Ul U '/£ ^-^^^- £ rr /-. ■'■ y % «*** a tint mtotogkm ft PRINCETON, N. J. % % Presented by cjV\& C\vATnOr Division Section ■■ fiO.fiO. Digitize^ by the Internet Archive in Z(#r^ith>runding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/decreesofgoddiscOOseno J • lie Pr- sbyterjnn Herald. SOW SOME FOLKS CAff TALK! If any one will take the trouble to read a pic ^ned Astley, in the Nashville and Louisville Chns (l ,,n Advocate, of July 19th, and then read the following, he wilj understand what is meant by the above caption. After the Rev. J. FrfpV lm Walsh became the pastor in charge of the Methodist church at Paducah, Kentucky, for the" present year, he, on several occasions, alluded to !! certain doctrines held by the Presbyterian Church in terms not to be misunderstood, and calcula-" 1 ted to excite surprise, as well as sorrow, that any maa professing- to be an ambassador of Christ, I exhibit so inveterate hostility to doctr held by many eminent christians in all ages. On one occasion, some time last spring, hc°spoke of everlasting purposes as "everlasting nonsense." In another of his violent attacks upon the doc- trine of foreordination, which Mr. Astley is pleas- ed to call fatalism, li£ remarked that to talk of eternal purposes, would, or was fit to, "cause a sneer in hell." Now, when Mr. Walsh came to our town, the different denominations were at peace with each other; and members of one church, frequently attended worship at the house of another. Aftep he had "opened his" mouth, and sent forth hot volleys of sarcasm and ridicule against what he called^Calvinism, the pastor of the Presbyterian' Church, thinking that the members of his charge* ought to-be always ready to give, to every man that asketh, a reason of the hope that was in them, preached three sermons, or rather a ser- mon in three parts, on the decrees of God. Id this discourse, the pastor, (Rev. Mr. Senour,) quoted from the Articles of the Protestant Epis- copal Church, the Confession of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, the Methodist Book of Dis- cipline, from Wesley, and perhaps others, to prove that theJPresbvteiian Church was not alto- gether singular, with regard to all the points held by that church, concerning decrees, electiofl?: and reprobation. Another object, at which he aimed, in quoting the Discipline, was to show that there was either inconsistency in the Discip- line itself, or between it and some Methodist preachers. If he "misread" the Discipline he must have dune so through mUfnl-oa fV-r he lie had the quotation, in the same words that are used in the Discipline, written down in his manu- script, and before 1 his eyes while, he was preach- The deduction drawn from the quotation is in the printed sermon, and certainly no false quotation would help the argument, as all who read and understand may see. Mr. Sen our did not speak disrespectfully of Methodist preachers, unless the following was dis- respe.Tul. Speaking of the Book of Discipline, he said: "In the very Book of Discipline that is carried, at least in the pocket, if not always in head, of every Methodist circuit rider." The word "little," before Methodist circuit rider, has been interpolated by way of improvement. The only other passage against which a Metho- dist preacher could make any special ftompJ on the score of disrespect, contained an all'u to the aiorementioned happy expression, "a sneer in hell." Mr. Walsh animadverted very roughly upon Mr. Senour's alleged iniquities concerning the quotations, and said some v.it hard things, charging him with wilful misrepresntation, and saying ;hat lie could no longer consider him a gentleman. This is the kind of "sharp rebuke" which Mr, Asley says that Mr. Walsh adminis- tered to the "Rev. gentleman." With what kind of feeling Mr. Walsh "administered" this '^karp rebuke" can be better judged by his words and manner than by Mr. Astley's assertion. ''Out of the abundance of the heart the m,uth speak- eth." Some people thought that Mr. Walsh was very angry; and that Mr..Senour's conduct, bad as it was, bar! bees greatly aggravated in the re- port. I pa}, "bad as if, was." For Mr. Senour to presume to defend his own doctrine before his own church, and in the same town in which it had been abused, and (worse still) in which Mr. W. lived, and (worst of all) against Mr. W. him- self, was too bad. And then, that he should summon to his aid the "very book of discipline," "i this mjy work, was not to be endured. M<> must receive a '-sharp rebuke," and be digged with "gross misrepresentation," and be denounc- ed as no gentleman. I Some of Mr. Senour's brethren thought it might be well to publish the sermons which had produced such a "shaking among the dry bones," that people might see for themselves the awful things contained in them, and, also, get some correct information, iffhev wished it, concerning; the "horrible doctrine" so often held up toterrify "the natives. the idea that "learned profes- sionrl dignity was called to assist in the mighty undertaking, may perhaps be considered a compliment to the si rnum ; but among Mr. Sen- our's brethren, would hardly be considered a compliment to him. Having studied theology for some' years before tliey" undertake, to in.