamelessness." f These and similar statements stand on the page next to that where he uses the illustration of the scale or balance. He supposes it to be " intelligent," and employs it merely to explain by the metaphor of weights cast into the scale, how a greater or less degree of physical difficulty implies a greater or less degree of blamelessness ! Thus, the doctrine of Edwards is plainly this : that if there were any such physical necessity or force exerted upon the will, as the weight upon the balance, man would be wholly * lust vol. ii. p. 440. f On the Will, part 3, see 3. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 91 without blame ! Yet Watson has the hardihood to charge him with the monstrous notion that the will is governed by motives, just as the material scale is moved by weights 1 Was there ever a more gross and palpable misstatement ? Following such a brilliant example, Messrs. Simpson and Foster use a similar illustration : " The water must run through the water-course ; the wheel must turn under the force of the current. * * * The movements of the mind are as absolutely fixed and rigidly necessary as the movements of the material creation, * * * when Omnipotence urges it forward ! " * This, Arminians say, is the Calvinistic and Edwardean doctrine of the influence of motives upon the will ! Yet, as we have just shown, and as any person of common sense may read for himself, President Edwards argues at length to prove that such a doctrine entirely exciises the sinner from blame ! f And even Dr. Fisk takes up the same tale : " Dr. Edwards," he tells us, " compares our volitions to the vibrations of a scale beam. * * * What is this but teaching that motions of mind are governed by the same fixed laws as those of matter, and that volitions are perfectly mechanical states of mind." J Thus they charge upon Ed- wards the very doctrine which he- laboriously refutes; and then boast over it, as though they had achieved a great victory ! But what are these wonderful and almost omnipotent things called motives, which, we are told, work the mind or will, as the Almighty Power moves the material creation ? Watson says they are " reasons of choice, views and conceptions of things in the mind, * * * in consideration of which the mind itself wills and determines." § But if this defini- tion be correct — and it is sufficiently so for all practical pur- poses — how is it possible the mind or will should be " worked * Objections, Ac. pp. 237, 238. f See the part and section before quoted. X Fisk, quoted by Foster, p. 242. \ Institutes, vol. ii. p. 440. 92 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. as a machine" by its own "reasons of choice, its views and conceptions of things ? " For example, an impenitent person chooses a present wordly good in preference to future eternal happiness, which is distant and not so certainly in his power. His " views and conceptions " of the present good are such that, like the wine cup of the intemperate, they present to his mind stronger " reasons of choice " than the distant future presents. Of course he chooses the present good, and refuses the future happiness. But is there any thing in this mental operation bearing the most distant resemblance to the " vibratory movement of a balance " under the motive power of a weight ? or any thing like the power of Omnipotence urging the will to act ? How strange the misrepresentation ! Arminians must be hard pressed in argument before they de- scend to such subterfuges. A similar series of misstatements is attached to the doctrine of "necessity," as held and taught by Calvinists, in its rela- tions to Divine Foreknowledge. Thus we are told — " The connection between the volition and the strongest motive is as absolute and necessary as the connection between any cause (even the will of God,) and its effect." And we have large discourse about " the mind whose determinations are absolutely fixed by the force of motives " — " required to overcome Omnipotence itself," which is the cause of the necessity — "a doctrine of necessity, which requires man to do what is absolutely impossible — what Grod himself cannot do, for He cannot work impossibilities." * And even Bishop Simpson, in his introduction to Foster's work, speaks of the "doctrine of necessity" as opposed to "the freedom of the human will, &c." But what says President Edwards in defining the term ne- cessity ? As used by himself and other Calvinists in these discussions, he expressly says he means " nothing different from certainty." And be adds : " I speak not now of the * Foster's Objections, chap. 8, and in numerous other plauos. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION". 03 certainty of knowledge, but the certainty that is in things themselves, which is the foundation of the certainty of knowledge ; or that (certainty) wherein lies the ground of the infallible truth of the proposition which affirms them." * But according to this definition, every prophecy of the Scriptures produces, or at least proves the infallible necessity (i. e. certainty,) of the event predicted ? Such were the incarnation, sufferings and death of Christ, &c. All these events were infallibly necessary, or certain to take place, as Edwards and other Calvinists understand the term. Armin- ians themselves dare not question the truth of these state- ments. But how do such authors as Watson, Fisk, Simpson and Foster dispose of such facts as these ? Here, for example, is a formal definition given by Edwards at the opening of his immortal work on the Will, and observed cautiously through- out, whenever he has occasion to speak of necessity. How do these Arminians escape from such a predicament and man- age to patch up their argument? Why, they say Edwards and other Calvinists must mean by necessity " a power not different from the law of gravitation or magnetic attraction " — " from the (Calvinistic) theory, inertia becomes the law of mind as of matter." " Fate runs through all." Such, they say, " is the supreme controlling power of Dr. Edwards and his followers." f So that when Edwards demonstrates that the sufferings and death of Christ, and other great events predicted in the Scriptures, were necessary, or certain to take place, these Arminians say he meant they were predicted to take place under some such influence as the law of gravitation, some physical force or compulsion, which the Jews, who, " with wicked hands, crucified and slew the Lord of glory," could no more resist than they could resist the laws of the planetary worlds ! Did human weakness ever concoct * Ou the Will, part 1, sec. 3. | Objections to Calvinism, p. 240, et alibi. 94 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. a more humiluting tissue of strange blunders ! And to crown the whole, these Arininians have published, and thus sanctioned, Dr. Fisk's statements — " whatever Glod fore- knows will undoubtedly (or certainly) come to pass." " It is not at all difficult to conceive how the certainty of an event can beget knowledge " (or foreknowledge). " God knows an event to be certain because it is certain." * Thus they have unwittingly incorporated in their creed the very " doctrine of necessity " (or certainty) which is so carefully defined by Edwards. Edwards himself does not state more clearly than Dr. Fisk the infallible future certainty (or ne- cessity) of all foreknown events, including all the acts of the human will ! To render these Arminian misstatements the more wonder- ful, Edwards not only defines with great care the Calvinistic use of the term necessity, in discussions about the will, but he largely explains the distinction between natural (or physical) necessity and moral necessity. So far from representing the will to be " passive as the material balance," "obliged to deter- mine by the heaviest weights" &o. as Watson and others allege, he minutely defines what Calvinists mean by moral causes, such as " the strength of inclination, habits aud dis- positions of the heart, moral motives and inducements " — and he particularly distinguishes this sort of certainty of effect and result, from " the natural necessity by which men's bodies move downward when not supported." f Yet these Arminian writers charge him with holding a necessity " not different from that arising from the law of gravitation" — the very thing which he cautiously and expressly disclaims ! To make his meaning most evident, Edwards uses such illustrations as these : " A child of great love and duty to his parents, may have a moral inability to kill his father ; or a woman of virtue to prostitute herself to her slave." In * Meth. Tract, No. 131, pp. T, 8. ■J- On the Will, part 1, sec. 4. Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 95 these cases they act under what he means hy " a moral neces- sity," l. e. a certainty of such results under such circumstances — a certainty of such effects from such causes. " It cannot be truly said, according to the ordinary use of language," adds Edwards, " that a malicious man, let him be never so malicious, cannot hold his hand from striking; or that a drunkard, let his appetite be never so strong, cannot keep the cup from his mouth." These examples are of external acts — but he adds, "it is more evidently false that such person is unable to exert the acts of the will, * * for the very willing is the doing. * * In these mental acts, to ascribe the non-performance to the want of power or ability is not just, * * for he has the faculties of mind and a capacity of nature, and every thing else sufficient but a disposition — nothing is wanting but a will," or a willingness in order to the mental act. Is this the same as to say that man lies under a necessity like that which " sways the beam when moved by the heaviest weight ? " If a man hates his neigh- bor so bitterly that he cannot love him, is he therefore a mere machine — is he excusable, just as if he were impelled by the hand of Omnipotence — excusable, just as really as the sinking of the balance under the weight ? This is Arminian doctrine, but not that of Calvinists. Edwards still more fully explains his meaning when he comes to speak of Foreknowledge. One of his sections bears the title : " Foreknowledge infers necessity." " I allow," he says, " that mere knowledge does not affect the thing known to make it more certain ; but I say, it supposes and proves the thing to be already both future and certain." Again : " There must be a certainty in things themselves, before they are certainly known; or, which is the same thing, known to be certain." This is the kind of "necessity" which he advocates, viz. the certainty of events. How it ever entered the brain of Arminians to charge him and other Calvinists with teaching a "necessity" such as moves the 96 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. V. planets in their orbits, is a mystery which we leave others fully to explain. What will not men sometimes do, when hard pressed in argument ! But the embarrassments felt by Arminians when they are pressed with the doctrine of Divine Foreknowledge, are abun- dantly evident in the curious figment adopted by Dr. Adam Clarke, the commentator. In his headlong zeal to extermi- nate the doctrine of Predestination, he was forced into the denial of a Divine attribute every where taught in the Scrip- tures. Adopting the idea of Chevalier Eamsey, Dr. Clarke recommends to his brethren a new and easy theory of fore- knowledge. According to his view, God makes a distinction in the universe of hnowable things, between those which he will foreknow, and those of which he will choose to remain ignorant. Among the latter, Dr. Clarke places the free ac- tions of intelligent moral agents. God resolves not to fore- know these. Thus it seems, that ignorance is a high perfec- tion of an infinite Being, without which it is impossible, according to the Dr. to govern the moral universe ! Dr. C. felt that the commonly received views of foreknowledge are inconsistent with the denial of the doctrine of predestination, and that most of the objections made to the latter, lie with equal weight against the former. Hence the necessity of de- vising some mode of escaping the difficulties, which press upon the admission of foreknowledge with the rejection of, predestination. Mr. Watson and his brethren had too much shrewdness to adopt this weak expedient. They saw at once, that it does not meet the real difficulty of the case, viz. " to reconcile the Divine prescience and the free actions of men." " For," argues Watson, " some contingent actions for which men have been made accountable, we are sure have been foretold by the Holy Spirit speaking in the prophets; and if the freedom of man can be reconciled with the prescience of God in these cases, why not in all ?" Most forcibly and logically Let. V. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 07 said. Even if we were to conclude with Dr. Clarke, that it is consistent with the perfections of God to shut his eyes that he may not see the free actions of men, and thus impose upon himself voluntary ignorance, this strange supposition would bring no aid to Arminianism in the midst of her trials and perplexities. A simple statement of undeniable truth will place this sub- ject in its proper light. The moral actions of men are fore- known of God hundreds of years before they take place. This no one can doubt who believes the Scriptures. The conduct of men, whether good or evil, is infallibly foreknown therefore, unless the knowledge of God be mere conjecture. It is just as certain, therefore, that it will agree with the Divine foreknow- ledge, and be precisely what it is known to be, as it is certain God will not and cannot mistake. Here then is a certainty* as infallible as any that grows out of predestination. If we reject one of these, on this account, we must, to be consist- ent, reject both. But to deny the Divine prescience is to deny God. Thus does Methodism, in her rash haste, direct her course upon the very brink of the dark abyss of atheism. * " If it be alleged that the purpose influences the action, and therefore thero is a wide difference, we answer, that if the Divine purpose — as we maintain — has no other influence on the action than to render it certain, there is no difference at all, in this respect, botwoen the theories of fore- knowledge and decree ; for on some account and for some reason, the thing t* as certain as it can be on tho theory of mere foreknowledge." — Biblical Repertory, vol. iii. No. 2. 9 98 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. LETTER VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE— PREDESTINATION. Rev. Sir — The subject of the second chapter* of the " Objections to Calvinism" is " Eternal Decrees." It would be a very wrong inference from this, that Arminians reject the doctrine of "eternal decrees." Even Bishop Simpson believes that God will judge the world, and say to the right- eous on his right hand: "Come, ye blessed;" and to the wicked at the left, "Depart, ye cursed." If so, when did the omniscient God first form the design or purpose thus to judge the world ? Was it in time, or from eternity ? Obviously the latter, as even the Bishop will concede. " For," says Watson, "what the creature will do (in order to judgment) is known beforehand with a perfect prescience ; and what God has determined (or decreed) to do in consequence, is made apparent by what he actually does, which is with him no new, no sudden thought, but known and purposed from eternity in view of the actual circumstances." f Then here is an " eternal decree" to judge the world, to acquit and save one part, a number of persons infallibly known to God, and to condemn the rest. But what is still more surprising, Arminians also teach " eternal decrees" of " election and reprobation !" Here is the proof : " Obedient, persevering believers," says Fletcher, " are God's elect in the particular and full sense of the word, being elected to the reward of eternal life in glory." But may not some of these elect ones perish ? Fletcher answers : "We grant that none of these peculiar elect shall ever perish, * On the title-page, Mr. Foster says his book is " a series of Letters ro Rev. N. L. Rice, D. D." Rut there is no such thing as a letter in the volume. There are eight chapters and an appendix, but no " letters." f lust, part 2, chap. 28. Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 99 though they would have perished, if they had not been faith- ful unto death." Very well; that is sound Calvinism — the means necessary to the end. But is the number of these elect so certain that it cannot be increased or diminished? " We allow," answers Fletcher, " that with respect to God's foreknowledge and omniscience their number is certain."* But if " their number is certain in God's foreknowledge and omniscience," it cannot be uncertain in the eternal decree to judge the world, which the Bishop, following Watson, must hold and teach. Hence it follows, on the authority of Watson, Fletcher, Bishop Simpson and the General Confer- ence, that " the number of the elect is certain," and, of course, will be the same at the judgment as it was known to be from eternity, unless God may be mistaken in his "foreknow- ledge !" Fletcher and Watson are certainly such good authority in these matters, that Bishop Simpson will not re- pudiate it. But as Mr. Foster's " Objections" are confined almost ex- clusively to "the decree of reprobation," who would ever suspect the Bishop and his Arminian brethren of maintain- ing this " horrible decree ?" Yet such is the simple fact, which we prove as follows : We turn to the 140th page of your volume of "Doctrinal Tracts," published by your Gen- eral Conference. Attend to the following quotations : " God 2^ re ^ es ^ naies or fore-appoints all disobedient unbe- lievers to damnation, not without, but according to his fore- knowledge of all their works from the foundation of the world." " God, from the foundation of the world, foreknew all men's believing or not believing. And according to this his foreknowledge (viz. from the foundation of the world, or from eternity), he refused or reprobated all disobedient unbe- lievers as such, to damnation." On these extracts, I observe, 1. It is asserted that some men will live and die " disobe- dient unbelievers." * See Ms Works, vol. i. p. 399. " Preface to fictitious and genuine Creed." 100 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. VI. 2. God had a perfect "foreknowledge of all their works from the foundation of the world." 3. It follows that he perfectly foreknew their character, names, and number: these were certainly known, *. e. immu- tably certain, as God could not mistake a single name, or miscount a single unit of the precise number of the "disobe- dient unbelievers," who are " fore-appointed to damnation I" 4. These " disobedient unbelievers," thus infallibly known by works, character, names, number, God has "predestinated or fore-appointed to damnation." 5. This " predestination to damnation" of the precise f( number of disobedient unbelievers," was from eternity, or "according to God's foreknowledge of all their works from the foundation of the world." 6. This "fore-appointment or refusal of the exact number of disobedient unbelievers;" this decree of reprobation, was passed "before they were born," and, of course, "before they had done either good or evil." Thus " some men are born devoted from the womb to eternal death." 7. " This eternal decree" (of reprobation) we are told in the same volume, page 15, " God will not change and man cannot resist !" So that the Arminian decree of Reprobation is not only eternal, but irresistible and unchangeable 1 8. These " disobedient unbelievers" are thus particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished, unless God may be mistaken. Thus it is plain, that notwith- standing all their outcry against Foreordination, the Bishop and his brethren believe and teach the doctrine of " eternal decrees" — even the eternal, immutable, irresistible decrees of election and reprobation ; according to which " the number of the elect is certain as the foreknowledge of God ;" and, of course, as the number of those who are elect (or chosen from mankind) is certain, so the number of the reprobate (disobe- dient unbelievers) must necessarily be equally certain. The Let. VI. FOREKNOWLEDGE — PREDESTINATION. 101 one set cannot be more certain than the other. If, for ex- ample, the number to be taken from ten be certainly jive, the number left will be equally certain to be five. This is plain to the humblest understanding. Now here the question arises — why are these doctrines of eternal, absolute, numerical election and reprobation, never heard in Methodist pulpits ? It is not for us to answer so difficult a question. We can only conjecture that they are afraid to preach thus, lest their people should suspect them of going over to Calvinism — which, according to Messrs. Foster and Simpson, represents " God as to be contemplated only with dread, detestation and abhorrence " — " a hideous compound of cruelty, caprice, duplicity and falsehood." * What, then, is Predestination as taught in the Holy Scrip- tures, and believed by the Presbyterian church ? It is the doctrine of a plan devised and executed by Him who is the God of infinite knowledge, wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. Every rational man, when he designs to erect some complicated structure, either of matter or mind, pre- arranges carefully the whole plan. Just so with the Great Architect of the material and moral universe. In this plan man occupies the place of a free moral agent, to whom the Divine decree secures freedom of action in its highest sense. God has ordained that he shall be possessed of liberty, and it must be so.f But man, created free either to stand or fall, * Objections, pros( lyte them to Methodism." " Now is the time to give Calvinism the most deadly thrusts !" " Presbyterians teach doctrines which represent God as more false, cruel and unjust than ! the non-elect are tempted of God and compelled to sin as a pretense to damn them ! Children not a span long, are in hell suffering the torments of unquenchable fire !" Thus the dcsvjn "to reform the continent" and " spread scriptural holiness," goes forward with tremendous power ! ! "But what," adds the writer supposed to be " Kirwan," "is the greatest evil of these strange measures, is their effect in begetting improper notions of Divine truth. Among the Methodists there is very much religious irreverence arising no doubt from their improper views of the Divine character. Hence their boisterous and unmeaning prayers — the great familiarity with which they treat the Most High — their crude notions of 'getting religion,' and of sinless perfection. They seem to suppose that religion can be obtained and lost at any time — that it consists in a boisterous agitation of the passions — that other means than prayer and the avoidance of temptation, are to be emplo} T ed in overcom- ing the devil — and that reverence and order in religious wor- ship are the characteristics of coldness and formality. A man of my acquaintance a few years since, cried out, in an evening meeting among the Methodists — ' Brethren, I have got the devil, and will not let him go till I kill him.' He contin- ued fisting his satanic majesty against the wall for half an hour, whilst the cries of l Amen' and ' Glory to God' were rising all around him." 248 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIV But what impression do these and similar traits of the system make upon the world ? "A man of intelligence is prompted by curiosity to attend one of the boisterous camp meetings. He goes from tent to tent, from one praying cir- cle to another. He witnesses the fervid enthusiasm of the preachers, which acts upon the mass like a whirlwind upon the ocean. He sees some falling into fits — others exhausted with shouting — others prostrate on the earth and crying out, ' it made no matter to them whether they went to heaven head or heels foremost' — a scene actually witnessed. He hears twenty or thirty praying at once, and the less fluent brothers and sisters shouting ' Amen.' He hears one ex- claim, ' I see the Saviour — there he is f and another, ' I see heaven open and God preparing to descend to us ;' and an- other crying out, ' Pray on, brothers and sisters — the bless- ing will soon come.' He witnesses little else but irreverence before Him who hath said, ' The Lord is in his holy temple ; let all the earth keep silence before him.' If such scenes are not well calculated to make the impression that religion is only fitted for the vulgar — that it is all a matter of blind su- perstition, I know not what scenes are." That the foregoing statements do not exceed or exaggerate the simple truth, is proved by Dr. Ashbel Green, who aflirms that they are in " exact accordance with the reports which were made to him from various quarters." The facts were such as u had either passed under the observation of the reporters, or were nar- rated by creditable and pious individuals." Again, remarks the writer on " Practical Methodism :" u Another of their evil effects upon the church arises from the little value they set upon Christian instruction in any of its departments. Their system is formed mainly with refer- ence to the passions. Their preaching, praying, classes, camp meetings and love feasts, are all conducted so as to affect the passions. As respects instruction, a moral famine pervades every thing they do. This might be expected from Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 249 the character of a large majority of their clergy. A person professes conversion to-day, and is admitted to the communion to-morrow ; and thus the church is filled with ignorant mem- bers ; ignorant of the Bible, and in a very lamentable degree of the plan of salvation. And their example is exerting a deleterious influence upon other portions of the church. Other denominations, to prevent their adherents from be- coming Methodists, ' where they can get religion so easily,' admit them to membership too hastily." Wesley himself asserts : " Were I to preach three years together in one place, both the people and myself would grow as dead as stones." We may well suspect the piety that would die under a three years' trial of this kind. Whatever benefits accrue among the Methodists from " the constant change of preachers," it is certain that it lays a strong temp- tation in the way of the preacher to neglect the improvement of his mind, after he has gone through a sufficiently extensive course of sermons, which he is at liberty to preach at every successive change of his circuit. The people, too, will be fed with milk, milk, milk. Any thing like systematic discussion of the great truths of the Scriptures in their connected order, is almost entirely out of the question. Abundant facts tes- tify to the truth of these remarks. While therefore we cheerfully concede to the Methodists the credit which is due them for conveying a measure of religious and moral instruction to a large class of mankind, including many of the most depraved and destitute, we cannot but fear that the foregoing errors and disorders are exerting an influence upon society which is any thing but salutary. Religion will generally be estimated by the character and conduct of her professed followers. And when the worship of the God of the whole earth, the infinitely perfect Spirit, the only object of religious homage, is so widely at variance with the plainest dictates of propriety ; when instead of that " reasonable service" which he requires, extravagance and 250 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIV. confusion prevail ; when long and noisy vociferation is sub- stituted for instruction in religious truth ; when the object is rather to rouse the animal sensibilities than awaken the con- science, enlighten the understanding and humble the heart; when those in numerous instances are appointed to teach who ought first to learn,* and the most incongruous state- ments are gravely announced as the sober conclusions of rea- son and truth; when the results of natural causes, terror, nervous irritability, bodily exhaustion, &c. are boldly pro- nounced to be essentials in that "holiness without which no man shall see the Lord ;" when all this (and there is much more of the same character) is witnessed by men of even ordinary discernment, nothing is more easy and natural than to transfer their feelings of disgust from those who practice those abuses of religion, to religion herself. " Where the Methodist religion/' says the writer of " Practical Method- ism," " has been for a time prevalent, unchecked by the presence of other denominations, you find the talented and influential members of society opposed not only to the Meth- odists, but to every thing in the form of godliness." " The region in which I live," continues the same writer, "bears a decided testimony to the truth of this fact. Methodism was once dominant. It carried nearly every thing before it ; and now the intelligent and influential are generally infidels, or something as bad, and are rarely ever seen within the walls of a church. Methodism is on the wane. The people are becoming tired of it; and that cold chill, the sure precursor of spiritual death, is pervading the whole community." "If this be religion," exclaimed one who was leaving the scenes of a camp ground, " Heaven preserve me from it." As the * The example of the disciples, " a few illiterate fishermen," is some- times adduced in favor of an unlearned ministry. But it seems to bo overlooked that those fishermen had received, besides miraculous powers, and the inspiration of the Most Holy, three full years of instruction from the lips of "the Teacher sent from God;" the very best of all training for the ministry. Let. XIV. CAMP MEETINGS. 