-trnct o 1 h- ers in the "myskries of godliness," Pr< • • , ' n Vi ■ l i i ni i 1 ministers are generally able, single-handed, to de- 1 their doctrine, at, [east ajfaTustmen of ordin- caliber*. The in an is not to be found, who .«■■ v wWiruth, that he assisted Mr: Sencmy ii iTh composition <>f a single sentence, by the . >iion of a single thought, or by Mie scl i tion of a *ingle quotation, or by recommending to ftfi nlm; ar.y audi-; B ,,|A>-.:Ievisrhildb.h M ri- .i . to tire review" " tn-b^eb 1 - ple here, a perfect dcmoiiduT of tile getMi and his sermons.'' that is nil a pWSiTHg tTr. :mi -x- l&tfy only in the happy imagination of Mr. The -jvntlemnn himself ts alive and in good herdth and spirit.; and so' far 'tis p^Ve who do media.. liisn . -.,. imp,ir,.l. I road ,-1/er'c once, of a lio'r induced Ed y y Oemc i wo wliile fe« which made the sha\ i This is the happy s' r. Astley, who «u book of discipline, that is carried at least in the pocket, if not always in the head, of every Methodist circuit rider. But you ask for the proof of these assertions — that is right. Take no man's assertion for argument or for authority. Here is the proof. Rev. John Wesley, in the third volume of his works, page 289, says : " With regard to unconditional election, I believe that God has unconditionally elected some persons to many peculiar advantages, both with regard to temporal and spiritual things ; and I do not deny, (though I cannot prove it so,) that he has unconditionally elected some persons to eternal glory." Here it is expressly stated that God elects some persons to pe- culiar advantages, temporal and spiritual. The spiritual advantages to which men are unconditionally elected, are the means of their salvation : then they who are thus elected unconditionally to spiritual advantages, are elected to salvation. If God unconditionally gives to me advantages, that he withholds from others, and the advantages thus given arc the means of my salvation, is not this distinguishing grace ? and if so, then here is the good old doctrine of election. Wesley, seeing that if he ad- mitted that some were elected to peculiar spiritual advantages, it would be folly to deny that some were elected unconditionally to eternal glory, there- fore adds : " I do not deny, though I cannot prove it so, that he (God) has unconditionally elected some to eternal glory." In the book of Dis- cipline of our Methodist brethren, under the head of ** the ministration of Baptism to infants," the Minister is directed to offer the following prayer, viz : " Grant that this child now to be baptized may receive the fullness of thy graces, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children." Is it not here clearly taught that God has elect children I 9 If not; why speak of the number of elect, if there is no such number or class of beings ? The doctrine of electing or distinguishing grace is taught by fair implication in the eighth article of the book of Discipline, just referred to, in which " the condition of man after the fall of Adam " is represented as such, " that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God," and that he has no power to do good works without the grace of God. Now, then, if man's condition is such since the fall, that he cannot make himself a christian, but is entirely dependent upon the grace of God, how can you account for the fact that some have such a sufficiency of grace as to make them christians, while many others are left in their sins to perish ? If all have an equal amount of grace, then all will be christians ; if all do not have an equal amount, then here is a distinguishing grace, by which all who have it are saved, and what is this but electing grace 1 We make these statements not to prove the truth of the doctrine now under consid- eration, but to show that the abuse heaped upon Presbyterians, by some, on account of this doctrine, comes with ill grace from those whose stand- ards contain the same doctrine, not in word, but in spirit ; and if they will preach according to their books, to which they profess to subscribe, we will not find fault with them. / REPROBATION. III. In the third place, we are to consider the Decree of Reprobation, or the remaining part of the answer to the thirteenth question of our Larger Catechism, which is as follows : " God hath passed by the rest, (the non- elect) to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted to the praise of the glory of his justice." This part of the answer needs no proof, if what has already been said is true. But as this doctrine has been greatly mis- represented and caricatured, it may be well not to dismiss the subject too hastily. I will first state our views negatively and then positively. 1st. — Negatively — We do not believe, as some anti-Presbyterians affirm we do, that God has created many of our race, say nine out of ten, for the express purpose of destroying them eternally in hell, without any respect to works or sin in the creature. We teach no such doctrine. It cannot be found in our Confession of Faith, nor in the writings of any Presby- terian, from the writings of that great predestinarian, the Apostle Paul, down to Calvin, and from Calvin down to the writers of the present day. We give not bare assertions, after the manner of some of our opponents, for arguments or authority. To show that Presbyterians do not teach that God has determined to destroy many or any of our race, without any respect to sin, you are reminded of what is said in the answer to the 13th question of our Larger Catechism, where it speaks of those whom God '• hath passed b\, and fore-ordained to dishonor and wrath, to be for their sin inflicted." Here it is taught that God determined to punish some men, not without, but for sin. The Synod of Dort, which met in the year - '. 1618, and then represented the Calv/nistic world, in the 1st chapter of the (t) Acts of the Synod and 15th section, speaking of the decree of repro- bation, says : " This is the decree of reprobation which determines that God is in no wise the author of sin, (which to be thought of is blas- phemy)." To these we might add other authorities, but let these suffice tor the present. There are some who seem so determined to fix upon Presbyterians the atrocious doctrine that God has i! determined lo damn a 2 10 portion of our race without respect to works or sin," that they are unwill- ing to take our standards as a full and fair exposition of our faith ; and to fasten this odium upon us, they seek to fasten upon us the writings and opinions of Calvin. Why sirs, why make us responsible for the writings and opinions of Calvin ? The Presbyterian Church did not originate with Calvin as the Methodist Church did with Mr. Wesley. Our Church can be traced back to an earlier date. It originated, as we believe, with Christ and his Apostles. At the same time wo venerate the name of Calvin, because he was a great and good man, an able defender and expounder of the Word of God, a hero in the great Reformation, who stood as firmly in opposition to the powers of darkness and " the man of sin " as the everlasting Alps with which he was surrounded. But it is said your Pres- byterian Board of Publication has published his Institutes. Read the pre- face of the Board, and you will find that they do not subscribe to every thing stated in his work. So that if it is proved that Calvin taught that God destroys many of our race, regardless of sin, you cannot make the Presbyterian Church responsible for that. The truth is Calvin never taught the doctrine for which our very charitable opponents would hold us responsible, if we are to take his word in preference to theirs, as recorded in his work on " Secret Providence," pages 17, 18, 27, where he expressly denies that God predestinates any to destruction regardless of sin. Thus it appears that the charge so often made against Presbyterians, which too has created so much prejudice against them, so far from proving that they teach that God has created a large portion of our race, expressly for the purpose of damning them, with or without sin, comes much nearer prov- ing that " there is something rotten in Denmark," or that they who make the charge have none to spare of that charity that " thinketh no evil." 1 have now stated negatively what is meant by the decree of Reprobation ; Ave do not mean that God has decreed to destroy any human being with- out regard to sin. 2d — I will now state positively what we mean when we say, " that God has passed by and fore-ordained many to wrath to be for their sins inflicted," etc. Our standards carefully distinguish between the efficient and permis- sive decree ol God. While God unconditionally, as to human merit, elected some of our race to eternal life, he permitted others to go on in sin, and de- termined to punish them for their sin. In other words, while God did not originate sin, he permitted its existence — while he did not cause any of our race to sin, he has permitted many to sin, and justly has determined to pun- ish them for sins committed of their own free choice. This conclusion cannot be avoided, that God purposed, decreed or willed to permit the existence of sin. Deny this, and you drive me to Atheism. No man can deny this, without denying the existence of a God, such a being as the God of the Bible is rep- resented to be. He is there represented as a sovereign. " He doth all things according to his will in the armies of heaven, and among the in- habitants of earth, and none can stay his hand, or say unto him what » ^doest thou." — Dan. ch. iv. v. 35. " Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive ^ glory and honor and power, for thoulhast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.' — Rev. ch. iv. v. 11. Here God's sovereignty is taught. Deny, then, that God either created or permitted everything that exists to be created, and you deny his sovereignty. Deny, for example, that God permitted the existence of Satan, and you certainly deny his sovereignty. If Satan did not exist by the permission of God, irj ho existed without it ; or, in other words, came into existence con- II trary to God r s will, and if he existed contrary to the will of God, then Satan had power equal, if not superior, to God ; for according to this he came into existence contrary to God's will, who would have prevented his existence if he could have done so. Does not this make Satan equal, if not superior to God 1 Again, God must have been prior to all other ex- istence ; in other words, there was a period when no other being existed but the First Great Cause of all beings. Then no being could possibly have existed without the will or permission of God. For example — there was a period when angels did not exist ; could they ever have