251 scandalous conduct of the Romish clergy has left an eternal staiu and stigma upon the very name of priest, so have we reason to fear, will much that Methodism calls religion, preju- dice the minds and steel the hearts of thousands against the pure and heavenly doctrines of Divine Revelation. " But have not Presbyterians sometimes held camp meet- ings?" Yes! We do not decide upon their expediency or inexpediency in our new settlements, and when properly con- ducted. The foregoing discussion has reference mainly to the practice of holding these meetings in the vicinity of cities and large villages, in neighborhoods long settled and furnished with many churches and other conveniences for the orderly worship of God. Their propriety among a sparse population, destitute of suitable houses of worship, would depend in a great measure upon their management. But we are persuad- ed there can be no sufficient plea for such assemblages under other circumstances than such as we have mentioned. This view of the subject will also show the propriety of the remarks we have made upon the method of lodging at night. The " log cabins" of the Far West are designed to be only a tem- porary arrangement, to yield with all possible speed to better accommodations. Necessity in such cases knows no law. But we should all feel the indelicacy, not to say indecency, of voluntarily forsaking separate chambers, to huddle male and female into the same apartment ; and all from the fervor of our zeal for religion and the salvation of souls ! Paul was himself a " tentmaker." And though they had no churches to assemble in, we hear of his preaching on " Mars Hill," in an " upper chamber," in his own " hired room," and in an oratory by the river side ; but never do we read of his em- ploying his mechanical skill to furnish a camp ground, nor that he ever sanctioned a similar practice. 252 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. XV. LETTER XV. ABUSES IN ADMINISTERING THE SACRAMENTS. Rev. Sir — Christians generally admit Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be Divine institutions, and therefore of im- mense value and importance in every system which seeks "the spreading of scriptural knowledge." We now proceed to exam- ine how this matter is managed in Arminian Methodism. X. Difficulties with regard to Religious Ordi- nances. 1. Upon this subject, the theory and practice of Methodism seem very well to agree. What are we to thiuk of " Articles and Discipline," which, after stating that the baptism of children is to be retained in the church, contain not one word respecting the character of the parents ; and which of course require nothing more, in order to the baptism of their chil- dren, from the most profane and vicious, than from the most moral and religious? The whole subject is left as though it were a matter of the utmost indifference. No obligations of any kind are prescribed ; no inquiry of knowledge or decent deportment; no demand of future obedience to the Divine precepts. The great point seems to be, to get children bap- tized, and as many as possible by the Methodist church, with which the parents are thus brought into a kind of connection and membership. On the principle that "coming to us" is to " get religion," with almost as great certainty as to unite with others is to be destitute of it, this method of attaching persons of every description to the meeting is adopted without scruple ; and doubtless the end will fully justify the means. In this way, too, the hearts of the unwary are deceived by a show of great liberality; and an excellent opportunity fur- nished to declaim against narrow-minded Presbyterians, who believe in the everlasting perdition of helpless infants. We Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 253 admit that the preachers suppose their practice to he consist- ent with the order of Christ's house ; but this will not change the essential nature of truth, nor make that right which is wrong, even though, like Saul of Tarsus when persecuting the church, they think they are doing God service. In the last edition of the " Discipline " (1856), it is said that "all children, by virtue of the unconditional benefits of the atonement, are members of the kingdom of God, and therefore graciously entitled to baptism" — of course without the slightest reference to the character of the parents ; the title of the child of infidels being equal to that of the child of believers ! It is added, " that as infant baptism contem- plates a course of religious instruction, it is expected of all parents or guardians, * * * that they use all diligence in bringing them up in conformity to the icord of God, and they should be solemnly admonished and exhorted to faithful- ness therein." " It IS expected" — who expects such duties to be performed by infidel parents ! Who expects such dili- gence from drunkards, profane swearers and others of that sort ! Yet, as their childjen are " entitled to baptism," of course the preacher dare not refuse ! What an idea, to expect " a course of religious instruction" to be given in " the word of God," from infidels and all sorts of vile characters ! Circumcision (the Old Testament baptism) was never ap- plied to any but the children of Abraham, and to parents and children who became proselytes to Judaism. Yet that was " the seal of the righteousness of faith," as much a3 baptism. Of whose faith ? Not surely of the " faith" of the infant of eight days old, but of the parent who, in the exercise of "faith," gave away the child to the expected Saviour, and came under the obligations implied in such a gift, to bring it up in "the nurture and admonition of the Lord." "Circum- cision," says Wesley, "being abolished, and baptism coming in the room of it, baptism should be applied to all those who have any interest in the covenant — this seems to manifest 22 254 DIFFICULTIES OF AEMINIANISM. Let. XV. the right of the children of Christians to these blessings, or that they have an interest in this covenant."* Poet. Tracts, p. 2G7. Hence also we find that when the Apostles received into church fellowship the parents, it is generally added they baptized their household — but we never read of their bap- tizing the household or the children of any who did not profess faith in Christ. The reason was precisely the same for refusing baptism to the offspring of unbelievers, as for denying circumcision to those who were not Jews — " The seal of the righteousness of faith " (applied in either form,) im- plied the existence of faith — the seal of the covenant, that the covenant had been entered into. Where, therefore, there is no " faith " in exercise, and no covenant embraced and agreed to, to apply the seal of the covenat, is to seal a blank. It is plain, therefore, from the nature of the ordinance, from the nature of the covenant (of which it is the seal), as well as from the character and extent of its obligations, that in the baptism of the infants of the vicious and profane, " who are strangers to the covenants of promise," the great seal of High Heaven, the solemn ratification of God's covenant, is appended to a nullity, or what is worse, to an untruth. Something indeed is said about an " unconditional charter," entitling all infants to the blessings of the covenant, without respect to their parentage, and securing to them, uncondi- tionally, the right of baptism. But why were the blessings of this "unconditional charter" limited, in the case of the Jews ? Why did it not secure the right of circumcision to the infants of Gentiles ? And why was it restricted to those who were united to the professing people of God, either by * Watson takes the same view. " The question is, whether the infant children of believing parents are entitled to be made parties to the covenant of grace by the act of their parents ?" " The apostolic practice was to bap- tize the houses (households) of them that believed." " On the supposition that baptism was administered to the children of the parents who thus be- lieved, at the same time as thomselves and in consequence of their believing, it may be asked," Ac. Vol. ii. pp. 630, 639. Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 255 birth or proselytisin ? Dr. Clarke on Acts 16 : 32, tells us, " the Jewish practice was invariably to receive the heathen children with (not without) their proselyted parents." And Wesley informs us that u in the Christian church, in its earli- est ages, and I think from the Apostles' time, it has been the custom to baptize the infant children of professed Christians." Doct. Tracts, p. 275. The father of Methodism, then, no less than the word of God and the example of the Apostles, condemns the practice of administering baptism to the infant children of those who give no scriptural evidence of piety. Man cannot search the heart, but reason may apply the prin- ciples of Holy Writ, by which we are to " try the spirits " and test the character and fitness of those who claim for them- selves or their offspring, the " sign and seal " of the covenant of grace. To neglect this, is to declare it to be a matter of no importance that institutions of Divine authority should be administered in "truth and righteousness." "The ordinance is inseparably connected with the incumbent duty of ' bringing up the children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.' If this connection is lost sight of — if it is not contemplated at the time, and is practically disregarded afterward, the ordi- nance becomes nothing better than a useless ceremony and an idle and profane mockery of its Divine author."* 2. Nor is the practice with regard to the other sacrament * This extract is from the pen of the distinguished Dr. Wardlaw, of Glas- gow. The Dr. adds : " The profit to the child must bo through the medium of the parent; and it has long appeared to me, that it is to the parent, rather than to the child, that infant baptism is in the first instauco to be reckoned a privilege." " That multitudes who have their children baptized, never think of the ordinance in any such light, and are quite regardless of the obligations which, I will not say it imposes, but which it implies and brings to mind, is a melancholy truth. And I would earnestly admonish those parents of the guilt they are contracting by their solemn mockery of Heaven, in the careless pi ifaaation of a Divine institution." President Edwards, nearly a century ago, abundantly insisted that "this way of proceeding tends to establish the- stupidity and irreligion of children, as well as the negligence of parents." Works, vol. iv. p. 427. 256 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANI3M. Let. XV. of Christ's house at all more agreeable to reason and Scrip- ture. The Book of Discipline prescribes examination* for admission to the Lord's Supper, but as it says nothing about the topics, every preacher is left to do just what seem- eth right in his own eyes. Hence the very superficial investigation of faith and practice at camp meetings, and the common usage of receiving an appearance of tenderness as sufficient recommendation, without inquiry whether the per- son has heen baptized, or whether his character and habits are not scandalous, and will not render him a disgrace to the ordinance, and a just object of contempt to the infidel and scoffer. A member of my church (from whose lips I had the fact), whilst traveling through one of the western counties of Pennsylvania, was present at a quarterly meeting when the communion was administered. When the services were nearly completed, a rough, uncouth person pressed forward toward the altar and demanded the elements, saying, " I came here to get religion, and like to forgot it." After some consulta- tion among the preachers, the bread and wine were presented to him. This, we readily admit, is an extreme, though by no means a solitary case. But where in the authorized Book of Discipline and standard of doctrine, will you find one syllable which condemns such scandalous proceedings. The volume therefore which contains the confession of faith and forms of worship adopted by Methodists, tacitly gives its consent and approbation to this gross outrage upon de- cency. It will be readily admitted that in the purest churches and under the most cautious discipline, unworthy persons may intrude into the sacraments ; but this furnishes no apology for unforbidden practices, which reflect dishonor upon the very name of religion. In reply to these statements it has been said, "that an individual who had previously been very wicked might, on * The edition of 1856 has dropped this item requiring examination, so that not evon that is now required. Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 257 the occasion of a camp meeting, become truly penitent and intend to lead a new life ; and it is better to be imposed upon than to stand in the way of one sincere soul in fulfilling the command of Christ." In other words, the Apostle says, "Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat" — the preache replies, "Let him become truly penitent, and intend to lea( a new life; and leave the examination to a more convenient season !" The Apostle says, " He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, and is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, not discerning the Lord's body" — "it is better for us to be imposed upon," replies the preacher, "and that sinners should risk these awful consequences, than that we should stand in the way of one sincere soul in fulfilling the command of Christ." It cannot be proved that Christ ever commanded any man to rush from the boisterous excitemeat of the camp ground, without time for self-recollection and self-examination, to the tender and most solemn exercises of the communion. There is no example of any such practice in the Scriptures; and the language of Paul plainly implies the direct contrary. Wesley, however, asserts that our Lord commanded the very men who were unconverted (his disciples), who (in the full sense of the word) were not believers, " to do this in remem- brance of him !" He adduces this to show "the falsehood of the assertion that none but the converted, those who are believers in the full sense, ought to communicate. 3. A third head of abuses is the practice of kneeling in the act of communion, and much of the language employed in administering the ordinance. The Saviour and his disci- ples celebrated the first supper (" the Lord's Supper," as Paul calls it, 1 Cor. 11 : 20) in the common table posture. " Now when the even was come," says the evangelist Matthew, " he sat down with the twelve." " And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and brake it, and gave to the disciples, and said : Take, eat; this is my body." So also 22* 258 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XV. Luke (22:14), "He sat down," &c. And to render the custom of the primitive church still more evident, Paul char- acterizes the ordinance as " the Lord's table." 1 Cor. 10 : 21. It is admitted that they sat in a leaning attitude, as was then usual, but this does not in the least abate the force of the testimony. Now if the blessed Redeemer has set us the example in adopting this posture, even in instituting the sacrament, by what authority do men venture to change what he has ordained ? If Christ and his disciples sat down, who shall authorize a different attitude ? Further : The practice of kneeling in receiving the sacra- mental elements, originated in superstition. Pope Honorius the Second is believed to have been the first that ordained this posture; and it grew out of the doctrine of Transubstan- tiation and the sacrifice of the mass, which had some time previously received the infallible sanction of Pope Innocent the Third. " The most ardent friends of kneeling," says Dr. Miller, " do not pretend to find any example of this posture in the whole history of the church, prior to the thirteenth century. And accordingly in the Greek church, which sepa- rated from the Latin before the doctrine of Transubstantiation arose, kneeling at the communion is unknown." It must be regarded therefore, as a part of that " will worship and vol- untary humility/' which characterize the corruptions of the Romish church. Besides, the ordinance is a feast — a feast of confidence, fellowship, joy and thanksgiving; and there is something utterly incongruous in such a posture in such circumstances. " In what nation is it thought suitable to kneel at banquets ? Where do men eat and drink upon their knees ?" It is admitted that it is not done superstitiously among Protestants; but it is undoubtedly adapted to nourish error and superstition, and is liable to great and continual misapprehension by the weak and ignorant. And if the door be thrown open — if the precedent be set of improving upon Divine institutions, the way is clear to admit all the worst abominations of the church of Rome. Let. XV. SACRAMENTAL ABUSES. 259 4. "The prayer of consecration," which the elder is re- quired to say, is another " dead fly," emitting by no means a sweet .savor. Our " Lord Jesus took bread and blessed it," or "gave thanks" as it is recorded by Paul, and as many of the Greek copies of Matthew's Gospel have it. Why will men venture to change the language of Him who instituted this ordinance ? And our objections are still stronger when we find the undue importance which is attached to this "prayer of consecration." "We are particularly informed that "if the consecrated bread and wine be all spent, the elder may consecrate more by repeating the prayer of consecration !" And again, that " if the elder be straitened for time, he may omit any part of the service, EXCEPT the prayer OF CONSE- CRATION." But where is all this found in the New Testa- ment ? Where has the Saviour intimated that if the elder Lave not laid his hands upon a sufficient quantity of bread and wine, when he first "gives thanks" (or offers u the prayer of consecration"), he must " lay his hands" upon more, and "give thanks" over again!* "Who hath required this at your hands ?" Does it not savor strongly of the mass, to give such prominence to a form prescribed by man ? " Ex- cept the prayer of consecration !" The Holy Mother Church has it, "except all be said and done by a regularly ordained priest in communion with the See of Rome," empowered to consecrate the bread or wafer into "the body, blood, soul and divinity" of Christ ! Finally: The unscriptural character of this part of the Methodist Discipline is also manifest in the act of distribu- tion. Paul tells us that he " received of the Lord," that the Lord Jesus said, "Take, eat — this is my body," &c. "This cup is the New Testament in my blood," &c. (1 Cor. 11 :24, 25.) And with a few unimportant variations, the same is * It is remarkable that although our Saviour is said to havo " given thanks," just before ho distributed the elonients, "the prayer of consecra- tion" contains not one syllable properly of the nature of thanksgiving ! 260 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XV. the record by Matthew and Luke. But here in the " Discip- line/' the form used by the Saviour of men, and specially re- vealed to the Apostle Paul, is crowded into the "prayer of consecration" and instead thereof, the elder is to say the following : " The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life. Take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him by faith with thanksgiving." And a similar form is used when he distributes the wine, only with the necessary adaptation to the change of the elements. But it is obvious that this, to say the least, is a needless and un- authorized departure from Christ's own teaching and example. If the Saviour himself selected and used a certain form of words, who will venture to say it is not most agreeable to his will ? Can it be right to substitute a different one ? And especially is this inquiry important, when the substituted form employs a phraseology with regard to the " body and blood" of the Saviour, which has no parallel in the Scriptures, but is strongly tinctured with idolatry. " The body of our Lord, &c. preserve thy soul and body unto everlasting life." The Romanist could consistently use such a prayer, because he believes that the bread or wafer is " the body, soul and divin- ity" of the Saviour. But the sober Christian will say — "Let me employ as nearly as possible the gracious words which proceeded from the lips of Him who spake as never man spake, and who has a right to say what shall be the form of administering the most solemn ordinance of his own house." It may perhaps be thought that a close adherence to the inspired pattern in administering the sacraments, is not a matter of very much importance. But if Christ and his Apostles have left on record a certain form, why not use it? Can we improve upon it? Would not every Christian revolt, if any uninspired man should take the liberty of changing the baptismal form? Yet why should the one phraseology be esteemed more sacred than the other ? Why would it not bo Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 261 lawful to say — "I baptize thee in the name of the Trinity?" Fet this change would not be so great as has been usual in the form of the other sacrament. The form of baptism is but once recorded (Matt. 28:19), yet we believe there is almost entire uniformity with respect to it, in the Christian world. "Whence the unwarranted liberty taken with the other form! The writer is also aware that in this Letter, and perhaps in some others, he crosses the path of one or two denominations of Christians with whom he wishes to have no controversy, and toward whom he entertains feelings of fraternal regard. If he has occasionally touched the views and usages of other sects, while he asks for a candid perusal of what he may write, he can only express his regret at the necessity which has been laid upon him, of encroaching to some small extent upon neutral territory. LETTER XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY— EXCLUSION OF LAYMEN. Rev. Sir — In the progress of this investigation we come now to the subject of Church Government, as administered in Arminian Methodism. XI. Difficulties in regard to nER Form of Govern- ment — it is Unscriptural, Anti-Hepublican, Unjust and Tyrannical. On page 126 of " the Discipline," it is said that u the Holy Spirit has appointed divers orders of ministers in his church." And elsewhere in the same volume, "forms of consecration and ordination" are given for bishops, elders, and deacons, respectively. In the appendix to Buck's Theo- logical Dictionary, written by Dr. Bangs, it is said that in Methodism " three orders of ministers arc recognized, and the duties peculiar to each are clearly defined." Dr. Clarke, 262 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. in commenting on 1 Tim. chap. 3, v. 1, states that " Episco- pacy in the church of God is of Divine appointment, and should be maintained and respected. Under God there should be supreme governors in the church as well as in the state. The state has its monarch: the church has its bishop." " The office of a bishop is from God." Note, Acts 20 : 28. Now that these "divers orders" are the invention of men, and not the appointment of God, has been often and most abundantly proved, For, 1. There is no scriptural evidence whatever that the office of deacon embraced the duty either of teaching or ruling in the church. In support of this position, we refer to the ori- ginal appointment as recorded in the 6th chapter of Acts, where the object is distinctly declared to be, not the estab- lishment of another order of ministers or teachers, but of a class of men whose business it should be to "serve tables," or attend to the secular affairs of the church; "but we," say the Apostles, "will give ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." That some of those who were first appointed deacons, did afterward preach the gospel, and act as evangel- ists, is not denied; but there is no evidence whatever that they were either ministers or evangelists, in consequence of their appointment to " serve tables." "It is not reason," sa*y the Apostles, " that we should leave the word of God and serve tables." Dr. Bangs, in his " Vindication of Methodist Episcopacy," p. 14, derives an argument from 1 Tim. 3 : 8, in support of the ministerial character of deacons : " Likewise must the deacons be grave" — but just three verses farther on the Apostle adds, "even so must their wives be grave." Were the deacons' wives ministers of the gospel ? And when Paul subjoins two verses farther down, "For they that use the of- fice of deacon well, purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith," Dr. Clarke well expresses the meaning — "they are here said to purchase to themselves a Let. XVI. METIIODIST EPISCOPACY. 263 good degree ; for instead of having to minister to the bodies and bodily wants of the poor, the faithful deacons were raised to minister in holy things: and instead of ministering the bread that per isheth, they were raised to minister the bread of life to immortal souls." This no doubt was often exemplified when persons exercising the office of deacon diligently and faithfully, were elevated to the higher office of ministers of the everlasting gospel. " It is evident," says Dr. Scott, an Episcopalian, " that they were appointed to take care of the property of the church, and not to the pastoral office." "It seems undeniable that they were appointed solely to take care of the temporal concerns of the church ; and not, as deacons, to preach, or to administer sacred ordinances." " It appears to me very likely," continues Dr. Scott, "that both at this and future periods, many who were appointed deacons in the frst instance, afterward became evangelists or pastors; and when they were fully employed, other deacons were ap- pointed." Com. on Acts 6:2-6. Since then not a particle of evidence can be gathered from the New Testament, that the first deacons were ministers of the gospel at all, we need not trouble ourselves to disprove the other feature of the system, which places them in an " order" inferior to elders and bishops.* It is a subject of much curiosity with some persons, to have a distinct reference made to the identical passage or passages of Scripture, upon which the preachers of Methodism rely to establish this difference of "order" among the ministers of Christ. Show us the chapter and verse, and then we will believe that rcyularly ordained ministers of the * The "Discipline" (p. 146) authorizes tho deacon "to baptize;" but it appears that one ordination by "the laying on of the hands of a bishop/' is not sufficient to qualify for administering the other sacrament. But where has the Master said that some of his servants are authorized to officiate in the ono ordinance, and not qualified for the other? A distinction of this kind, in tbo lawful administration of the sacraments, is very well in Popery, with hor "blasphemous fable" of "the body, soul and divinity;" but is un- worthy of any church emancipated from her thraldom. 264 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. gospel, who are called deacons, having received the laying on of hands but once, are quite inferior to another set of regu- larly ordained ministers who are called elders, having received the laying on of hands more than once. If the distinction of " order" consists in this, that two ordinations are hetter than one, then three, four and five, by the same reasoning, would be better still j and thus may the humble deacon of Method- ism gradually ascend in the numerical scale, until he shall seat himself in the chair of St. Peter, and nobody knows how far above Pontifex Maximus himself.* 2. With regard to the "orders" of bishop and elder, these names are uniformly used in the New Testament as converti- ble terms, the one or the other being employed just as conve- nient to the writer. And what is much more conclusive, the very same character and powers are ascribed to elders as to bishops, thus proving that they are the same, not different orders of ministers. In proof of these positions we cite Acts 20:17-28. "And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church." " Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" (or bishops). The very same persons are denominated by the inspired Apostle, bishops and elders, and that within a few sentences. Philip. 1:1. " The bishops and deacons" of Philippi are addressed. Titus 1 : 5, 7. "For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set rn order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city — for a bishop must be blameless," &c. ; where, besides the manifest fact that Paul's elders were the same with Paul's * A few illustrations of the practice in the primitive church may not be out of place. Origen tells us — " The deacons were appointed to preside over the tables of the church, as we are taught in the Acts of the Apostles." Ambrose in the fourth century says — "The deacons ordinarily were not au- thorized to preach." Jerome calls the deacon, "a minister of tables and widows." And the sixth general Council of Constantinople decided that " the scriptural deacons were no other than overseers of the poor, and that 6uch was the opinion of the ancient fathers." — (Dr. Miller.) Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 265 bishops, we have here, as in the previous cases, proof beyond controversy, that in apostolic times several bishops such as the New Testament sanctions, were accustomed to reside in a single city. Titus is directed to ordain a number of them in every city. But could these have been such bishops as Meth- odism "consecrates," of whose employment a great part seems to be " to travel at large among the people," and who cannot in any instance cease " to travel through the connexion at large" without permission of Che General Conference, under the penalty of being deprived of their office ? 1 Peter 1 : 1, 2. " The elders which are among you I exhort — feed the flock of God — taking the oversight thereof" or, as the word in the original signifies, " exercising the office and per- forming the duties of a bishop." Whether Paul and Peter thought it needful, when about to confer the office of a scrip- tural bishop, first, to ordain the man a deacon ; secondly, to ordain him an elder; and thirdly and lastly, to "consecrate" him a bishop, we leave the candid reader to judge. We rather opine they were better instructed by Him, who, when the disciples strove which should be the greatest, set a little child in the midst, and bade them take him for a pattern of true greatness ; and who hath left on record the memora- ble sentence : " The princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, but it shall not be so among you." And as re- gards the judgment of Wesley, he expressly asserts, "Lord King's account of the primitive church convinced me many years ago, that bishops and elders are the same order." The evidence against Episcopacy is so conclusive that Wat- son affirms, " The argument drawn by the Presbyterians from the promiscuous use of these terms (bishop and elder) in the New Testament is incontrovertible." (Vol. ii. p. 575.) And even Dr. Bangs, who, in the Appendix to Buck's Theological Dictionary, has spoken so largely of the " three orders" and " the duties peculiar to each," elsewhere admits that " if any choose to say that we acknowledge two orders only, and a su- 23 266 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. perior minister possessing a delegated jurisdiction, &c. he has my full consent." Here then we have a plain acknowledg- ment that the office of the Methodist bishop is of human origin — that it is superior to that of elder solely by the consent and delegation of man. Of course, all that is left to Meth- odist Episcopacy is a mere human invention. And the "divers orders" of the ministry appointed by "Almighty God" are reduced to two, deacons and elders ! Whether the number might not be still further reduced, must be decided by those who have examined the evidence of the ministerial character of the New Testament deacons. It is an inquiry also of much interest, When did Method- ist Episcopacy arise ? The Scriptures know nothing about it — from what causes did it originate ? The opinion of Wes- ley upon the subject of its introduction may be learned from a letter to Mr. Asbury, then associated with Dr. Coke in the bishopric of America, under date of 1788. He said : "There is a wide difference between the relation wherein you stand to the American Methodists, and the relation wherein I stand to all the Methodists. * * * But in one point I am a little afraid both the Doctor and yourself differ from me. I study to be little, you study to be great. I creep, you strut along. I found a school, you a college — nay, call it by your own names. * * * One instance of your greatness has given me great concern. How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop ? I shudder, I start at the very thought. Men may call me a knave, a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content. But they shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop. For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this." It is obvious from the foregoing extract, that the flattering title which chimes so sweetly in the ear of ambitious ecclesi- astics, was at that time just beginning to be employed in the Methodist church. And whether it is probable that a man of Wesley's strong sense would make all this ado about a Let. XVI. METIIODIST EPISCOPACY. 2G7 mere name, if there had not heen connected with it much of the arrogant assumption of the office, we submit to the deci- sion of candor. Both Scripture and "Wesley refuse their countenance to Methodist Episcopacy. How then did it originate ? We reply, from the love of title and distinction which is native in the human heart. It appears that Mr. "Wesley first appointed Dr. Coke, who was directed to appoint Mr. As- bury, superintendent of the Methodist churches in America, but this humble title did not long satisfy these reverend gentlemen. In four or five years, they began to employ the term bishop in the minutes of conference ; and at this time it was that Wesley wrote the letter we have quoted above, expressing his indignation and abhorrence of the sub- stitution. It seems, moreover, that at least one of these gentlemen had some occasional misgivings respecting the validity of his episcopal ordination. In 1804, Dr. Coke ap- plied to Bishop White of the Protestant Episcopal church, to have himself and others admitted to the episcopacy ; thus acknowledging his claim to the office to be utterly destitute of foundation. He tells Bishop White "that Mr. Wesley had invested him with episcopal authority, so far as he had a right to do so ;" but as Wesley never held higher than the priest's office in the Church of England, it is plain that Coke had as good a right to ordain to the episcopal office as Wesley ! These facts prepare us to appreciate the statement of the " Origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church," prefixed to her " Discipline." " Mr. "Wesley," they tell us, "preferring the episcopal mode of church government to any other, in 1784 solemnly set apart Thomas Coke for the episcopal office" — a priest ordaining a bishop— "that Mr. Wesley delivered to Dr. Coke letters of episcopal orders, and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury to the office of a bishop after arriving in America." In consequence of which, Mr. Asbury appears 268 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. to have been hurried through the probationary degrees of deacon and elder; or, in the language of Dr. Bangs (Appen- dix to Buck), "was ordained by Dr. Coke, first to the office of deacon, then elder, and then superintendent or bishop;" and all, it seems, at the same meeting of conference ! And last, not least, we are told that " the general conference did unanimously receive the said Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as their bishops, being fully satisfied of the validity of their episcopal ordination !" In this derivation of the succession of the episcopate, the preachers will find much scope for the exercise of faith. They must believe that Priest Wesley consecrated Bishop Coke, imparted an authority he did not possess. They must believe that by this means Thomas Coke became invested with all the rights, titles and appurtenances of a bishop, although the way Methodist bishops are now " constituted" is quite different. They must believe, nevertheless, that both inven- tions for making a bishop are right — that Thomas Coke was well and truly made a bishop by Mr. Wesley, only four years before he wrote, "call me knave, fool, rascal, scoundrel, but never call me bishop;" and they must believe that the letter (of which this is an extract) was directed (in 1788) to Mr. Asbury, and conveyed a most pungent reproof for permitting himself to be clothed with an office, and addressed by a title, which Mr. Wesley himself, only four years previously (1784) had expressly intended for him ; and for this purpose Priest Wesley had consecrated Bishop Coke, and Bishop Coke was to consecrate Bishop Asbury. (See Discip. M. E. Church.) But it were well if this singular affair terminated here. There is a much more serious aspect of the affair. Bishops, elders and deacons, have seated themselves in the high places of the church ; and it becomes an inquiry of much import- ance — How have they disposed of the laity ? We reply — they are so disposed of as to be relieved of the whole burden of saying or doing any thing in the secular or spiritual Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 269 administration. All they Lave to do is to contribute liberally and submit implicitly to the dictation of their superiors. The preachers have legislated the whole power over the tem- poral and spiritual concerns of the church out of the people's hands, and into their own. This Wesley candidly avowed as his original intention. In a letter to I. Mason, dated near London, January 13, 1790, "As long," says he, "as I live, the people shall have no share in choosing either stewards or leaders among the Methodists. We have not, and never had any such custom. We are no rejniblicans, and never intend to be. It would be better for thosa that are so minded to go quietly away." Accordingly, when, in 1797, the people in some parts of England began to take the alarm, and peti- tioned in large numbers, " that they might have a voice in the formation of their own laws, the choice of their own officers, and the distribution of their own property " (see Buck's Theological Dictionary, art. Methodists), the love of power conquered the sense of right, and these petitioners were denied those privileges, which both reason and Scripture teach every man are the fundamental principles of all free- dom, civil as well as religious. In this country, too, the free spirit of our civil government has extended its reforming hand to the oppressions of religious tyranny. A large and respectable body of Methodists have begun to feel and act like Christian freemen. The rights and privileges for which they have been contending, are the same for which their brethren in England petitioned in 1797. And how have their efforts toward emancipation been received ? Just as might have been expected from a clerical aristocracy which holds all the power in its own hands, and wields the sword of discipline agreeably to its sovereign pleasure. The advocates of the people's rights were excommunicated — ex~ communicated for insisting upon those very rights in ecclesi- astical matters, for which, in state policy, our fathers fought and bled in the great revolutionary struggle, viz. " A voice in 23* 270 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANTSM. Let. XVI. making their own lares, electing their own rulers, and distrib- uting their own property." To these statements it has been replied, " that as every preacher, before he can be admitted by the conference, must be recommended by the laity, and as the conference cannot move a single step toward his admission, without such recom- mendation, it follows that the laity are the origin and source of all power in the church." But Dr. Bangs, in the Appendix to Buck, informs us that "a person thinking himself moved by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel, first makes known his views and exercises to the preacher having charge of the circuit, who, if he considers the applicant a fit person (here is the origin of all power), grants him license to exhort," &c. Besides, if it were correct that the laity must recommend the candidate to the Conference before he can be received, it would be a marvelous proof of their holding all the power in their hands, because, forsooth, a man who wishes to turn preacher, must get a few of his friends to recommend him ! The quarterly conferences, it is further said, are composed partly of laymen ; and these bodies are the door of entrance to the ministry, &c. But these laymen, according to Dr. Bangs, "are the stewards, leaders and exhorters" of the circuit, appointed directly or indirectly by the preachers, and of course are completely under the control of their originators. Indeed, we may fearlessly affirm that there is not a form of church government on earth (the Papacy excepted), so radically opposed to republicanism as Methodism. The legis- lative, executive and judicial powers are all placed in the hands of a privileged aristocracy — the preachers ; and at their sovereign nod, both men and money are disposed of, to promote whatever purposes piety, ambition, proselytism, or whim, may dictate. In proof of these statements, the Rev. Professor S. S. Schmucker, of the Lutheran church, himself a decided Arminian, has collected from the " Discipline" the following particulars of this clerical usurpation : Let. XVI. METHODIST EPISCOPACY. 271 1. " The exclusive right of suffrage in the election of del- egates to the general conference and of bishops." A thing unknown in any other Protestant church. L'. "Exclusive eligibility both to the annual and general conferences." In all other Protestant churches, laymen are eligible to the church courts. 3. " The exclusive unlimited power to legislate for the whole church in matters of doctrine, discipline, and forms of wor- ship and minor regulations." The traveling preachers can change and reverse whenever they please, every item of doc- trine,* discipline and forms of worship; and no layman, nor even local preacher, can have a word to say in it. 4. " The exclusive right to sit in judgment on the moral conduct of traveling preachers." In other churches such trials are conducted by laymen and ministers jointly. 5. " The exclusive right of appointing all committees for the trial of lay members, without the power on the part of the accused to challenge any member of such committee, though he could prove him his bitterest enemy. 6. " The exclusive right to conduct and control the book concern, and appropriate its extensive profits exclusively to their own benefit. 7. " The exclusive right of eligibility to the editorship of the periodicals of the Methodist church : local preachers and laymen are excluded by the Discipline. 8. " The exclusive right to hold and control all the Metho- * It may perhaps be questioned, whethor the preachers have power, ac- cording to the Discipline, to change tho doctrines of the Methodist church. It is admitted that among the provisions for altering and amending the Book of Discipline, it is said, " excepting the first article," which relates to doc- trine. But cannot the same power which inserted that exception strike it out? Cannot a majority of the Genoral Conference erase that exception whenever they please ? The way is then open to abolish every doctrine of the system, and substitute in its stead any other ism which pleases them best. The people are therefore absolutely dependent upon the preachers, whether the Methodist Episcopal church is Universali3t, Socinian, or Po- pish, in her doctrinal testimony ! 272 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVI. dist churches and parsonages, deeded according to the Discip- line — to say who shall and who shall not occupy them, with- out consulting the wishes of the laity who paid for them. Even the trustees are nominated exclusively by the traveling preachers. In every other Protestant church in the land, each congregation has control of its own parsonage and church property. 9. " The exclusive right to fix their own salary, that is, the amount to which they may retain possession of their collec- tions, and receive dividends from the several funds. In every other church, the people decide for themselves what sum they will allow their minister. 10. " The exclusive right of their bishops to determine what minister each congregation shall have, without consulting the wishes of the people. In all other churches of our land, the congregation invites the person they think best suited to them. 11. " An entire irresponsibility to the people for all their acts, legislative, judicial and executive, and for the distribu- tion of the extensive funds possessed by them ; no power on earth can call them to account." Thus far Dr. Schmucker. We are now prepared to understand Dr. Bangs, when he as- serts in his " Vindication" — " Every part of our government is elective." But who are the voters ? The reverend clergy. And is not the Pope elected by his reverend cardinals? In concluding this Letter, we remark, that some difference of opinion appears to exist among the leaders of Methodist Episcopacy. Messrs. Bangs and Emory say, " their church government is in fact and name episcopal ;" and Dr. Emory adds : "In whatever sense distinct ordinations constitute dis- tinct orders, in the same sense Mr. Wesley certainly intended that we should have three orders." But Dr. Bond, senior, affirms that " the episcopacy is not a distinct ministerial order, but only a superior office; and that is the light in which it has always been considered." Now, in the language of Dr. Mus- Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 273 grave, "if nothing more is meant by their distinct 'episcopal' ordination, than the giving of the power of general superin- tendence, why talk about their three orders, and their due * order and succession!!' — If men will be guilty (if such nonsense, they must expect to be laughed at for their sim- plicity; and by none more heartily than Episcopalians them- selves, whose forms they so absurdly imitate." As to the fact that the preachers have all ecclesiastical power, executive, legislative and judicial, in their own hands, it is "a bad eminence" which all right-thinking men should shun, for their own sakes, as well as for the liberty and security of the laity. LETTER XVII. PREACHER USURPATIONS— CONTROL OF PROPERTY— AMERI- CAN INDEPENDENCE "THE WORK OP THE DEVIL." Rev. Sir — In the list of clerical exactions stated by Prof. Schmucker, there is one item that requires a separate consid- eration : XII. The Difficulties of Episcopal Methodism, in RELATION TO CERTAIN RlGHTS OF PROPERTY. In all other denominations, with the single exception of Popery, when a congregation build a house of worship, it is their own to all intents and purposes. Not so, however, in Methodist Episcopacy ; for the preachers require all such val- uable interests to be deeded to them and placed entirely be- yond the control of the original owners. It is true the form of deed in the Discipline (p. 176) conveys the property to trustees in the first instance — but mark ! It is "in trust that they shall build a house or place of worship for the use of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the United States, according to the rules and discipline which, from time 274 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. to time, may be agreed on and adopted by the PREACHERS of said church." " And in further trust that they shall at all times permit such preachers" u to preach and expound God's holy word therein," &c. &c. The property, then, is for the use of the people according to the rules adopted by the preach- ers, and they can have the use of it no longer than they quietly submit to those rules, however unjust or oppressive they may be. All that is necessary, therefore, to enable an avaricious priesthood to take quiet possession of the immense and accumulating property of the Methodist Episcopal church, is to enact rules sufficiently oppressive to force away the people, and the whole wealth of the church is theirs, deeded and confirmed to them forever. In defense of this feature of the system, it has been said, that if " the preachers cease to be Methodists, they have no right to the use of the meeting houses, and the same is true of the members." But is it true that any conference of preachers have the right to make laws, the purport of which is — "If you, the people, exercise your rights of conscience, and 'cease to be Methodists,' you must leave your property in our hands — it is yours no longer 1" Is this toleration or re- ligious liberty ? Who gives the preachers a right to impose a tax of this kind upon as many of their people as become tired of their ecclesiastical supervision ? The law of God will regard property thus obtained as " the wages of unrighteous- ness." It is plain, therefore, that if a Methodist Episcopal congre- gation unanimously resolve to unite with another denomina- tion of Christians, say the Protestant Methodists, they are obliged to surrender their house of worship, to forsake the temple which their labors and wealth had reared for their accommodation, to leave all in the hands of Methodist Epis- copal preachers, and commence anew from the foundation. They cannot touch a cent of it. The property is theirs no longer than they continue obedient and faithful servants of Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 275 the preachers, and submit to be governed by their rules. And if every Methodist congregation in the land were succes- sively to renounce the system, unanimously renounce it, they could not keep possession of a cent of their property — it must lie in the hands of the preachers to be disposed of according to their "rules." A congregation may wish to make sale of the house they have erected out of their own funds : but no ! they dare not. And even when, in case of debt, the trustees are authorized to sell the property to pay it, the surplus is deposited (not in the hands of the trustees, or returned to those who are its lawful owners, but) " in the hands of the steward, to be at the disposal of the next annual conference" — it is added, indeed, u for the use of said society" — as much as to say, "we, the preachers, think you, the rightful owners, do not know what use to make of your money — we will kindly relieve you of the burden of it. To allege that the preachers of the Methodist Episcopal church will always be men of too much probity, and uprightness to abuse the power placed in their hands, is only to show the extreme credulity of the ob- jector. All history testifies that the direct method to corrupt the best of men, is to place at their disposal unlimited and uncontrolled power, whether of wealth, or any other kind of influence. Mankind have learned an impressive lesson of the working of such a system, from the corruptions and abomina- tions of the Papal hierarchy, possessing, as they do, and con- trolling millions of property wrung from the small earnings of poverty, by the hard hand of superstition and falsehood. Let the myriads of lazy, worthless priests, monks, and other "religious," who fatten on these spoils, put Protestants on their guard. Rome spiritual, as well as Rome political, was not built in a day. Beware of the beginnings of evil, which are as the letting out of water. And the example of Protest- ant England is scarcely less admonitory — her pampered arch- bishops, bishops and other clergy, having saddled their rich benefices upon a people who in large part reject with contempt 276 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. their spiritual ministrations. And we should also recollect that seventeen years ago (1843) the meeting houses and par- sonages under control of the preachers, were estimated at three millions eight hundred thousand dollars — and that be- sides these, they had their " chartered fund," their "book concern," their magazines, weekly papers, &c. It was there- fore a low estimate which placed the whole, even then, at from four to Jive millions of dollars. From the increase of the body, no less than from the common rise of the value of property, these various sources of income may reasonably be estimated now, at not less than ten millions of dollars. It cannot be denied that all these funds are under the control of the preachers, and the proceeds are for the exclusive use of themselves and their families — as will be fully proved in a future Letter. On the first of January, 1842, the net capital of the " Book Concern" was more than $600,000 ; and the net profits for that year were nearly $40,000. As Dr. Mus- grave well remarks — " It is idle to say that these preachers are pious men and will not abuse their power. We know they are but men, and by their own showing, the best of them may * fall from grace.' " The ultimate tendencies of a system such as we have been examining, present to the inquisitive mind a melancholy pros- pect. The experience of all Popish countries proves, that the most direct method of enslaving any people in a political point of view, is, to take from them their independence in religion. Bring them to suffer the privilege and right of self-government in religion to pass into the hands of others — persuade them to surrender the right of thinking and acting like Christian freemen, and you have a people prepared, on the first opportunity, to submit the trouble of political rule to any aspiring demagogue who may volunteer his services. The habit of implicit submission to the dictation of others, is soon formed; and what was at first esteemed a precious right, will soon come to be regarded as an oppressive burden. Lkt. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 277 The spirit of lofty independence will be broken, and the man will be merged in the abject slave. The British monarch, James I. had some skill in this matter. When assigning a reason for wishing to put down Presbytery and elevate Epis- copacy, he delivered the royal maxim — "no bishop, no king" — he uttered a sentiment which has been repeated a thousand times as a favorite and acknowledged principle, by the enemies of civil and religious liberty. So also, a writer in the London Quarterly Review, a work devoted to the interests of episco- pacy and toryism, uses the following strong language : " Cer- tain it is, that monarchy and episcopacy are much more nearly connected than writers of bad faith or little reflection have sought to persuade mankind." " There is an insensible, but natural inclination toward democracy," says the same writer, " which arises from the principles of a popular church govern- ment." * On the other hand, the natural alliance between a popular church government and civil liberty, has been alter- nately the theme of praise from its friends, and of reproach from its enemies, from time immemorial. Clarendon and Hume acknowledge it in all the bitterness of their hostility. But it has been replied, that the traveling preachers cannot righteously be charged with being a clerical aristocracy, because " they have left in the hands of the laity the all- important power of withholding every cent of pecuniary sup- port." And Dr. Bangs, in his "Vindication," chap. 10, on " the privileges of members of our church," states the third to be, that " no member can be censured for not contributing to the support of the ministry." Is it indeed so ? On page * Tho unhappy Charles, during his conflicts with the Parliament, was urged to give his consont to abolish Episcopacy. This he refused, because, among other things, Episcopacy was more friendly to monarchy than Pres- bytery. " Show me," said ho, "any precedent where presbyterial govern- ment and regal were together, without perpetual rebellions." "And it can- not be otherwise, for tho ground of their doctrine is anti-monarchical." "There was not a wiser man since Solomon, than he who said, 'No bishop, no king.' " 24 278 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. 185 of the Book of Discipline, is a rule requiring " weekly class collections wherever it is practicable," to meet the allow- ances to the preachers, &c. And on page 98 they say, that in "cases of neglect of duties of any kind, or disobedience to the order and discipline of the church," the offender is on the third offense to be " cut off" or excommunicated. Now is it a duty of " any kind," or any part of the " order and discipline" to contribute at the class collections? Then, on the third instance of neglect to pay the preacher, all Orthodox Methodists enjoy the precious privilege of being regularly excluded from the church ! The trouble of making and executing laws for the government of the brethren is not to go unrewarded — the laborer is worthy of his hire. The preachers bear the burden of exclusive legislation — they re- lieve the people of all part and lot in that matter. Is it not right that they should be punished, if they refuse to be taxed for these inestimable " privileges ?" In the light of these facts we are prepared to appreciate the zeal with which, some years since, Methodist preachers reechoed the hue and cry of infidels, that the civil and reli- gious freedom of the country was in danger from Presbyte- rianism. Many persons will remember the time and circum- stances of this disgraceful affair. Their great paper, the Christian Advocate and Journal, published an article enti- tled, " Murder will out," professing to discover to the world some dreadful conspiracy which the Presbyterians were plot- ting against the civil and religious liberties of the country — designing to unite the Presbyterian church with the civil gov- ernment, and hold the posts of honor and emolument in their own hands. Of course their clergy were to reap the rich re- wards of the successful execution of this scheme ! Twenty or thirty thousand copies of this infidel publication imme- diately issued from New York, and the circuit riders were flying from one end of the land to the other, bearing the im- portant news. Their pulpits and even the day of rest were LOT. XVII. CLEKICAL USURPATIONS. 279 employed to trumpet the wonderful discovery ! " I do be- lieve," said one of these ardent patriots, " they are secretly combining to get their religion established ; and I would have no hesitancy in advancing the above ideas and language from the pulpit." (Letter of a circuit rider, dated August 5, 1829.) Intelligent men of all classes will not soon forget that this crusade was preached by the very men whose form of ecclesi- astical government is in direct contrast with our republican institutions; and whose spiritual forefathers were those preach- ers who, whilst Dr. Witherspoon and other Presbyterians, both ministers and laity (with perhaps no exception), were nobly stemming the tide of oppression, basely fled from the land of their adoption, and consigned her sons to the sword of tyranny, the doom of rebels. " During the revolutionary war," says Dr. Bangs, "all the preachers, except Mr. Asbury,* returned to their native land." Yes, they loved " their native land" too well to find rest to the sole of their foot in a coun- ty where grinding oppression had roused the spirit of inde- pendence, and tories had fallen into disrepute. "All the Methodists there," says Wesley, "were firm for the govern- ment (that is, were all tories), and on that account were persecuted by the rebels." Wesley's Works, vol. iii. p. 411. Such then, is the sort of men who are so jealous for our liberties and so prompt to detect and expose Presbyterian plots for their overthrow ! Nor should it be forgotten, that these patriotic preachers, who, in the language of the founder of their system, " are no republicans (in ecclesiastical mat- ters) and never intend to be," are in the constant practice of * Mr. Asbury concealed himself among the tories of the State of Dela- ware. And yet when the storm had scarce blown over, their patriotism bursts into a blaze ; and bishops Coke and Asbury present an address to General Washington, in which they speak of " our civil and religious liber- ties transmitted to us by th providonce of God and the glorious revolution .'" And "the most excellent constitution of these Suites, at present the admira- tion of the world, and its great exemplar for imitation!!" (See Arnimiou Magazine, vol. i. p. 284.) 280 DIFFICULTIES OF AKMINIANISM. Let. XVII. circulating, by means of their book concern, sentiments which are high tory and treasonable. The following passages from the third volume of Wesley's Sermons, pp. 406, 408, will illustrate our meaning — " Thus," says he, "we have observed each of these wheels apart — on the one hand, trade, wealth, luxury, sloth and wantonness, spreading far and wide through the American provinces ; on the other, the spirit of indepen- dency diffusing itself from north to south. Let us observe how the wise and gracious providence of God uses one to check the other, and even employs (if so strong an expres- sion may be allowed) Satan to cast out Satan. Probably that subtle spirit (the devil) hoped by adding to all those other vices the spirit of independency, to have overturned the whole work of God, as well as the British government in North America." So it seems that independence and the overthrow of the British government in this country, were the ivorks of the devil! Again: "The spirit of independence which our poet so justly terms 'the glorious fault of angels and of gods' (that is in plain terms, of devils), the same which so many call liberty, is overruled by the justice and mercy of God." This is truly a bright picture of our glorious revolution, and of the principal actors in its trying scenes. Their love of liberty was, after all, only " the glorious fault of devils !" These statements are abundantly confirmed by Southey, in his Life of Wesley. He argued, we are told, against the principle that representation should accompany taxation, and asserted that the people had a right to nothing but protection ; that the tea tax was legal and reasonable^ and that the war of the Revolution was of Puritan origin. He alleged that the greatest degree of liberty was to be enjoyed under a monarchy. His opposition to our war of independence was most intense. He said of it, I am " pleading the cause of my king and country, yea, of every country ;" " pleading against those principles that naturally tend to anarchy and confusion." And he earnestly endeavored to enlist the whole Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 281 Methodist body against the American cause. In a letter dated 1782, he says : " Two or three years ago, when the kingdom was in great danger, I made an offer to the govern- ment of raising men;" thus it was owing to the moderation of the British government, more than to the principles of Methodism, that its leader did not take his spiritual power into the work of recruiting sergeant for the British army, to raise men among Methodists for the butchery of our fathers. We could cover with the mantle of charity the weakness and errors of John Wesley, a British subject and a staunch royalist ; but when we behold these self-constituted guardians of our liberties, these zealous watchmen, eager to sound the alarm of approaching danger from the ambitious designs of Presbyterians — when we find these incorruptible patriots sending out, as on the wings of the four winds of heaven, thousands and tens of thousands of copies of a work, which breathes the very spirit of toryism and treason, it is difficult to find a covering wide enough to hide their guilt and shame. Further: If the overthrow of the British power and the establishment of American independence, were the works OP the devil, as Wesley affirms, and the preachers print and publish to the world, must they not feel themselves bouud to destroy " the works of the devil ?" Are we then to understand that the Methodist hierarchy is leagued together to overthrow our republican institufiojis ? And are we further to understand that the charge against Presbyterianism of "secretly combining" against the liberties of the country, was only a piece of generalship, a skillful diversion in favor of their own deep conspiracy ! ! But if the preachers really disapprove of ascribing Amer- ican independence to the agency of the devil, why do they print and publish, and widely circulate such sentiments? w Because," it is replied, " we do not choose to mutilate the volumes!" To mutilate the volumes! To mutilate is "to deprive of some essential part." And are those " essential 21* 282 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. parts " of a volume of sermons, which ascribe our liberty and independence to the devil ! We should like to inquire whether the preachers regard the tory and treasonable senti- ments uttered by Wesley as true or false ? If they say they are true, then do they confess themselves as staunch tories as ever their spiritual forefathers were. If they say they are false, then we ask, would it mutilate a volume of sermons to omit its falsehood! Or do these preachers and publishers regard falsehood as an " essential part" of a volume of sermons? But are these gentlemen always so excessively scrupulous in the matter of mutilating volumes ? Do they not publish the works of Calvinistic authors, retaining their names, whilst every shred of the peculiarities of Calvinism is eviscerated and suppressed ? Or is it only Arminian toryism that must not be mutilated ? We cannot but hope that the foregoing statement of facts will henceforth impose silence on the preachers in regard to the dark designs of Presbyterians. And if they should com- mence the work of " mutilation," we would suggest the following additional passages as not unworthy of their atten- tion, along with the extracts from the sermons, viz. " The supposition that the people are the origin of power, is every way indefensible." " You (Americans) profess to be con- tending for liberty, but it is a vain, empty profession," &c. But the best is yet to come. " No governments under heaven are so despotic as the republican : no subjects are gov- erned in so arbitrary a manner as those of a commonwealth." " Should any man talk or write of the Dutch government as every cobbler does of the English, he would be laid in irons before he knew where he was. And woe be to him. Repub- lics show no mercy." These tory sentiments are scattered among the families of this republic, as the opinions of a man who, they are taught to believe, was only not infallible. See Works of Wesley, vol. iii. pp. 130-134. In striking contrast with this singular medley of Methodist Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 283 Episcopacy, let us hear the venerable Dr. Miller describe the episcopacy of the New Testament and of good sense : " We suppose," remarks Dr. M. " that there is, properly speaking, but one order of gospel ministers ; that every regu- lar pastor of a congregation is a scriptural hishop ; or that every presbyter who has been set apart, ' by the laying on of the hands of the presbytery' (1 Tim. 4: 14), who has the pastoral charge of a particular church, is, to all intents and purposes, a bishop; having a right, in company with others, his equals, to ordain and to perform every service pertaining to the episcopal office. We suppose that there are, indeed, two other classes of church officers, viz. ruling elders and dea- cons; but that neither of these are authorized to labor in word and doctrine, or to administer the Christian sacraments. We suppose there is a plain distinction made in Scripture between ciders who only rule, and elders who also ' labor in word and doctrine.' 1 Tim. 5 : 17. " Our judicatories, from the highest to the lowest, are all made up of laymen as well as clergymen ; and in all of them, excepting the highest, if the laity exercise their rights, there will be a larger number of the former than of the latter; and in the highest judicatory, an equal number. This, of course, gives to the laity of our communion constant and intimate access to all our plans and measures, and all the opportunity that can be desired to exercise their full share of power in controlling those measures. The people cannot be oppressed, uuless they conspire to oppress themselves I" (Letter to a geutleman of Baltimore, p. 72.) This conclusive reasoning would doubtless lack most of its force, if the laymen, of whom Dr. M. speaks, were, like the " class-leaders, stewards, trus- tees and exhorters " of Methodism, indebted exclusively to the preachers for their appointment or nomination : but this is so far from being the fact, that the laymen who participate in all the councils of Presbyterianism, are the representatives of the congregations, chosen by a majority of votes, and 284 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. delegated by their own deliberate, uncontrolled choice and designation, to this special duty. This is literally the fact in every instance, in regard to the three lower forms of judica- tory ; and may be literally true of their appointment to the highest, whenever the laity exercise their constitutional right to have a majority in the presbyteries which elect the delegates. But the inquiry may here arise — Is there any scriptural warrant for a system of church government so thoroughly republican as this ? Does the word of God authorize the commitment of ecclesiastical power so entirely into the hands of the people ? In reply, we refer to the record of the ap- pointment of deacons, in the 6th chapter of Acts. Let the inquirer open his Bible and read — " The twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them and said : Brethren, look ye out among you seven men, whom we may appoint over this business. And the saying pleased the whole multi- tude, and they chose Stephen and Philip," &c. (Not the preachers, nor bishops, nor even the Apostles chose them ; not even inspired Apostles would venture to take the right of election out of the hands of the people.) "Whom," con- tinues the record, " they set before the Apostles, and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them." Can any thing be more evident than that the first deacons were elected by the voice of the people, or by " the whole multitude of the disciples ?' Now turn to the 32d page of the Meth- odist Book of Discipline — " How is a traveling deacon con- stituted ?" " By the election " — of the people ? of the whole •multitude of the disciples f No ! but " of the majority of the yearly conference," which is composed exclusively of preach- ers; not a solitary layman holding a seat among them. The unscriptural character of this feature of the system must therefore be obvious to all. In the days of the Apostles, the people chose their own deacons, but Methodism has ventured to improve upon the primitive plan, and her preachers exer- cise a power which Apostles did not dare to assume. Let. XVII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 285 Agnin, wo refer the reader to the 15th chapter of Acts, for farther proof of scriptural republicanism: "Certain men which came down from Judea taught the brethren — 'Except ye be circumcised/ &c. They (the brethren) determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them (the brethren) should go up to Jerusalem — they were received of the church, and of the Apostles and elders — and the Apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter. Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company — the Apostles, elders, and breth- ren, send greeting — it seemed good unto us (the Apostles, elders, and brethren), being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you," &c. If these passages do not prove the fact, that under the direction of inspired Apostles, the people did participate in the deliberations and legisla- tive acts of the Synod of Jerusalem — if they do not deter- mine the Divine right of private members of the church to a share in its government, it is difficult to say what evidence would suffice. But suppose these things had been transacted by a Methodist conference, annual or general. How would it have read? The reverend traveling preachers (although the ''brethren" had not "chosen" one of them "to go vp" to conference,) came together for to consider of this matter. Then pleased it the traveling preachers to exclude from their conference all local preachers, to allow them no seat nor vote in their meeting. And when there had been much disputing, a certain bishop, surnamed Peter, rose up, and addressed the preachers. "Then all the multitude" (of the preachers) kept silence and gave audience — and after he had held his peace, bishop James delivered a speech to the " whole mul- titude" of preachers: Then pleased it the reverend travel- ing preachers, "with the whole church" of traveling preachers, to send chosen men to Antioch. And they wrote letters — "The traveling preachers, with 'the brethren,' who are also traveling preachers, send greeting — It seemed good unto us, 286 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVII. the traveling preachers" &c. &c. Now in this portrait we have merely supposed the Apostles to have been good Meth- odists — that they excluded all laymen and local preachers from a seat and vote in their councils, and after having been self-appointed to conference, that they took the whole business of legislation out of the hands of the people. We have also substituted the words "traveling preachers" in the place of "the brethren," "all the multitude/' "the whole church," &c. as they occur in the 15th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. It would be manifestly absurd to speak of "all the multitude," "the whole church," "the brethren," as being present, "giving audience," and uniting in the business of legislation, in a Methodist conference. In this mirror, then, the candid inquirer may see at one view, the republi- canism of Scripture, and the aristocracy of Methodism. Nor will he feel surprise to find Dr. Bangs in his "Vindication," express his fears for a " ministry under the control and at the mercy of the people." p. 158. Doubtless Dr. B. thinks it much safer to have the people under the control and at the mercy of the preachers ! Such, then, in the language of another, is Episcopal Meth- odism — an anomaly in the midst of our free institutions. Her mother, the Protestant Episcopal church, it is well known, admits the principle of lay representation. So that excepting her grandmother of Rome, she is the only church in America that is not blessed with " the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." Let. XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 287 LETTER XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS — PREACHERS FIX THEIR OWN SALARIES, AND PROVIDE FOR THEIR PAYMENT. Rev. Sir — The impression is often made by the agents of your system that whilst the ministers of other denominations are abundantly paid for their labors, the Methodist preachers not only receive no pecuniary compensation, but indignantly spurn the thought, as degrading them to a level with hireling priests. AVhether this impression is intentionally left upon the minds of the people, we know not; we only state the fact. We believe, however, that a careful examination will clearly establish the truth, that your preachers have provided for themselves more liberally than the people have provided for the ministry of any other branch of the American church. In this they have only practiced upon the principle avowed by the founder of their system. " I know," says Wesley (Works, vol. i. p. 78), "the spiritual laborer is worthy of his reward; and that if we sow to our flock spiritual things, it is meet that we reap of their carnal things : I do not therefore blame, no, not in any degree, a minister's taking a yearly salary." XIII. The Difficulties of Methodist Episcopacy — Preachers fix their own Salaries, and provide for their liberal payment. The following items they have enacted into laws for re- munerating the traveling ministry for their toils : I. "The annual allowance of the traveling preachers shall be two hundred dollars, and their traveling expenses. II. Each child of a traveling preacher shall be allowed sixteen dollars annually to the age of seven years; and twenty-four dollars annually from seven to fourteen. And those preachers whose wives are dead, shall be allowed for 288 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVIII. each child a sum sufficient to pay the hoard of sucli child or children for the above term of years. Nevertheless, this rule shall not apply to the children of preachers whose families are provided for by other means, in their circuits respectively. III. The allowance of superannuated, worn-out, and super- numerary preachers, shall be two hundred dollars annually. IV. The annual allowance of their widows shall be one hundred dollars. V. Their orphans shall be allowed the same sums respect- ively which are allowed to the children of living preachers. And on the death of a preacher, leaving a child or children without so much of worldly goods as should be necessary to his, or her, or their support, the annual conference shall raise a yearly sum for the subsistence and education of such orphan child or children until he, she or they shall be fourteen years of age." Again: "It shall be the duty of said committee or one appointed for that purpose, to make an estimate of the amount necessary to furnish fuel and table expenses for the family or families of preachers stationed with them, and the stewards shall provide by such means as they may devise, to meet such expenses, in money or otherwise." Again : " It is recommended by the general conference to the traveling preachers, to advise our friends in general, to purchase a lot of ground in each circuit, and to build a preacher's house thereon, and to furnish it with at least the heavy furniture." " The general conference recommend to all the circuits (if not able to build a preacher's house), to rent a house for the married preacher and his family, and that the annual conferences do assist to make up the rents of such houses as far as they can, when the circuits cannot do it." Thus far the Discipline. We will take an average case, say a preacher with wife and five children, two above and three under seven years : Let. XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 289 Annual allowance for himself and wifo, .... $200 00 Two children above seven, .$24 each, .... 4S 00 Three children under seven, $16 each, - - - - 48 00 Table expenses, or boarding, at 75 cents each per week, for six persons, omitting the youngest child, and omitting domestics, fuel, Ac. 283 00 House rent and heavy furniture, - - - . _ 55 00 Traveling expenses to conference, Ac. .... 30 00 $6G4 00 This liberal allowance will, of course, increase with the fam- ily, and should the preacher become disabled by accident, or sickness, or old age, the allowance is continued to him and his children, even though he should be laid aside in the early part of his ministry; so that for a few years, or weeks, or days' ser- vice, he and his family may receive their allowance for half a century. And when he goes to rest from his labors, he has the consolation of knowing that his widow and children will not be cast upon the cold charity of an unfeeling world, but will be provided with a very respectable annual allowance. Well may we inquire with Dr. Schmucker, " What denomination of Christians is there in our land, whose ministers would not gladly accept this provision V Nothing but the necessity of defending ourselves against the ungenerous assaults of our adversaries, would constrain us to enter into these minute calculations. Since, however, they have provoked the discussion, we esteem it to be our duty to let the Christian public know the whole truth. It should be remembered, therefore, that the foregoing estimates are made for a region of country where the ordinary salaries of the ministers of other denominations rate from §400 to $600 — rarely above the latter sum, except in a few instances, in large and expensive villages and their vicinity ; and often less than the former amount ($400). With what shadow of truth or justice, tnen, are these men denounced by the " preachers," whose allowance by their own Discipline, is considerably larger ? This their most zealous advocates are 25 290 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XVIII. compelled to admit. The Discipline, moreover, is the handi- work of the preachers exclusively. This sum, therefore ($660), is the annual compensation which they have ordained to be due for their ministerial services. This is the sum they will receive, if .they can get it, and which they have passed the requisite laws to secure, provided the people will submit to be taxed to this amount. What then becomes of their volun- tary poverty ? Ought they not to blush for the outcry which they have raised respecting the large salaries of the clergy of other branches of the church ? Is it fair, is it honest, to indulge in harsh reflections and taunting insinuations against ministers who do not receive, in numberless instances, so large a salary as Methodist preachers have decreed to he not too large a sum for a clergyman with a certain family ? We are not sufficiently in possession of the facts to form a detailed estimate for our largest sized towns and cities. The following statements, however, will afford a clew to explain how these matters are managed there. In the trial of an action for libel in New York, brought by Azor Hoyt against Rev. Messrs. Waugh, Emory, Bangs and J. Collard, Rev. Dr. Durbin testified as follows : " My salary is twelve hundred and fifty dollars annually; that of Mr. Bangs, I think, fif- teen hundred or upward — that of Mr. Merritt, about twelve hundred — that of Mr. Waugh, sixteen hundred — that of Mr. Mason is, I think, over one thousand and under fifteen hun- dred dollars." Now, whether it is understood that besides this moneyed compensation, these gentlemen receive a fur- nished house, rent free, table expenses, &c. according to the Discipline, we are not informed. If so, the foregoing sums would be swelled to a very handsome remuneration for their toils. Dr. Durbin' s statements referred to a period more than twenty years ago. A few years later, a correspondent in Bal- timore wrote to the author : " In regard to this city r I have no doubt you might safely estimate ' table expenses/ &c. at Let. XVIII. CLERICAL USURPATIONS. 291 from seven to eight hundred dollars, and the average of their house rent at three hundred." But to return to our estimate for the country. If the preachers, as we have shown, have ordained six hundred dol- lars as their annual salary, it is justly due, or it is not. If not justly due, then it is "the wages of unrighteousness;" but if it be justly due to the preacher, why are Presbyterian ministers denounced for receiving generally a much smaller sum, particularly as it is always the voluntary offering of the people to the man of their choice, not a preacher sent by the bishop and saddled on the congregation, whether they will or not? In reply to these statements, it has been retorted with much warmth, " The preachers do not get the sums allowed by the Discipline." Very probably in many cases it is so. We should think it strange if it were otherwise. There ia some reason, however, to believe, as will be shown presently, that the payment of the allowance is the ordinary practice, its non-payment the exception. But admitting that the preachers " do not get" what their rules allow, it must be because the people will not submit to be taxed to the full amount agreed upon by their spiritual rulers. We have already cited the rule of the Discipline, declaring " the offender must be cut off" on the third instance of "neglect of duties of any hind" or " disobedience to the order and discipline of the church ;" that is, " if there be no sign of humiliation." Of course, it follows, that if this rule were put in force, every third instance of "neglect" to pay the preacher would be followed by excommunication, if there were no signs of re- pentance ! And again': " Remember, a Methodist preacher is to mind every point great and small in the Methodist Dis- cipline." If the preacher's salary is not paid, what does it prove ? Why, only that they have gone a little too fast and too far in passing the laws which impose the tax upon the people, or in common phrase, " have reckoned without their 292 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIX. host." The people will not submit to their rules, and the preachers dare not enforce them; and there they stand re- corded evidence against their authors of their disposition to take much more than they can get, without risking the loss of many of their members. The tax laws are there a terror to evil doers who might neglect to pay the preacher, and no doubt thousands are thereby collected from the weak and credulous who would rather give their money than cause strife, or run the hazard of being excluded from the church. In my next Letter, reference will be made to facts, in order to shed further light upon the question of the payment of the preachers' salaries. ! LETTER XIX. ARE THE PREACHERS' SALARIES PAID? Rev. Sir — We come now to the testimony of facts, in re- gard to the payment of the liberal salaries which the travel- ing preachers have provided for themselves. We first quote the directions on pages 185, 188 of the "Discipline:" "Let there be made weekly class collections in all our societies where it is practicable," and " every preacher" having charge of a circuit is required to " make a yearly collection, and if expe- dient a quarterly one, in every congregation where there is a probability the people will be 'willing to contribute." It is admitted there is sometimes "a surplus in the hands of the stewards, after paying the allowances of the preachers in the circuit." Secondly, we adduce the following testimony ex- tracted from the Religious Intelligencer of New Haven, p. 793 : tl I was brought up a Methodist," remarks this wit- ness, "and my parents are to this hour members of that society. I have been a preacher in that denomination a number of years. In the year I thought it my duty to request a dismission from that body ; and as there was nothing Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS' SALARIES PAID ? 293 against my religious and moral character, I was accordingly dismissed, and united myself to a respectable association of Congregational ministers in New England. Soon after this I had a call to settle with the congregation of which I am now pastor. From this statement, you will easily conclude that I must be well acquainted with the doctrine and discipline of the Methodists. To the honor of the Methodists I can say, I always received my salary with great punctuality." (Here he makes some calculations, which are precisely like those given above, except that he actually received four dollars per week boarding for himself and wife, whilst we have stated it at seventy-five cents each in the foregoing calculation.) "As respects their not getting what the Discipline allows," adds thi.s writer, "it may be true in some few cases; but without any reflection upon the Methodist preachers as a body, most of these men are of that class who would get far less in almost any other situation. I have made the proposal several times to my society, to place my salary on the plan of the Method- ist Discipline." (Here he compares his salary with what it would be in the Methodist church, and finds that for his fam- ily of seven persons, his salary would be raised twenty-eight dollars and the house rent.) "That the respectable Methodist preachers do get their salaries (he continues), we cannot doubt. I can any time bring forward cases in which Meth- odist preachers have received the notes of the circuit steicards on interest for the balance of their salary for the year, when it has not been promptly paid." Such, then, is the unvar- nished tale of this witness, satisfactorily proving that the statutes, by which the preachers have effectually repelled the charge of "making no provision for their own," are not a "dead letter," but a living principle, securing in the majority of cases (if this witness speak the truth), ample provision for themselves and " those of their own household." The moneyed allowance for themselves and wives (independently of house rent, table expenses and other items), has several times been 294 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. I**- XTX enlarged, but never reduced. And even the collection of their liberal salaries, as Dr. Schinucker observes, is not at- tended with the same trouble as in other churches, among other reasons, because a large income is annually derived from general funds. A glance at some of these sources of income must suffice. The Chartered Fund was established in 1796, at which time the previously existing " stock of the preachers' fund," togeth- er with the profits of the book concern, were thrown into this fund, and the interest of the whole applied to the preachers' salaries. This fund was reported the next year (1797) as yielding $266£. In January, 1829, it amounted to $27,000, and in 1843, Dr. Musgrave stated it at about " thirty thousand dollars." Porter's Compend of Methodism (1855) admits that its object was " to relieve the difficulties" of the preacher, and that it " has afforded partial relief." The Centenary Fund, Porter tells us, was established in 1839, when to commemorate the hundredth year of Methodism, " the amount contributed for different objects was estimated at $600,000." "The Book Concern," Porter informs us, originated in 1789. "It began," he says, "with about $600 capital, bor- rowed of the agent." In less than twenty years (1808) there "was a capital in the ' Concern' of forty-five thousand dollars." " In 1820 a branch was established at Cincinnati ; and subse- quently depositories in Philadelphia, Kichmond, Charleston, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Boston, San Francisco, and other places, and a weekly paper established in connection with most of them." The value of the pecuniary interest invested in the New York establishment, may be estimated from the fact, that in the fire of February, 1836, " when the new buildings and nearly all the property were consumed, the estimated loss was two hundred and fifty thousand dollars at least." The loss, adds Porter, " to the support of sick and needy preachers was well Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS' SALARIES PAID ? 295 understood." Accordingly, "about 390,000 were realized in donations, which with some §25,000 insurance, enabled the agents to start anew with encouraging prospects." " The capital stock," he adds, " has been gradually increasing." u In the New York Concern, it is estimated at $626,406 — and at Cincinnati $190,542 — or together, about eight hundred and seventeen thousand dollars." Porter is himself a Meth- odist Episcopal preacher, and these estimates were published in 1855. The last five years have no doubt greatly swelled the sum total. Dr. Musgrave in 1842, published a statement which he derived " from the office at New York," and which was signed by Lane and Sanford, the agents. " The net profits of the New York Concern for the year," are there stated at §39,738.10 — "or nearly forty thousand dollars" — although they had lost in exchange upward of §10,000 during the twelve months. From these facts, some estimate may be formed of the im- mense and constantly increasing capital connected with the New York and Cincinnati Book Concerns and the other book depositories, with their weekly papers ; and on p. 36 of the " Discipline," the General Conference is expressly forbidden " to appropriate the produce of the Book Concern and the Charter Fund to any purpose other than for the benefit of the traveling, supernumerary, superannuated and worn-out preach- ers, their wives, widows and children." Besides, every preacher is officially a book agent, " who is to sec that his circuit be duly supplied with books." Thus they carry on an immense book trade over the wide extent of our country, the profits of which they apply to their own salary and the support of their widows and orphans. With near five thou- sand preachers, agents in this business, and "seven or eight hundred thousand" members, who are cautioned "not to pur- chase any books which we publish, of any other persons than the aforesaid D. Hitt and T. Ware, and the Methodist minis- ters, or such jiersons as sell them by their consent" (Portrait of 296 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XIX. Methodism), the annual profits must be enormous in a con- cern of such unparalleled extent.* And all the proceeds are appropriated by statute, after retaining the necessary capital to carry on the business, to no other purpose than the payment of the preachers 1 allowance. In what other denomination is there a security like this for ample compensation to their ministers for their self-denying toils? And in the light of these facts, how must we regard the outcry of Methodists against the clergy of other sects in regard to salary, when in fact no branch of the church on earth has a ministry placed on such high and independent footing in this respect as their own. Not only do they require their members, even in strait- ened circumstances, to contribute liberally (it is well known that house maids pay four dollars a year), but by a mighty machinery, reaching its hundred hands to every nook and corner of the land, they manage an unexampled traffic, which pours into their treasury its thousands and tens of thousands annually. But perhaps the worst feature of the system is the agency by which the people who pay this money are excluded from all part or lot in its distribution. Preachers pass the revenue laws and preachers meet to divide the spoil; in other words, fix the amount of their own salary, and allow them- selves the sums they in their wisdom may consider lawfully due for their important services. In further proof of these statements, we refer to the "Dis- cipline." The conference composed exclusively of preachers, fix the amount of salary, and the preachers take up the collections, which are ordered "to be brought or sent to the annual conference" to be disposed of exclusively by preach- ers ! It is true the moneys are in the first instance " to be lodged with the stewards," who are laymen, and this is an apparent exception to the above remarks; but on examination * Seo Dr. Schruucker's letters to Rev. Mr. Young. In 1855, Porter states the traveling preachers at 4,814, and the supernumeraries 669. The total of members he sets down at 783,000. Let. XIX. ARE PREACHERS' SALARIES TAID ? 297 it will be found to be only apparent, not real. Wbo nomi- nate the stewards? The preachers cxelusivcly. Who elect them ? The quarterly conference. Who compose this con- ference ? Preachers, who arc self-appointed; "extorters" appointed exclusively by the preachers; "leaders," also ap- pointed only by the preachers; and "stewards" nominated by the preachers. This is the body which elects the stew- ard, after he is nominated by the preacher ! This is one feature of Dr. Bangs' "elective system!" We respectfully submit that it would be quite as republican and fair, and cer- tainly much more open and candid, for the preacher to take the appointment of the steward directly into his own hands, or himself perform the duties of treasurer of the circuit. These stewards, be it also remembered, are bound to pay the preachers just the sums they have awarded to themselves for quarterage; and the surplus, if any, goes into the hands of the preachers in conference assembled ; and one of the " duties" of the steward (on the third " neglect" of which he may be excommunicated), is "to be subject to the bishops, the presiding elder, and the elder, deacon, and traveling preachers of the circuit." So that he is not only the crea- ture of their will, but completely under their rod. It is replied, however, with great indignation, " that not a cent can be had for table exp>enses and house rent without the consent and authority of a lay committee." But not to insist upon the fact that the conference (of preachers) can dispense with this committee whenever it pleases them — we inquire, Who are the members of this lay committee ? The stewards ! It is " a committee of stewards •" and, as we have just shown, might with about the same propriety be "a committee of preachers !" Again : it is argued that the preacher's salary cannot be rated at six hundred dollars, because " it is impossible to tell how much such a committee, in any given case, will allow for house rent and table expenses," and it ia even suggested that 298 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNIANISM. Let. XIX. they may refuse to allow any thing. But what saith the Discipline ? " It shall be the duty of said committee to make an estimate of the amount necessary to furnish fuel and table expenses. " — "And the stewards shall provide, by such means as they may devise, to meet such expenses, in money or otherwise." But the rule before referred to expressly declares, that "in case of neglect of DUTIES of any kind," or " disobedience to the order and discipline of the church," the guilty person is, on the third offense, to be " cut off," whether he be steward or member of committee. They are bound, on pain of excommunication, to make an estimate of "the amount necessary," not any amount they may please to allow the preacher, but that precise amount which, according to ordinary rates of expenditure, is " necessary " for fuel and table expenses, and "provide to meet such expenses in money or otherwise." In view of such facts, it is folly to talk of this committee having "power to allow sixty cents instead of six hundred dollars ! I" And to make assurance doubly sure, it is declared to be " the duty of the presiding elders and preachers to use their influence to carry the rules respecting building and renting houses for the preachers into effect." " And it is recommended to the annual conference to make a special inquiry of their members respecting this part of their duty." The preachers are to " use their influence !" What kind or degree of influence the preachers and the conference are empowered to exert over the stewards, when it is known that if they " neglect their duty " in making up the preachers' salaries, and securing them comfortable, well-furnished houses, on the third offense " they must be cut off" except they re- pent and mend their ways, it is not difficult to understand ! ! In speaking of the position and prospects of the traveling clergy, it is common to represent them as "abandoning almost every earthly interest in entering upon an itinerant career, and submitting to labors and trials that few have nerve enough to endure."* Very different, however, is the judg- * Porter's Compendium, p. 377. Let. XIX. ARE PREACIIERS SALARIES PAID ? 299 ment of the Baltimore Reformers, or Methodist Protestants. a We are of the opinion," they say, " that a system which at once elevates men from the various departments of humble life, and from a state of dependence to sovereign rule ; from comparative ignorance to the means of improvement and knowledge, so far from being a system of sacrifice and self- denial, is one of great enjoyment, and it sometimes proves a system of emolument." This is the verdict of men who had themselves been Episcopal Methodists. As preachers they had tasted of the cup of " labors and trials that few have nerve to endure !" Such then is the poverty of the traveling ministry of Methodism. Six or seven hundred dollars secured in com- pensation of labors, for the right performance of which there has not been any preparatory expenditure worthy of notice, is no mean provision for the good things of this life. In most other denominations, the intended minister is required to pass through a course of training, from seven to twelve years in duration, in which he must expend a small estate, before he can enter upon the duties of his profession ; and if, in the providence of God, he is disabled by disease or accident after the few first years or weeks of his ministry, he must resign his charge, and of course his means of subsistence, to some more favored occupant. Not so the preacher of Methodism. After the expiration of the few first years or weeks of his ministry, even though reduced by the visitation of Heaven to a state of utter helplessness, he is entitled to a clear income for himself and wife of two hundred dollars, or the interest of three thousand three hundred and thirty-three dollars ; and his children are also provided for. It may be questioned whether any man, minister or layman, would be considered far from the pathway of wealth, who, in four years, or as it may be, in four days, with scarce any previous expenditure, and with no risk of pecuniary loss, could realize an annual income of equal magnitude. And should the preacher survive 300 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let: XIX: for fifty years in a state of incapacity, and his wife be also spared, they will be entitled to draw the sum of ten thousand dollars, besides the support of their children. On the whole, it is obvious that the Methodist clerical orders possess very considerable financial skill. This we think has been fully proved in the previous discussion, and may be made still more plain by one or two additional facts. "It is contrary to the Methodist economy to build houses with pews to sell or rent." But, as has been well remarked by my correspondent in Baltimore, " more money is actually paid by many families in their weekly tax at class meeting than they would be required to pay for a pew in one of our churches. Multitudes are deceived by the smallness of the periodical sum, and have no idea of the amount in the course of the year."* Besides, there is another very important reason why they are opposed to the pew system. If the people owned the pews they could control the house, which would be an utter abomination in the eyes of the preachers ! The con- ference would no longer have the power to use the property for their own purposes, contrary to the unanimous wish of the contributors and real owners. Therefore pews would be a dangerous innovation ! In connection with these statements, let the reader recur to the evidence adduced in a foregoing Letter, that the owner- ship of every Methodist church and parsonage is vested in the conference. The authorized deed makes no mention of the particular congregation as a party in the transaction, but only of the Methodist Episcopal church in the United States; * The following facts came "within my own knowledge. A person who had been in the habit of worshiping with Presbyterians, united with the Methodists, together with his family. He very candidly acknowledged that whereas he used to pay six or seven dollars annual pew rent, he was taxed by the Methodist preachers at the rate of a dollar per head per quarter for himself and family ; amounting during the year to upward of twenty dollars. And he very honestly declared, the '" preachers " should hold their peace on that topic. Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 301 and the principle has been actually decided by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, in the case of an appeal, by a minority of trustees or agents of the conference, from the verdict of a jury previously given in favor of the majority both of the congregation and of the trustees, who had joined the Protest- ant Methodists. The Supreme Court, therefore, has settled the principle that a minority, however small, of the faithful servants of the conference, may, on the ground of the on\y authorized form of deed, dispossess a majority, however large, of their property in a church or parsonage. Submission to the sovereign authority of a conference of preachers is the only legal title to funds thus vested. " It is therefore unde- niable, that if every member and every trustee of a church thus deeded, were to regard any future measures of the conference as tyrannical, and should desire to withdraw and introduce other preachers, the conference could turn the key on them, and they would be compelled to submit." In propor- tion, therefore, as the members of the church secede, and vacate the houses and lands which they have occupied, will an immense and accumulating revenue of this sort be placed in the hands of the preachers composing the conference. The Protestant Methodists may get the men, but the Epis- copal Methodists hold fast the money. LETTER XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE— THEIR CURIOUS ORIGIN AND PROMINENT FEATURES — WESLEY'S AURICULAR CONFES- SION, Ac. Rev. Sir — We have had occasion in previous Letters to mention repeatedly the "Book of Discipline" of the Method- ist Episcopal church, for the purpose of directing attention to some of its singular statements. We are not done with 26 302 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMLNTANISM. Let. XX. the subject; but as it is one of considerable interest, we pro- pose to confer upon it the distinction of a separate investiga- tion. This seems the more proper, as it is but repaying a debt of long standing, and due to Methodism for the notice she has been pleased to bestow upon the Presbyterian Con- fession of Faith. XIV. Review op the Articles and Book of Disci- pline. 1. The origin of the work. It is neither more nor less than the Liturgy and Articles of the Church of England, in a mutilated condition. The original was formed, as Dr. Miller tells us, on the basis of five Romish missals, or prayer books, which had been in use in the same number of popish bish- oprics. This liturgy at first contained a number of things grossly popish ; and even after undergoing a " considerable purgation," as Dr. M. has it, by Calvin and others, still re- tained a " number of articles, adopted from the missals of the Church of Rome, which exceedingly grieved the more pious and evangelical part of the church, but which the Queen (Elizabeth) and her clergy refused to exclude."* These facts will fully account for the savor of popery which, in previous Letters, we detected in the form of administering the Lord's Supper and in some other particulars. The book, in its original form, was entirely too Calvinistic for Mr. Wesley; hence he thought proper to expurgate four' teen of its doctrinal articles. Among those rejected are the fifteenth, which asserts "that Christ alone was without sin;" and the eighteenth, which condemns the assertion that " every man shall be saved by the law or sect which he professeth," and which further affirms " that holy Scripture doth set forth only the name of Jesus Christ whereby men must be saved." These erasures are very suggestive. * Calvin, in one of his letters, says it contained many "tolerabiles ineptias," i. e. " tolerable fooleries ;" tolerable, he means, for children ! Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 303 2. Sympathy with fundamental errors. After what lias been said, it is not at all surprising to find Mr. Wesley shaking hands with the Papists in the following cordial style : " Can nothing be done, even allowing us on both sides to re- tain our own opinions, for the softening our hearts toward each other." " My dear friend, consider I am not persuad- ing you to leave or change your religion," &c. "We ought, without this endless jangling about opinions, to provoke one another to love and to good works. Let the points wherein we differ stand aside. Here are enough wherein we agree. brethren, let us not still fall out by the way. 1 " (Letter to a Roman Catholic.) We have elsewhere quoted the admission of their greatest historian, Dr. Stevens, viz. that their " Articles" contain nothing which directly condemns " either Calvinism or Uni- versalism" — the former of which they seem to regard as the " hcrrsy of all heresies !" In regard to the Unitarians, they are also very liberal. Thus, in vol. x. p. 354, of their "Ladies' Repository," Rev. B. F. Teft, D. D. the editor, holds the following language in regard to the late Dr. Chan- ning, the great champion of Socinianism : " Some will not allow Channing to have been a Christian, because he was a Unitarian preacher. Such a man, however, can well dispense with the good opinion of such contemptible bigots, to what- ever fellowship they belong, when he has been followed to heaven's gate with the admiration of two hemispheres. I do sincerely wish, both for these critics and myself, as good a seat in paradise as I believe is now occupied by that best of all good and great men ever raised up by Massachusetts." This is the sort of religious instruction which the oracles of Methodism prepare for the wives and children of the thousands of families which acknowledge them as spiritual teachers. A curious illustration of the manner in which Methodism uses fanaticism and falsehood, is found in Millcrism. Thus 304 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. Porter, whose " Compend" is highly lauded by bishops and others, speaks of " the general revival from the year 1840 to 1844," as follows: "The doctrine of Christ's second coming had considerable effect." " Many feared it." " The mistake had no other influence in this regard, than to prompt them to seek religion then." He admits that Millerism afterward " became identified with so many other heresies, it poisoned all who came under its influence, and interposed one of the greatest obstacles to religion," &c. " Notwithstanding," he adds, " there was much wheat gathered." For example, he tells us " that in 1843 the net increase of the Methodist Episcopal church was 154,634, and in 1844 it was 102,831." Yet he admits that in three years (1844-1847) they " suffered a net decrease of more than fifty thousand members." * Such is the testimony of Porter, a "prophet of their own." Still he thinks the tl proportion that fell away was not greater than is usual," and that he can account " for the appalling decrease without disparaging the character of the work in the least I" 3. The Methodist " Articles and Discipline " came down, as we have shown, in regular " succession " from the English "Articles and Liturgy of the Established Church." The fact that the original was submitted to Calvin and other divines of the Continent, and thus "purged of sundry of its popish "fooleries," may perhaps also account, in part, for the strong Calvinism of many of its doctrinal statements, and which contradict and overthrow its Arminianism. 4. Statement, of the origin of the Methodist Episcopal church * Rev. Parsons Cooke tells of a Rev. G. Fox, a presiding elder, who " said he had made Miller's theory a subject of prayer and study ; and that in answer to prayer he had received as clear a witness of the Spirit in favor of that theory, as he had of his own justification ! He traveled through his district, having access to all Methodist pulpits, preaching everywhere that the end of the world was coming in 1843 ; and he employed his pen with great industry, and his writings were abundantly published in the Methodist periodicals." Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 305 in America. We are told on page 14 of the Book of Dis- cipline, that '' Mr. Wesley, preferring the Episcopal mode of church government, solemnly set apart, by the imposition of his hands and prayer, Thomas Coke to the episcopal office ; and having delivered to him letters of episcopal orders, com- missioned and directed him to set apart Francis Asbury to the same episcopal office." Now besides the intrinsic absurd- ity already pointed out, of a priest ordaining a bishop, and the exceeding doubtfulness of the matter of fact, that Wesley, who declared he would rather be called " fool, knave, villain," than bishop, should designate another to bear the office and title he so much abhorred j besides all this, observe with what authority the doctors of Methodism speak when writing for the special use and benefit of the sect. Mark their language — "episcopal mode of church government" — "epis- copal office" — "letters of episcopal orders" — "episcopal ordination," &c. But with what commendable modesty does Dr. Bangs relate the same story in the Appendix to Buck's Theological Dictionary ? How do these proud pre- tensions dwindle, when about to be laid more fairly before the public ? The Doctor tells us, " that being assisted by other presbyters of the Church of England, by prayer and imposition of hands, he (Wesley) set apart Thomas Coke, a presbyter of said church, as a superintendent of the Methodist societies in America" (not a word about his being made a bishop, or receiving the; episcopal office). Again : " Mr. As- bury being first elected by the unanimous voice of the preachers, was ordained by Dr. Coke, first to the office of deacon, then elder, and then superintendent or bishop." In the Book of Discijdine, the statement says nothing about "superintendent ;" it is nothing but episcopal mode of church government, episcopal office, episcopal orders, episcopal ordination. But here in the Appendix to Buck, it is all superintendent, and the poor bishop comes limping in the rear, in the shape of an alias, just as though he were a pcr- 26* 306 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. sonage of almost no importance. The very term from which the church derives the name " episcopal/' is introduced so modestly that it might he supposed a thing of almost no importance, and not a word is uttered of those high-sounding titles enumerated above. If, moreover, in the Methodist system, the terms bishop and superintendent be synonymous, and both imply merely that their possessor is an elder, who on account of age or talents has received from man a more extensive superintend- ence of ecclesiastical affairs than ordinarily belongs to the eldership, why all this pompous talk of " episcopal ordina- tion," " episcopal office," " letters of episcopal orders," &c? Why this puerile affectation of high-sounding titles — this ludicrous mimicry of the English hierarchy ? How would it be more absurd to speak of Presbyterian episcopacy, since every pastor superintends a portion of the church of Christ ? And especially, is there not something profane in the repetition of the solemn Divine rite of ordination (the New Testament knows nothing about " consecration to the minis- try,"), whenever an elder is appointed to a larger sphere of superintendence than formerly he occupied ? With about as much propriety might every Presbyterian minister be re-or- dained, whenever he is removed from a narrow to an extensive circuit of influence. Whether therefore we consider the Methodist bishop as holding an office of Divine origin, essen- tially distinct from and superior to that of elder — or regard these offices as identical, with only enlarged powers received of men on the part of the bishop, it is obvious that the whole subject is involved in a labyrinth of inconsistencies. 5. Methodist liberality. On page 27 we have a rule for- bidding " the doing ordinary work, buying or selling on the Sabbath," but no prohibition of amusements on that day. This indeed might be regarded merely as an oversight, were it not that we have line upon line, and precept upon precept, in regard to other matters of much less importance. Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 307 On page 27 we find the following : " It is expected of all who continue in these societies, that they should evidence their desire of salvation." Very well. But how are they to evidence this desire ? Among other things, the fourth para- graph from the above reads as follows : " By doing good, especially to them that are of the household of faith, or groaning to be so ; employing them preferably to others, buying one of another, helping each other in business" — and this, be it remembered, is one of those "general rules" which, on the next page, are said "to be all taught of God," even in his written word ; and " which his Sjiirit writes on truly wakened hearts." "If there be any among us," adds the Book of Discipline, " who habitually break any of them, we will ad- monish him of the error of his ways, we will bear with him for a season. But then if he repent not, he hath no more place among us. We have delivered our own souls!" In other words, if any Methodist shall employ, habitually, any person not " of the household of faith, or groaning to be so," or shall habitually buy of such a person preferably to a brother Methodist ; if he repent not, he is turned out — that the conscientious preachers may " deliver their otvn souls !" In " some directions " given by Mr. Wesley to the " Band Societies," in 1744, the members are required to "attend constantly on all the ordinances of God ;" and the fourth subdivision under this head, is — " to observe as days of fast- ing or abstinence, all, Fridays in the year." To fast every Friday one of the ordinances of God ! Their good old grand- mother of Rome has an " ordinance " requiring all genuine sons of the church to eat no meat on Friday; but where to open my Bible to find such an ordinance, is an entire mys- tery. The blessed Redeemer enjoined fasting, but specified no particular time for the discharge of the duty ; but Methodism would be wiser, and specifies one day in each week ! 6. Practice against theory. On page 113 it is said, '• \o person shall be admitted to the Lord's Supper among us, who 308 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. is guilty of any practice for which we would exclude a mem- ber of our church." But from page 65 we learn that one of the grounds of excluding members of the Methodist church, is, "removing from one circuit to another without a note of recommendation from the preacher." But the case is materially altered when persons are enticed away from other churches, without any certificate or note of recommendation. They are freely and with open arms admitted, and that too in many instances where they would be denied, even if they requested a note of recommendation. Indeed, the usage of Methodism in this particular is subversive of every thing like order and discipline in the Christian church. 7. Reverently obey the bishops. " Will you reverently obey your chief ministers?" is a question put at the ordina- tion of elders, and another of the same import at the ordination of deacons. There is a considerable improvement practiced at Rome. There they kneel and reverently kiss the toe of his holiness ! See this identical form of expression in the Bull of Pope Innocent VIII. for exterminating the Waldenses — " Reverently to obey the apostolical mandates," &c. viz. the bloody edicts of his antichristian majesty ! But perhaps the most curious illustration of the reverence and obedience exacted of the lower orders of the Methodist ministry, is found on pages 57, 58. In answer to the ques- tion, " What is the duty of a preacher ?" we have twelve specifications, and among others, "Be diligent" — "Let your motto be, Holiness to the Lord" — "Be ashamed of nothing but sin" — "You have nothing to do but to save souls; there- fore spend and be spent in this work" — "Save as many as you can" — " It is your duty to employ your time in the manner in which we direct ; in preaching and visiting from house to house ; in reading, meditation and prayer." When we had read thus far, we almost involuntarily exclaimed, admirable ! What could be moi"e scriptural and excellent ! But the very next sentence was a dead fly in the ointment — Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 309 "Above all, if you labor with us in the Lord's vineyard, it is needful you should do that part of the work which we advise, at those times and ' ]jlaces which WE judge most for his glory." Above all! Above preaching, and visiting, and reading, and meditation, and prayer ! Above spending and being spent for Christ, and holiness, and the salvation of souls ! Above all these, " reverently obey your chief minis- ters." Truly, it would seem that in the Methodist catalogue of ministerial virtues, to obey is the highest attainment of Christian perfection — the pearl of great price — the summum bonum — the one thing needful — not only " better than sacri- fice," but better than holiness and salvation ! Rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idol- atry ! In the light of these facts we may readily credit the testimony of one who had himself been a Methodist, " that nearly all of the inferior clergy are kept in a state of spiritual bondage, so that, on many occasions, they dare not speak or act as the Scriptures prescribe and their consciences dictate, lest they should offend the men in power, and be chastised by a remove to a disadvantageous circuit, by a breaking down in worldly business, or by excommunication." An excellent school, doubtless, in which the refractory may " learn obedience by the things they suffer." So also Mr. M'Caine, a Protestant Methodist, who had been long one of their preachers, says : u In upward of fifty years, we have known but one traveling preacher expelled for false doctrine, and but few for immoral- ity. But we have heard of very many who were expelled/or oj^posing the bishop>." 8. Wesley' s Auricular Confession. Although omitted in the latest edition of "the Discipline" (1856), the following rules for "Band Societies" as organized by Mr. Wesley, were for- merly a part of that book. " A band consists of two, three or four believers, who have confidence in each other." Only it is particularly observed that "in one of these bands, all must be men, or all women; and all married or all unmarried." 310 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. The wisdom of this precaution will appear directly. The fourth article on which the members of the "band" agree, is " to speak each of us in order, freely and plainly, the true state of our souls, with the faults we have committed in tem- pers, words or actions (in " thought, word or deed," Wesley originally wrote it), and the temptations we have felt since our last meeting." The sixth article is "to desire some per- son among us to speak his own state first, and then ask the rest in order as many and as searching questions as may be, concerning their state, sins and temptations." They manage this matter a little differently at Rome, but it is doubtful whether they have a better confessional than this. But there is more to come: among "the questions proposed to one before he is admitted" to the band, we find the following: "Is it your desire and design to be on this and all other occasions entirely open, so as to speak without disguise and without re- serve." Wesley wrote the latter part originally as follows : " So as to speak everything that is in your heart, without EXCEPTION, without disguise, and without reserve!" Popery herself demands no more thorough confession than this. And besides, the following questions are required to be asked " at every meeting," viz. " What known sins have you committed since our last meeting? What particular temptations have you met with ?" After what we have seen, it is not surpris- ing that Mr. Wesley should write a highly commendatory life of Mr. De Renty (a Roman Catholic), nor that the fol- lowing passages should proceed from his pen: "One day he visited a person, who from groundless suspicion had cruelly used his wife. Mr. De Renty accosted him with such lan- guage, that he was persuaded at length to go to confession ! ! which he had not done in twelve years before." And of De Renty himself, he says — " He made his confession (to a priest) almost every day till his death ! !" This biography of a thor- ough papist, Wesley placed in his "Christian Library," and recommended to his followers. " He had great respect (he Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 311 adds) for holy persons, especially for priests. Whenever bo met them, he saluted them with profound humility: and in his travels, he would alight off his horse to do it." " And without reply or disputing, with the utmost respect and sub- mission, he exactly followed the order of his director" (or confessor). The reader will recollect — " Reverently obey your chief ministers! J" 9. On page 105, infants are called " elect children " — im- plying that as, according to Arminians, election brings with it non-election, there are non-elect infants, some of whom may be in hell! The use Methodists make of the false charge of " infant damnation " brought against Calvinists, was noticed in a former Letter. " Thus," says Dr. Musgrave, " thousands of uninformed people are persuaded that Presbyterians do verily believe * * * that children not a span long are in hell!" If we thought these "accusers of the brethren" really believed their own statements, we should at least feel pity for their want of information. The Rev. Parsons Cook, however, says : "We have been told by a seceding Methodist minister., that it is well known to him that Methodist minis- ters generally understand, as well as we do, that this doctrine is not preached by us ; but that they purposely keep alive the imputation because of the advantage which they have from it." Under all the circumstances, there is much reason to be- lieve that this testimony is true. Yet their five thousand preachers and hundreds of thousands of members are busied day and night in circulating such representations of Calvinism as the following : " Moloch caused only children to pass through the fire, and that fire was soon quenched ; or, the corruptible body being consumed, its torment was at an end. But God, by his eternal decree, fixed before they had done good or evil, causes not only children a span long, but the parents also, to pass through the fire that shall never be quenched, * * * and the body being now incorruptible, will be ever consuming and never consumed."* * Doct Tracts, p. 173. 312 DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. Let. XX. We now bring this expose of " the Difficulties of Arminian Methodism" to a close. Not because the theme is exhausted, but because under the fourteen distinct heads already stated, enough has been said, if we are not greatly mistaken, to sat- isfy every impartial mind of the true character of that system. Is it possible that the God of truth has adopted such a scheme of doctrine and discipline as this to spread Scripture holiness through the world ! Is it probable that He who prayed, " Sanctify them by thy truth," is the author and patron of Arminian Methodism ? We speak of course of the system aa distinguished by its peculiarities from the doctrine and gov- ernment revealed in the Scriptures. We have not questioned the fact, that so far as Methodism teaches certain great truths common to all Christians, she has done good — neither is it denied that Unitarianism and even Popery, embrace many valuable truths, but marred and enfeebled by hateful corrup- tions. To a certain extent, the same is true of Arminian Methodism. And the blind spirit of violence and misrepre- sentation which her leading writers exhibit toward Presbyte- rians and other Calvinistic bodies, is only a bitter fruit of her delusions. " There are many truly excellent men in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal church, and thousands of truly pious persons in her communion"* — but it is also true that the improprieties and excesses which have come under review, are not commonly approved nor countenanced by that class of Methodists. If the Scriptures were designed to be our pattern in all things pertaining to truth and godliness — if the decisions of reason founded upon the word of God, demand our respect, next to the Inspired Oracles themselves, we are compelled to believe that much remains to be done to fashion Arminian Methodism agreeably to " the pattern shewed in the mount." And whatever else may have been done or left undone, one thing, we think, has been fully established, viz. that there are vulnerable points connected with the Arminian scheme, * Dr. Musgrave. Let. XX. ARTICLES AND DISCIPLINE. 313 which arc far from justifying the air of arrogance and tone of denunciation so common with its modern advocates. Much more might be said of the strange methods they often adopt to advance their sectarian projects — their garbled quo- t.itinus, their unscrupulous denunciations, their unmitigated exclusiveness, their spurious zeal in pressing their ministra- tions upon localities abundantly supplied with evangelical preaching, (only not Methodism !) their great joy, not so much " over the conversion of the ninety and nine" impeni- tent, as "over the conversion of one Presbyterian sinner," their gladness when they succeed in making a raid upon Calvinistic, and even upon other Arminian churches. " How frequently," to use the language of " the pastoral letter" of the Presbytery of Lexington, Va. " in the midst of their charitable professions, have even their pulpits resounded with 6evere denunciations against us, representing us as a set of hypocritical formalists — as holding doctrines which came from hell and lead to hell. Have they not times innumerable reviled our ministers as avaricious hirelings," &c. But to enlarge upon such topics as these, would swell our work be- yond all reasonable bounds. 27 APPENDIX I. .FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. In this Appendix we propose to examine certain references, winch appear in a popular Methodist tract, entitled, "A Dialogue between a Predestinariau and his Friend." This tract, a favorite instrument of sectarian zeal, was written by Mr. Wesley, and it is cited by Drs. Bangs, Fisk, and others, with such frequency, and its blunders are copied and circulated with so much confidence and industry, as to justify an investigation of its merits. Blindly following the authority of this publication, these learned gentlemen have quoted the chapters of the Assembly's Catechism, and thus exposed themselves to the correction of any well-instructed Sabbath scholar. This publication we suppose to be one of those methods by which the father of Methodism purposed "to stop the mouths of Calvin- ists." (Works, vol. iii. p. 405.) It is graced with the following line: " Out of thine own mouth!" The truth of the motto will appear as we pass along. We will first notice the references to the Assembly's Confession, or Catechism, as they call it. Friend. " Sir, I have heard that you make God the author of all sin, and the destroyer of the greater part of mankind without mercy." Predestinarian. "I deny it; I only say, 'God did from all eter- nity unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass.' " (Assembly's Catechism, chap. 3.) Here it is supposed that we are convicted " out of our own vwuth," of making " God the author of all sin." But besides that the very next words in the Confession are — "yet so as neither is God the author of sin," — we refer to the Confession itself, and to the uniform testi- mony of Calvinistic writers, to prove that they maintain the distinction between the efficient and the permissive decrees of God. And as to our holding that " the greater part of mankind are destroyed without mercy," the quotation from the Confession says nothing upon that subject; and until the proof is adduced, it must be considered as a groundless assertion. F. " Does sin necessarily come to pass ?" P. "Undoubtedly. For ' the almighty power of God extends itself to the first fall, and all other sins of angels and men.'" (Assem. Cat. chap. 5.) (314) FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 315 This extract is erroneous and unfair in two respects : 1. It is given as a continuous quotation, whereas two whole lines are omitted, which are essential to the sense. 2. The Confession does not say, " the almighty power of God extends itself to the first fall," &c. There is no such sentiment in the passage, which is as follows: "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it (his providence) extendeth itself," &c. We greatly fear that this method of stopping the mouths of Cal- vinists will not redound to the honor of its author and advocates. We next examine the references to Calvin's Institutes : I. (Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 8.) "Nothing is more absurd than to think any thing at all is done but by the ordination of God." Allen, whose translation is used by Watson, renders it as follows: "Nothing could be more absurd than for any thing to happen independently of the ordination of God, because it would happen at random, or by chance." The object of Wesley was to convict Calvin of teaching that sin was so ordained as that God was its author. But besides the mistranslation, "by the ordination of God," as though that were the efficient cause of all things, instead of " independently of the ordination of God;" just six lines farther down, Calvin quotes Augustine with approbation, as proving that "God is the supreme and first (or highest) cause of all things, because nothing happens but by his command or permission. He does not suppose God," continues Calvin, "to remain an idle spectator, determining to permit any thing" (and every thing), that is, to look listlessly on and resign the helm of the universe to be controlled by contingence or chance. " There is an intervention of actual volition (that is, a ivill to permit,) which otherwise could never be considered as a cause." The reader can now judge whether Calvin meant to teach that God is the author or efficient cause of sin, and whether the above quotation is consistent with truth. II. (Book 1, chap. 15 (16), sec. 3.) "Every action and motion of every creature is so governed by the hidden counsel of God, that nothing can come to pass but what was ordained by him." The following is the translation of Allen : "In the creatures there is no erratic power, or action, or motion ; but they are so governed by the secret counsel of God that nothing can happen but what is subject to his knowledge and decreed by his will ;" that is, as explained above, nothing can hap- pen but by his command or permission. Calvin is speaking of " the stars, and comets, and signs of heaven," and rebukes " immoderate and super- stitious fears," as though these "creatures had of themselves power to hurt us, or could fortuitously injure us." And though his language 316 APPENDIX I. admits of being extended to intelligent moral agents, yet as explained above by himself, it is obviously perverted from its original and true meaning. III. (Book 1, chap. 15 (1G), sec. 8.) " The wills of men are so gov- erned by the will of God, that they are carried ou straight to the mark which he has foreordained." This is designed to show that Calvin taught that God works on the wills of men, so as to work ivickedness in the wicked, and so must be the author of sin. But look a moment at the language of Calvin in its connection : " Not only the heavens and the earth, but also the deliberations and volitions of men are so governed by his providence, as to be directed to the end appointed by it. What then? You will say, does nothing happen fortuitously or contingently?" He had set himself to prove that there could " be no such thing as for- tuitous conlingence," or chance (sec. 4) ; and in the passage referred to by the author of the tract, he was showing that not even the minds, thoughts and volitions of men are exerted " independently of God, whilst they cannot even speak a word but what he chooses." (Sec. G. ) But what has this to do with the author of sin, or the cause of wicked- ness in heart and life ? How does God's holding the hearts of men in his hand, and turning them as rivers of water are turned (that is, overrruling, restraining, and limiting their exercises, and especially their wickedness); how does this prove, as the tract affirms, that " all must do just what theydo,"so that they are deprived of liberty of will and free agency ? The passage is shamefully misrepresented and per- verted from its plain and obvious meaning, to teach what Calvin never taught, as will yet more fully appear. The scope of the passage is to overthrow the atheistical notion of fortune or chance. Not a sparrow falls, nor a thought or volition of the mind arises, but what is under the superintendence of the Divine Providence. God has his own ap- pointed ends in his all-wise plan, to promote, even by the wickedness of the wicked, and therefore it does not occur by chance, but by his permission, purposing so to control and "restrain" it, as to make it subserve his own wise and holy purposes. This is the meaning of Calvin. "Augustine," says Calvin, "makes the following correct dis- tinction — 'that they sin, proceeds from themselves; that in sinning they perform this or that particular action, is from the power of God, who divideth the darkness according to his pleasure.' " Book 2, chap. 4, sec. 4. Is this the same as saying, " their sins proceed from God?" IV. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 8.) "I will not scruple to own that the will of God lays a necessity on all things, and that every thiDg he wills necessarily comes to pass." FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 317 The reference is probably to a passage in chap. 23, sec. 8. "I shall not hesitate to confess with Augustiue, that the will of God is the Deoessity of things, and that what he has willed necessarily conies to pass, as those things are really about to happen which he has foreseen." To say that men are under a necessity of committing sin, is, in the common popular acceptation of the terms, both absurd and impious, and this is what Wesley labors to prove against Calvin. But it is a very important question— " What did Calvin mean by necessity?" This we discover by comparing other passages, thus— " A distinction has prevailed in the schools, of three kinds of liberty : the first, freedom from necessity; the second, freedom from sin; the third, freedom from misery; of which the first is naturally inherent in man, so that nothing can ever deprive him of it ; the other two are lost by sin. This dis- tinction," adds Calvin, "/ readily admit, except that it improperly confounds necessity with coaclion. And the wide difference between these things will appear in another place." (Book 2, chap. 2, sec. 5, &c.) "When man subjected himself to this necessity, he was not de- prived of will, but of soundness of will." " Augustine thus expresses himself: ' The will being changed for the worse, I know not by what corrupt and surprising means, is itself the author of the necessity to which it is subject,' &c. Afterward he says that we are oppressed with a yoke, but no other than that of a voluntary servitude," &c. &c. Again, Book 2, chap. 5, sec. 5. "Let them not suppose themselves excused by necessity, in which very thing they have a most evident cause of their condemnation." " For if we are bound by our otvn passions, which are under the government of sin, so that we are not at liberty to obey our Father, there is no reason why we should plead this necessity in our defense, the criminality of which is within ourselves, and must be im- puted to us." B^ok 2, chap. 8, sec. 3. "Nor can we pretend to excuse ourselves by our want of ability— our inability is our own fault." Ibid. From these passages it is evident that the meaning of the term "necessity" in Calvin's work, is the same with certainty, or what Edwards calls "philosophical necessity." (Edwards on the Will, part 1, sec. 3.) That Calvin is greatly misrepresented in this tract, as teaching ne- cessity in such a sense as " that all things come to pass by the effica- cious and irresistible will of God," is further proved by his represent- ing men as under the restraining influence of Divine grace. Thus Book 2, chap. 2, sec. 3. "Should the Lord permit the minds of men to give up the reins to every lawless passion, there certainly would not be an individual in the world who would not evince all the crimes for 27* 318 APPENDIX I. ■which Paul condemns human nature." This does not look like im- pelling the will of man to sin by inevitable necessity!! Indeed the early reformers seem to have been in the habit of employing the term necessity to mean "certainty." Thus Luther (de servo arbitrio, translated by Milner, Ecc. Hist. vol. v.): "So long as the operative grace of God is absent from us, everything we do has in it a mixture of evil ; and therefore of necessity our works do not avail to salvation. Here," continues Luther, "I do not mean a necessity of compulsion, but a necessity as to the certainty of the event." Indeed in the very passage to which we suppose reference is made in the tract, Calvin explains the meaning of the term " necessity" as used by himself to imply "that those things are really about to happen which God has foreseen." It is not our business to decide whether Wesley's misrep- resentation of the passage was the result of a want of information, or of something else. V. (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 7.) "God not only foresaw that Adam would fall, but also ordained that he should." The design of this is obviously to convict Calvin of teaching foreordination in such a sense as to imply that sin is brought about or efficiently caused by the Di- vine decree. But no person of candor would ever understand Calvin thus. "God," says Calvin, "not only foresaw the fall of the first man, and the ruin of his posterity in him, but also arranged all by the determination of his own will." " It belongs to his power to rule and govern all things by his hand." "He knew that it was more suitable to his Almighty goodness to bring good out of evil, than not to suffer (or permit) evil to exist," and therefore "ordained the life of angels and men in such a manner as to exhibit in it, first, what free will was capable of doing, and afterward, what could be effected by the blessings of his grace and the sentence of his justice." Here the very section which is perverted to mean that Adam sinned necessarily, by force of the Divine decree — this very section affirms that Adam was an example of " what free agency was capable of doing!" We should be glad to indulge the thought that this was the effect of ignorance. VI. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 8.) "He sinned, because God so or- dained" — "because the Lord saw good." The object of this reference is the same with the previous one. There is nothing in the place re- ferred to, bearing even the most distant resemblance to the professed extract. In chap. 23, sec. 8, we read — "The first man fell because the Lord had determined it should so happen." "He determined thus, only because he foresaw it would tend to the just illustration of the glory of his name." But no person willing to do justice to Calvin, FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 319 •would ever think of interpreting this to mean that Adam sinned ne- cessarily by force of God's decree. For besides the proof already given, that Calvin taught that sin was ordained permissive.li/ (though not by a bare permission), in the very same section, and within a few lines of the supposed extract, we read — " .Man falls according to the (permissive) appointment of Divine Providence; but he falls by his own fault." "They insist that God permits the destruction of the impious, but does not will it. But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will (to permit it). It is not probable, however, that man procured his own destruction by tho mere permission, without any appointment of God." (In other words, without his having appointed to overrule the fall of man to his own glory.) "Besides," continues Calvin," "their perdition depends on the Divine predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it are found in themselves." "Wherefore, let us rather contemplato the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in tho predestination of God." These passages, Wesley, if he had ever read the book, must have known to be there. The very section supposed to be quoted by the tract to convict Calvin of holding that God ap- points or decrees sin, so that it comes to pass by his efficacious and irresistible will — this very section affirms that "man sinned by his own fault" — and that the cause and matter of his perdition is in him- self! ! VII. (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 7.) They deny that the Scripturo says God decreed Adam's fall. They say he might have chosen either to fall or not: and that God foreordained only to treat him according to his desert. As if God had created the noblest of all his creatures, without foreordaining what should become of him." The design of this reference, as of the previous ones, is to convict Calvin of teaching that sin comes to pass necessarily, that men must do just what they do, and that they sin under the impelling influence of God's will, ne- cessarily and irresistibly. But this is an utter misrepresentation of Calvin's meaning. "They maintain," he says, "that he (Adam) was possessed of free choice, that, he might be the author of his own fato (this Calvin does not dispute); but that God decreed nothing more than to treat him according to his desert." Calvin admits that Adam was possessed of free choice. Thus, Book 1, chap. 15, sec. 8. "Adam could have stood if he would, since he fell merely by his own will." " His choice of good and evil was free." " He was the voluutary pro- curer of his own destruction." But he utterly denies that God de- 320 APPENDIX I. creed " nothing more than to treat him according to his desert." And in the very same section he goes on to explain his meaning — that "it belongs to Divine power to rule and govern all things by his hand," and " to bring good out of evil." And he rejects the idea that "God had created the noblest of his creatures without any determinate end" — that is, foreseeing his fall, he determined so to rule and govern his apostasy and its effects by his hand, as in the end to make the wrath of man to praise him, and the remainder to restrain, to the glory of his great name. Every one must perceive what an utter perversion of the passage is made by the author of the tract. VIII. (Book 3, chap. 31, sec. 1.) " All men are not created for the same end ; but some are foreordained to eternal life ; others to eter- nal damnation. So according as every man was created for the one end or tiie other, we say he was elected or predestinated to life, or reprobated." This reference is to chapter 31, whereas there are only 25 chapters in the book. The stereotyped volume of tracts has it chap. 21, sec. 1 — but this too is a blunder. After considerable search, we found in chap. 21, sec. 6, a passage which bears a strong resem- blance to the professed extract ; but from the numerous gross errors in these references, we must suppose that the author of the tract had never seen the original work, but was the humble copyist of some pre- ceding bungler. It must be admitted that Calvin employs very strong language, though perhaps not stronger than the Apostle Jude, speak- ing of "certain men crept in unawares," "ungodly men," "who were of old ordained to this condemnation" (Jude 4): nor stronger than Peter (1 Pet. 2:8), "Being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed:" nor stronger than Wesley — "God Preappointed all dis- obedient unbelievers to damnation, not without, but according to their works, from the foundation of the world :" or as he afterward explains himself — " God eternally reprobated all disobedient unbe- lievers, as such, to damnation." If our Methodist friends exclaim, "horrible!" "most horrible!!" we cannot help it. There it stands in their own approved standard writings. No Calvinist teaches repro- bation in stronger terms than those, and as to the Presbyterian Con- fession, it does not even employ the term "reprobation." See also refer- ence 15, for Calvin's views of man's being created for a certain end." IX. (Book 3, chap. 21, sec. 7.) " God hath once for all appointed, by an eternal and unchangeable decree, to whom he would give salva- tion, and whom he would devote to destruction." We have just seen how plainly and forcibly Mr. Wesley and his followers teach " eternal reprobation," or reprobation to "damnation," of "all disobedient FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 321 unbelievers, according to God's foreknowledge of all their works, from the foundation of the world." And what is still more remarkable, in the tract, " Predestination calmly considered," they say, "This decree (of reprobation) without doubt God will not change, and man cannot resist." (Doct. Tracts, p. 15.) So that the}' teach not only that "reprobation to damnation" is eternal, but that it is unchangeable and irresistible ! X. (Book 3, chap. 22, sec. 1.) " So the vulgar think, that God, as he foresees every man will deserve, elects them to life, or devotes them to death and damnation." Allen has it — "It is a notiou commonly entertained, that God adopts as his children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace ; and devotes to the damnation of death others whose dispositions he sees will be inclined to wickedness and impiety." With regard to man's "deserving Divine grace," we need only quote Article 9 of the Methodist standards, viz. " We are accounted right- eous only for the merit of our Lord, and not for our own works or deservings!" But that Calvin did maintain that the wicked are "de- voted to death for their evil deserts," has been already shown. " Their perdition depends on the Divine predestination in such a manner that the cause and matter of it are found in themselves." " The evident cause of condemnation," he says, " is the corrupt nature of munkind." (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. 8.) "It remains now to be seen why the Lord does that which it is evident he does. If it be replied that this is done because men have deserved it by their impiety, wick- edness and ingratitude, it will be a just and true observation." (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 14.) The prominent object before Calvin's mind, in the passage quoted in the tract, is " the distinction between different persons, as it appears in the grace aud providence of God." He is speaking of what Turretine and modern Calvinists call " comparative election and reprobation " — in other words, of the reason why, from the mass of mankind, all by nature equally and utterly undeserving, God subdues, converts, and saves one, and that one oftentimes the "publican and harlot," the most abandoned or profane; while others are left, in many cases the most moral and decent in their outward deportment. In this view of the subject, the passage has altogether a different meaning from what it is made to bear in Wesley's tract. Calvin takes for granted that all are "corrupt," and justly exposed to Divine wrath ; whereas he is quoted as teaching that men are devoted to death without any respect to their deserts. "We teach," adds Calvin, "nothing but that God has always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom he cheoses." But the very fact of his bestowing 322 APPENDIX I. grace, supposes the recipients to be undeserving, or deserving of death. By wresting a sentence or part of a sentence out of its connection, the Bible can be made to teach Atheism. XL (Book 3, chap. 23, sec. C.) "God of his own good pleasure ordains that many should be born, who are from the womb doomed to inevitable damnation." The original Latin of this last phrase is "certte morti," which every school boy knows to mean "certain death," and is a very different thing from " inevitable damna- tion." An event which is infallibly foreknown, is " certain ;" but as it respects the agents in its accomplishment, it may not be " inevitable ; " that is, they may bring it about in the exercise of perfect freedom of choice, and may act otherwise if they choose so to act ; although it is infallibly foreknown how they will choose to act. Besides, if it be true, as Wesley says, that " God foreappoiuts or predestinates all diso- bedient unbelievers to damnation, according to his foreknowledge of all their works, from the foundation of the world" — "if (from eter- nity) he refuses or reprobates all disobedient unbelievers, as such, to damnation, how does this differ from "dooming them to certain death from the womb ?" " Can you split this hair ?" XII. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 12.) "God has his judgments toward the reprobates, whereby he executes his decree concerning them." (In other words, "he refuses or reprobates all disobedient unbelievers, as such, to damnation.") As many therefore as he created to live mis- erably and then perish everlastingly, these, that they may be brought to the end for which they were created, he sometimes deprives of the possibility ("opportunity" — Allen) of hearing the word, and at other times, by the preaching thereof, blinds and stupefies them the more." The first important inquiry, in order to a right understanding of this passage, is, what did Calvin mean by man being " created for a certain end ?" If it can be shown that he employs language equally strong, almost the very same terms, in reference to all, both elect and repro- bate, the force of the objection will be done away. Well, look at Book 2, chap. 16, sec. 3. "In respect of our corrupt nature, and the succeeding depravity of our lives, we are all really offensive to God, guilty in his sight, and born to the damnation of hell!" The meaning evidently is, that men without exception (one only excepted), are justly exposed to that awful doom, sin having been permitted to enter the world, "and so death has passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." That God oftentimes " deprives men of the opportunity of hearing the gospel ;" that he sometimes "removes the candlestick out of his place " (Rev. 2 : 5), in just punishment for misimprovemeut FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 323 of past privileges, we did not suppose was denied by any Christian ; nor that, for the same reason, he sometimes permits the gospel to become a Bavor of death unto death, so as "to blind and stupefy the more." Do Methodists deny this? If any thing further need be said to ex- plain the extract from Calvin, we refer to the section before quoted for the followiug: " For notwithstanding we are sinners through our own, fault, yet we are still his creatures ; notwithstanding we have brought death upon ourselves, yet he had created us for life." XIII. (Book 3, chap. 24, sec. 13.) "He calls to them, that they may be more deaf; he kindles a light, that they may be more blind ; he brings his doctrine to them, that they may be more ignorant," &c. In this passage Calvin is expounding Isaiah G : 9, 10 — " Go and tell this people (saith God to the prophet), Hear ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed." See also Mark 4: 12; Luke 8 : 10 ; John 12 : 40. If Calvin has erred in the use of language, he is certainly in very good company. But the tract represents him. as intending to convey the idea that God by direct and positive influ- ence upon the minds of the wicked, " hardens, blinds and stupefies" their souls in sin, so that he is the author of their wickedness. But he himself elsewhere interprets his language to mean, " the righteous judgment of God," or " the righteous vengeance of God, in abandon- ing the hearts of the stubborn and rebellious to Satan, to be confirmed in obstinacy." But Dr. W. Fisk, speaking in the name of the General Conference, says : " God blinds men aud hardens their hearts judicially, as a just punishment for their abuse of their agency." Disc. p. 9. Speaking of Satan, Calvin observes : " He being naturally wicked, has not the least inclination toward obedience to the Divine will, but is wholly bent on insolence and rebellion. It therefore arises from him- self and his wickedness that he opposes God — but since he holds him tied and bound with the bridle of his power, he executes only those things which are Divinely permitted ; and thus whether he will or not, he obeys his Creator, being constrained to fulfill any service to which be impels him." Book 1, chap. 14, sec. 17. "They (the wicked) can lay no blame upon God, for they find in themselves nothing but evil ; and in him only a legitimate use of their wickedness." Chap. 17. sec. 5. '• This exception must always be made, that the cause of sin, whose roots perpetually dwell iu the sinner himself, docs not arise j'rom God." Com. ou Rom. 1 : 24. 324 APPENDIX I. XIV. (Book 1, chap. 17, sec. 5.) "Thieves, murderers and other malefactors, are God's instruments which he uses to execute what he hath decreed in himself." The design of this extract is to convict Calvin of teaching that " God by his present irresistible power and will, is the author of those actions which are sins, and of the sins themselves." "I admit," says Calvin, "that thieves, homicides, and other malefactors, are instruments of Divine Providence, whom the Lord uses for the execution of the judgments which he bath appointed." By examining the scope of the passage, it will be found that the design of Calvin was directly the opposite of that which Wesley charges upon him. "Persons," he says, "inconsiderately and erroneously ascribe all past events to the absolute providence of God." "Since neither thefts, nor adulteries, nor homicides, are perpetrated without the inter- vention of the Divine will, 'why,' they ask, ' shall a homicide be pun- ished for having slain him whose life the Lord had terminated ? If all such characters are subservient to the Divine will, why shall they be punished?'" "But I deny," replies Calvin, "that they serve the Divine will. For we cannot say that he who is influenced by a wicked heart, acts in obedience to God." " But it is said, if he would not per- mit it, we should not do it. This I grant. But do we perform evil actions with the design of pleasing him? AVe precipitate ourselves into them," &c. Is this the same as saying, " men commit sinful ac- tions by the present irresistible power and will of God ?" Calvin i? speaking of the "legitimate use" which God makes of his unholj creatures, and not at all of his irresistible power in causing their ac- tions. "So when the matter and guilt of evil reside in a bad man, why should God be supposed to contract any defilement, if he uses his service according to his own pleasure;" in other words, if he "makes his wrath to praise him," &c. The use which the author of the tract makes of Calvin's language, "can hardly be reconciled with a guile- less Christianity." XV. (Book 1, chap. 17, sec. 11.) " The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side by the hand of God, that they cannot conceive, or contrive, or execute any mischief any further than God himself doth not permit only, but command. Nor are they only held in fetters, but compelled also as with a bridle to perform obedience to those com- mands." This is given as a Calvinistic answer to the question, " How does God make angels and men sin ?" and is designed to convict Calvin and Calvinists of holding that "God procures adultery, cursings, ly- ings, and by his working on the hearts of the wicked, bends and stirs them to do evil." But the author of " the Institutes" is grossly FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. -°25 slandered in this representation. It is remarkable that the Socin- ians, Papists and Pelagians of Turretine's day, employed the same passage to bring odium upon Calvin and his theological sentiments. Turretine replies that it was cited dishonestly ('mala fide'), "and con- trary to the mind of the author." "For the scope of the passage ia to fortify the minds of the pious against fear and anxiety, inasmuch as they know that the devil and wicked men are not permitted to roam without restraint, but are under the government and direction of Divine Providence." Calvin has no reference at all to the cause of ein, but is speaking of the limits which God in his providence sets to the rage and malice of the wicked ; and thence he derives a topic of consolation to the pious, " when they recollect that the devil and the whole army of the wicked are so restrained by Divine power, that they can neither conceive of any hostility against us, nor after having con- ceived it, form a plan for its accomplishment, nor even move a finger toward the execution of such plan, any further than he hath permitted and even commanded them. They are not only bound by his chain, but compelled to do him service." Is this the same as saying that " God bends and stirs them to commit adulteries, cursings, lyings ?" But it is proper to inquire, What is the meaning of Calvin, when he represents Satan and wicked men as so controlled and restrained by Divine power, as to do what God not only permits, but commands. He doubtless refers to such cases as that of Job. God said, "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power." Tbis was said to Satan, in answer to his insolent challenge, " Doth Job fear God for nought ? Put forth thy hand, &c. and he will curse thee to thy face." And the pious sufferer himself ascribes his affliction not to Satan, but to God. " The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away," &c. And again, " the Lord said unto Satan, Behold he is in thine hand, but save his life." Chap. 2:6. " Even the devil himself," remarks Calvin, " dared not to at- tempt any thing against Job, without his permission and command." (Book 1, chap. 16, sec. 7.) The conduct of Shimei in cursing David is another example. "So let him curse," said the afflicted monarch, "because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David. Let him alone, and let him curse, for the Lord hath bidden him." 2 Sam. 16 : 10, 11. "When he confesses Shimei's maledictions to proceed from the Divine command," remarks Calvin, "he by no means commends his obedience as fulfilling a Divine precept; but acknowledging his tongue as the scourge of God, he patiently submits to the chastisement. Let it be remembered that whilst God, by means of the impious, fulfills his secret decrees, they are not excusable as though they were obedi- 28 326 APPENDIX I. ent to his precepts, which they wantonly and intentionally violate." (Book 1, chap. 18, sec. 4.) "Augustine somewhere makes the fol- lowing correct distinction : that they sin proceeds from themselves ; that in sinning they perform this or that particular action, is from the power of God, who divideth the darkness according to his pleasure." (Book 2, chap. 4, sec. 4.) Is this the same as saying, God makes angels and men sin ! Is it consistent with truth and righteousness to charge Calvin with teaching that " God makes men and angels, sin by his present irresistible power ?" " Oh, shame, where is thy blush !" To fasten the most impious seutiments upon Calvinists, the " Dia- logue" next adduces several references to Dr. Twisse, who was the honored Moderator of the Westminster Assembly, as follows : I. " All things come to pass by the efficacious and irresistible will of God." But this was originally the charge of Arminius against Cal- vinism, "efficaci Dei voluntate, et cui resisti nequeat omnia evenire," not the language of Twisse. It is true, Dr. Twisse professes his will- ingness to adopt this language with certain explanations, the design and purport of which may be learned from his definition of the Divine will or decree — "Propositum Dei, ut faciat vel permittat aliquid;" that is, " the purpose of God to do or permit anything." Would not Christian men be ashamed of such perversion of the sentiments of any author? II. (Vindicise Gracise, pars 3, p. 19.) "It is impossible anything should ever be done but that to which God impels the will of man." Dr. T. defines the will of God to be "his purpose to do or permit any thing." He does not admit that the Divine will (voluntas Dei) is ne- cessarily efficient, in the sense of being the cause of all events ; but ho asserts merely that nothing can come to pass without the will (either efficacious or permissive) of God. Dr. T. also takes much pains to show that the Divine will does not interfere with the perfect freedom of men in any of their moral actions. "Ego constanter nego," says he. " energeticum Dei decretuin, quicquam prcejudicare libertati creaturce, sed potious stabilire et corroborare." In connection with Wesley's extract, Dr. Twisse also largely explains the distinction be- tween what is physical in moral action, and what is moral, "bonum aut malum." Of the act, considered as physical, he admits that God is the author, "for in him we live, and move, and have our being." But this is another and a very different thing from "impelling" the will of man to wickedness, which he utterly disclaims and strenuously denies to be a part of his scheme, as will more fully appear under the next reference. This distinction will also explain what Dr. T. means FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 327 by saying "God is the author of that action which is sinful," &c. He is the author of the action (physically considered), but not the author of that which is sinful in the action. And Wesley, as published by the Conference, says the same thing : "God produces the action which is sinful. It is his work and his will. And yet the sinfulness of the action is neither his work nor will."* Thus Twisse and Wesley agiee. 111. (VindiciiM, pars 3, p. 22.) "God necessitates them only to the act of sin, not to the deformity of sin." This is not a fair trans- lation of any passage we have been able to find. And the latter part of the professed quotation, "when God makes angels or men sin," &o. we are persuaded is a gross misrepresentation. " Quid quod hodie," Bays Twisse, " satis constat inter theologos, impossibile esse quicquam fieri, cujus auctor non sit Deus, quoad substantia™ actus. Neque minus luculentum est fieri non posse ut Deus sit auctor malitiae aut peccati, qua peccatum est." That is, " It is satisfactorily proved among the- ologians of the present day, that nothing can take place of which God is not the author, as respects the substance of the act. Nor is it less evident that it cannot be that God should be the author of evil or sin, as respects its moral turpitude." Is this the same as to say, "God makes angels and men sin!" And in regard to the views of Dr. Twisse on the subject of necessity, the following are his own words : '• Whereas we see some things come to pass necessarily, some contin- gently, so God hath ordained that all things shall come to pass : but necessary things necessarily, and contingent things contingently, that is, avoidably, and with a possibility of not coming to pass— for every university scholar knows this to be the notion of contingency." Is this equivalent to saying that " all things come to pass by the effica- cious and irresistible will of God?" IV. Piscator is next misrepresented in this Arminian " Dialogue," as follows: "God made Adam and Eve for this very purpose, that they might be tempted and led into sin ; and by force of his decree it could not otherwise be but they must sin." "The reprobates more especially, who -mere predestinated to damnation,''' &c. "We neither can do more good than we do, nor less evil than we do: because God from eternity has precisely ordained that both the good and the evil should be so done." One part of these extracts, which we have put in italics, reminds us of Wesley's "horrible" decree of reprobation, viz. "God predestinates or foreappoints all disobedient unbelievers to damnation, according to his foreknowledge of all their works from the foundation of the world." The writings of Piscator referred to, we * Original Sin, part 3, sec. 7. Misc. Works, vol. ii. 328 APPENDIX I. have not been able to procure, but the following extract from his com- mentary on Acts 2: 23, -will exhibit his real sentiments: " Impiorum scelera pendent a decreto Dei, quia Deus deer evit per milter e Satanae, ut eos ad scelera impellat. Nee Deus malitiam instillet, nee illi respi- ciant ad voluntatem Dei, sed ad explendum libidines suas, idque contra expressa interdicta Dei." That is, "The wicked actions of impious men depend upon the Divine decree ; because God has decreed to permit Sata?i to instigate them to deeds of crime. Neither does God instil evil into their minds, nor do they have respect to the Divine will, but to the fulfillment of their evil desires and lusts, and that contrary to his express prohibition." Is this the same as, " God procures adultery, cursings, lyings," and "by force of his decree it could not otherwise be but they must sin ?" Oh shame ! V. Zanchius is represented as teaching that " God's first constitu- tion was that some should be destined to eternal ruin ; and to this end their sins were ordained, and denial of grace in order to their sins." But there is no such passage in the section of the works of Zanchius referred to in the tract ; and the accuracy and fairness of the extract may be learned from the following, which are the express words of that author: " Deus, ut quotidie permittit tara pios quam hnpios labi in peccata; sicquoque ab eterno decrevit ut omnes peccare permitte- ret. Quare non falso dictum universos homines eo fuisse ordinatos, ut permitterentur peccare ;" that is "God, as he daily permits the good as well as the wicked to fall into sin, so also from eternity decreed to permit all men to sin. Wherefore it is correctly said that all men were so far the objects of ordination, that they might be permitted to sin." VI. Zanchius (De natura Dei, pp. 553, 554) is next quoted as fol- lows : " Both the reprobate and the elect were foreordained to sin, as sin, that the glory of God might be declared thereby." We have already shown that this author taught directly the reverse of the sen- timent charged against him. Hear him still further : "Deus ut in nemine, autor est peccati, quatenus peccatum est; ita neminem ad pecca- tum quatenus peccatum est, admittendum predestinavit. Nam odit peccatum Deus, ut peccatum est. Ac proinde ad illud quatenus tale est, neminem dicendus predestinasse," &c. In these extracts the author asserts, directly in the face of Wesley's quotation, that God does not foreordain sin, as sin ! ! The following passages are from his treatise on " Absolute Predestination," translated by Toplady : "By the pur- pose or decree of God, we mean his determinate counsel whereby he did from all eternity preordain whatever he should do, or would permit FALSE QUOTATIONS EXPOSED. 329 to be done in time." " Predestination, as regards the reprobate, is that eternal, most holy, sovereign and immutable act of God's will, whereby he hath determined to leave (or permit) some men to perish in their sins, and to be justly punished for them." "God does not (as we are slanderously reported to affirm) compel the wicked to sin, as the rider spurs on an unwilling horse. God only says in effect that tremendous word, Let them alone." '"Tis most certainly his will to permit sin, but he cannot be himself the author of it." " He alone is entitled to the name of the true God, who governs all things, and without whose will (efficient or permissive) nothing can be done." "From what has been said," continues Zanchius, "it follows that Augustine, Luther, Bucer, and other learned divines, are not to be blamed for asserting that God may in some sense be said to will the being and commission of sin. For was this contrary to his determin- ing will of permission, either he would not be omnipotent, or sin could have no place." "No one can deny that God permits sin; but he neither permits it ignorantly nor unwillingly; therefore knowingly and willingly. Luther steadfastly maintains this in his book, ' De Servo Arbitrio,' (The will a slave). However it should be carefully noticed, 1st. That God's permission of sin does not arise from his taking delight in it. Sin, as sin, is the abominable thing that his soul hateth. 2. That God's free and voluntary permission of sin, lays no man under any forcible or compulsive necessity of committing it. Nor is he in the proper sense accessory to it, but only remotely and nega- tively so, inasmuch as he could, if he pleased, absolutely prevent it." In view of these extracts, we leave the reader to decide whether Zan- chius has been fairly dealt with by Wesley and his Arminian followers. VII. Peter Martyr (Comment, in Rom. pp. 36-413) comes next, as follows : "God supplies wicked men with opportunities of sinning, and inclines their hearts thereto. He blinds, deceives and seduces them. He, by his working on their hearts, bends and stirs them to do evil." Now with this compare, or rather contrast the following: "God doth not properly stir up man unto sin; but yet he useth the sins of wicked men, and also guideth them, lest they should pass beyond their bounds." " The defect, which properly is sin, proceedeth not of God ; but the action, which is a natural thing, wherein the defect sticketh, cannot be drawn forth but by the common influence of God.'' Is this the same as to say, "God, by his working on their hearts, bends and stirs them to evil," &c? Our quotations are from his " Common Places." His Commentary on Romans, as also the works of Zuinrle on " Providence," we have not been able to procure. But from the 28* 330 APPENDIX I. specimens which have passed before us, we may readily suppose they have not been handled more fairly than the others. VIII. We cannot close the discussion, without noticing the fact that, besides the instrumentality of their Tract Society, the Sabbath school is made to contribute to the same unhallowed enterprise. In No. 32, p. 96, of the " Methodist Sunday School and Youth's Library," they state the doctrine of Predestination as follows: " That God has by an eternal and unchangeable decree, predestinated to eternal damnation by far the greater part of mankind, and that absolutely, without any respect to their works, but only for the showing of the glory of his justice. And that for the bringing this about, he hath appointed theso miserable souls necessarily to walk in their wicked ways, that so his justice may lay hold of them." To those who have read the forego- ing Letters, and the previous parts of this Appendix, we need not say that this is not the doctrine taught in the Presbyterian Confession, and by our approved writers. The minister who should dare broach such a sentiment in the Presbyterian church, would be brought to trial for heresy and impiety. The author of the Sunday school book puts the passage in quotation marks ; but except by such unfair and dishonor- able treatment as we have ah'eady exposed, we challenge the preachers to produce such a passage from any of our approved authors. To fasten the impression upon- the minds of the young and unsus- pecting that this is a true exhibition of the doctrine, they are pre- sented with the usual array of references to Calvin and others. And lest the point and direction of the whole should be misunderstood, the Presbyterian Confession of Faith comes in for its share of perversion and misrepresentation. We have a repetition of Dr. Fisk's unright- eous quotation of chap. 3, sec. 5 : " Chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, without any foresight of faith and good works, as conditions or causes moving him thereto." The clause in italics, Dr. Fisk and the Suuday school book both carefully omit, for a very obvious reason. "The phrases, 'eternal election' and 'eternal decree of election,'" remarks Watson, " can in common sense mean only an eternal pur- pose to elect or choose out of the world, and sanctify in time by the Spirit and blood of Christ." "This is a doctrine which no one will contend with them." Very well. Is it supposed then that this eter- nal purpose "to choose and sanctify" was founded on a foresight of faith and good works ; in other words, on a foresight of sanctification ? That is, that God foresaw the sanctification of certain persons, and then purposed to choose and sanctify them ? Truly, it is a useless kind of election this, to purpose to sanctify those whom he foresaw to be previously sanctified! THE HEATHEN WORLD. 331 Again : In quoting chap. 3, sec. 7, of our Confession, this Sabbath school volume suppresses the clause which we italicize, as follows: " The rest of mankind, God was pleased for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain to dishonor and wrath, for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." Other equally humiliating examples might be adduced from this volume of instruction for youth, of the strange methods adopted by some professedly Christian men, to promote Christianity. We can only say, whether these things be the alphabet or the higher branches of " sin- less perfection," "0 my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto iheir assembly, mine honor, be not thou united!" APPENDIX II. THE HEATHEN WORLD— ITS STATE AND PROSPECTS. This is the subject of the Vllth chapter of the " Objections to Calvinism." As this topic did not properly fall under any of the preceding heads, we append a few strictures here. 1. The Presbyterian Confession (chap. 10, sec. 4) teaches that men "cannot be saved in any other way than by truly coming to Christ; though they be never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature and the law of that religion they do profess." Or as otherwise expressed (chap. 1), " The light of nature and the works of creation and Providence, * * * leave men inexcusable, * * * but are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and of his will which is necessary to salvation." Such we suppose to be the broad ground of our common Christianity. The opposite is Deism. We can hardly imagine that Arminians design to sympathize with infidels. 2. But while our Confession, in the passages referred to, speaks of the ordinary dealings of the Judge of the whole earth toward his fallen creatures, and represents the revealed "knowledge of God and his will" as "necessary to salvation" (for if there be any other way, why did Christ suffer the unspeakable agonies of the cross), these passages of course have no reference to infants, and adults who are idiots. Nor does our Confession teach that there are no cases of extraordinary appli- cation of saving grace to the souls of those adults who have never heard of the Saviour. Calvinists indulge the pleasing hope, that especially in the last struggle, some of the heathen may be thus 332 APPENDIX II. extraordinarily enlightened and saved. It must be admitted, however, that the Scriptures say very little on this subject; aud here they are closely imitated by our standards. It is not true, therefore, that "Presbyterians believe in the inevita- ble damnation of the whole heathen world."* Ridgely is an accredited authority, and was certainly a Calvinist, yet these are his words: " We know not when, to whom, or by what means God may reveal Christ to those who sit in darkness. * * * As for the possibility of his revealing Christ to those who do not sit under the sound of the gospel, we will not deny it." Again: "Others not willing, with the Deists, to set aside the necessity of Divine Revelation, have supposed that God may lead many of the heathen into the knowledge of Christ, . before they go out of the world, by some secret methods not to be dis- cerned by us."f This, he says, was Dr. Watts' judgment, and with this sentiment he appears to accord. 3. No person of common sense has ever questioned the following statement of Ridgely : "The heathen shall not be condemned for not believing in Christ, of whom they never heard." When, therefore, Messrs. Foster and Simpson say, " If a heathen may justly be damned for not having faith in Christ, of whom he never heard," &c. &c. their eloquence " wastes its sweetness on the desert air!" Laying out of view entirely the millions of infant and imbecile hea- then, who doubtless experience the saving benefits of the infinite sac- rifice of Calvary, though in an extraordinary manner — the Calvinist bases his expectation of the salvation of a part of the adult heathen world upon grounds altogether different from those alleged by Armin- ians. The Calvinist founds his hope of their salvation on the Divine mercy — the Arminian founds his upon the justice of God. That this is the true difference we proceed to prove. 4. "Are the heathen all necessarily damned," * * * say Fos- ter and Simpson, " because they did not live up to the light they had ? But can this be shown, that no heathen ever acted according to his best light ?"X Or as it is otherwise expressed — "Are those compre- hended among the perishing, who do the best they can according to the limited light they enjoy?" But do these authors really suppose that there is such a class of persons in heathen lands ? Where is the Christian who has the presumption to claim that "he always lives up to his best light" — "that he alwaj's does the best he can."' Such a person would be a bright specimen of "sinless perfection," and would be hard to find among the heathen; since he is "a rare bird" even * Objections, p. 201. f ^° d . v of Divinity, vol. ii. p. 490. } Objections, p. 205. TIIE HEATHEN WORLD. 333 under all the influences of the gospel! If this therefore he the foun- dation of the Arminian helief that the heathen are saved without the gospel, it is a sandy one. It is assuredly not the Christian foundation, which is Christ and Him crucified — not "doing the best we can." "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us" — "not of works lest any man should boast." " There is no other name given under heaven among men whereby we can be saved but the name of Jesus Christ." Indeed if "doing the best we can" will secure the salvation of the soul, it remains to be shown that there was any necessity for the Saviour to suffer and die — since men might have done " the best they could" as well without, as with a Saviour. Will it be replied, that through his sufferings and death the heathen without the gospel, receive grace and strength? Even granting the truth of the sentiment (which to say the least, is exceedingly doubtful), is it not an admitted principle that obligation increases in proportion as grace and strength are increased ; that duty is in the ratio of privilege aud opportunity, and that to whom much is given, of him will much be required ?" How then can the death of Christ aid the heathen to "do the best he can," since in proportion as it furnishes strength, it adds to his obligations ? Truly, if doing "the best they can according to the light they enjoy" be the condition of salvation, it would seem that the less light the better, because the less their duty and the more easy to comply with its requirements. In- deed the idea of Christ by his atonement communicating grace and strength to the heathen to "do the best ho can," is intrinsically ab- surd. Who ever speaks in this way of matters of ordiuary life — for example, who would speak of communicating strength to an infant to walk as soon or as fast as it can ; or to a man to leap as high as he can? It involves this contradiction, that it first supposes the ability to do a certain thing, and then in the communication of additional strength, implies an inability to do the same thing. 5. With the limitations now stated, let us look at the testimony of the Holy Scriptures on this subject. Do they teach that crdinarily salvation may be secured without the preaching, hearing and reception of the gospel ? (i.) Listen to the Apostle Paul in reply to this inquiry. Rom. 10 : 13-15. "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not be- lieved? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ? And how shall they hear without a preacher ? Aud how shall they preach except they be sent?" Salvation is bestowed upou 334 APPENDIX II. " whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord" (Jesus). But they alone can "call on him" who "believe" in him: "but how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard ?" How is it possible in stronger and more emphatic terms, to assert the necessity that the gospel should be heard, in order to be believed; or tk&t faith, whether in Jew or heathen, civilized or uncivilized, " cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." That, therefore, by which "faith cometh," and without which the Spirit of God demands, "how shall they believe and be saved ?" must needs be essential to salvation. TLis view of the subject is confirmed by the great commission of the risen Saviour, " Go preach the gospel to every creature : He that be- lieveth shall be saved," &c; thus distinctly recognizing the truth, that in order to faith or believing in Christ, the gospel must be preached and heard. Nor is the force of this argument evaded by alleging that it appears to exclude reading the Scriptures, and scriptural tracts from the class of means by which " faith cometh." Preaching and hearing the gospel were the almost exclusive means in primitive times, when as yet copies of the Scriptures were very scarce and difficult of access. Since, therefore, the Saviours command, "Go preach the gospel," did not exclude, but rather embraced the other appropriate methods of bringing the gospel in direct contact with the soul; so, for the same reason, the argument of Paul must be regarded as equally com- prehensive. The great truth, however, is equally established in both cases, viz. that in order to faith and salvation, the gospel must be ex- hibited, and brought to bear in its redeeming and sanctifying power, upon the lost soul. (ii.) The same truth is taught in Rom. 2: 12. "As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law." To sin without law is, if we mistake not, almost universally understood by Arminiana themselves, to mean, to sin without the knowledge of revealed religion. The Apostle is speaking of " the Gentiles which have not the law," and which " have the work of the law written in their hearts," "their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or else ex- cusing" them in their conduct. Now, says Paul, as many of the hea- then as have sinned against the law of conscience, without the know- ledge of revealed religion, " shall perish." In the same connection of argument, he tells us that "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," including both Jews and Gentiles ; and so far is he from finding room for a class of persons who are saved by doing "the best they can," that he speaks of "the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe ; for there THE HEATHEN WORLD. 335 M no difference:" and again the question returns, "bow shall they bo- lieve in bun of whom they have not heard I" (iii.) A third proof of the perishing condition of the heathen is derived from the views which the early converts from heathenism were taught to entertain of their previous state and prospects. " Where- fore," says Paul to the Ephesian Christians, "remember that ye, being in time past Gentiles in the flesh who are called uncircum- cision," &c. " that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world." Eph. 2:11, 12. Here is an inspired description of the condition of the heathen without the gospel. We have no reason to believe that the Ephesian converts had all been of the most abandoned and degraded cast, or that their character bad differed materially from that of the mass of the Gentile world ; yet of these persons, without any exception, the hea- then state is pronounced by Inspiration to have been Christless and hopeless. If the Apostle Paul had entertained the Arminian notions of Messrs. Foster and Simpson, his discourse would probably ha\e been something like the following : " Dear brethren, remember the estate from which you have been transferred. It is true that some of you were in a very bad condition ; and I don't wonder at it, for you neglected to improve the light (darkness ? Eph. 6:12, Col. 1:13), which you enjoyed : but thanks be to God, or to yourselves, there were some of you tcho were doing the best you could according to the limited light (darkness? Eph. 5: 11, Thess. 5:5) you enjoyed; and to say that you were 'without God' (original, atheists,) would be exceed- ingly 'repulsive and not calculated to do any good;' and to affirm that you had 'no hope' of salvation would be 'offensive' — 'an as- sertion of very doubtful character.' Indeed, to be plain with you, brethren, to be ' without Christ,' without a true knowledge and an experimental acquaintance with Christianity and its great Author, is an evil as regards this life ; but as regards your prospects for eternal happiness, if you only 'do the best you can,' to be 'without Christ' is a very small disadvantage, if indeed it be any disadvantage at all. For 'to whom little is given, of him little will be required.'" We will not pursue the subject farther. When our Arminian friends publish their next book against Calvinism, it would add much to its value, if they would endeavor to understand the suliject before they put pen to paper. It is a great pity that so much eloquent writing, especially in this chapter on "the Heathen World" — such powerful appeals and overwhelming outbursts — "fiendish cruelty" — 336 APPENDIX. "unconscious babe damned" — "insatiable jaws" — "spirit shivers" — " soul mutinies" — "shrouds the universe" — "monster of cruelty" — " Moloch" — " damnation a million fold" — " deeper, hotter, more awful hell" — " devouring abyss" — " devouring crater" — " cover the heavens with dismay" — "hon-id, horrid," &c. &c. ; it is a pity, we repeat, that such fine composition should be entirely lost. It may be all "strictly logical," as Bishop Simpson would say; but wo Calvinists are so unfortunate as to be unable to perceive it. Note. — In our Letter XVII. p. 276, the meeting houses, parsonages and other property controlled by the traveling preachers, are said to have been estimated in 1843 at from four to five millions of dollars. It was added that now (1860) the samo property is worth probably not less than ten mil- lions. This estimate, however, is much too low. In the Address of the Bishops to the General Conference, in Session at Buffalo, the value of "the churches and parsonages" alone, is estimated at twenty-one millions and nearly a quarter — being an increase in tivo years, " of the estimated value of church property, $3,341,624." '• The Western Book Concern" reports sales of boohs for four yoars ending January 21, 1860, amounting to over one million one hundred and twenty- seven thousand dollars. What wore the actual profits on these books wo are not informed. But the gross profits of their periodicals published at Cincin- nati, St. Louis and Chicago, for four years, are sot down at eighty-nine thou- sand six hundred dollars. From these facts, somo idea may be formod of the annual profits accruing at New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Pittsburgh, &c. Date Due P 27 3B ' f)