had an exist- ence without the permission of God ? If so, then they were independent of God, and he is not the sovereign of heaven and earth. There was a period when man did not exist; could he ever have existed without the will of God ? There was a period when he was sinless, and a time when Satan entered the garden of Eden, and thus introduced sin and all our wretchedness. But did not God purpose to permit that event ? If yoa say he did not, you then say that he had not power to prevent it. If God permitted the event, then he permitted the introduction of sin into our world ; and because men became sinful wilfully, and God punishes them for their sins, does that prove that God created them for the purpose of destroying them ? Bearing in mind the distinction between the efficient and permissive decree of God, you will not look upon the decree of reproba- tion as that horrible doctrine that it is sometimes represented to be. God, fore-seeing from all eternity that a portion of our race would never repent, but would of their own free choice live in sin, he from eternity determined to permit them to pursue their own course, and thus work out their own destruction. This is the decree of reprobation. After all that has been said, Presbyterians are not so very much more hetrodox than some ether denominations on this subject. In some of their published doctrines, we find them teaching just what we teach, that God permitted the existence of sin, and fore-seeing sinners from eternity, he determined to punish them for sin. Our Cumberland brethren in the answer to the seventh question of their Catechism, tell us that God " hath fore-ordained to bring to pass what shall be for his own glory." Let us ask, what is for the glory of God t For an answer to this question turn to their Confession of Faith, ch. xxxiii, sec. 2, where we are taught that God hath appointed a Day of Judgment " for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy," in the salvation of believers, and for the manifestation of the glory of his justice, in the dam- nation of reprobates. Then, if God has appointed a Day of Judgment for the manifestation of the glory of his justice in the destruction of the wicked, that was fore-ordained, according to the answer to the seventh question of the Catechism already quoted from. Hera, then, is the doctrine of repro- bation. (See also Cumberland Confession of Faith, ch. v, sec. 4.) We must not leave our Cumberland brethren without company. In a volume of doctrinal tracts published by authority of the General Conference of the Methodist Church, and on page 139, we find this language : " God pre- destinates or fore-appoints all disobedint unbelievers to damnation, not without, but according to his fore-knowledge of all their works from the foundation of the world." On page 140 it is said : " God refused or rep- robated all disobedient unbelievers as such to damnation." Here, then, is the doctrine of reprobation in terms quite as strong as any in our own book, and, indeed, a little stronger — for while we here find the very word reprobate, it cannot be found in our Confession of Faith, or in the Larger 12 or Shorter Catechism. You may find the word reprobate in a number of scripture quotations in the margin of our Confession, and once in the index, but nowhere else. In charity we say to our brethren of other denomina- tions, who find fault with us for our doctrines, master first the difficulties of your own system, and then assist your neighbors. In further pursuing this subject, we prefer giving our views not in the words of man's wisdom, but in the words of God. If we find the doctrine in the Bible we dare not reject it, whether it is consonant with our views of God's character or not ; just as we receive ten thousand inexplicable truths in the natural world. Paul, in his second letter to the Thess.. (ch. ii, v. 11, 12,) says : " For this cause God shall send them strong delusion that they should believe a lie ; That they all might be damned who believe not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." Jude, v. 4, " For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." In the first chapter of Romans, v. 28, speaking of the Gentiles, Paul says : " God gave them over to a reprobate mind." *' The Lord hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." — Prov. ch xvi, v. 4. " For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout the earth. What, it God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction," etc. — Rom., ch. ix, v. 17, 22. " Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates." " But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates." — 2d Cor., ch. xiii, v. 5, 6. (See also 2d Peter, ch. ii, v. 12, Mark, ch. iv, v. 11.) If these passages, to which many others might be added, do not teach the doctrine of Repro- bation, then we would be thankful to any one for an explanation of them. Please tell us what they mean. When Job's children and servants were destroyed, and his property was carried away by the Sabeans and Chaldeans, Job recognised the hand of God in this affair, for he said : " the Lord gave and the Lord hath taken away." After the Saviour was put to death it was declared by the Apostles, (the record is in Acts, ch. iv, v. 27, 28,) that " both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatsoever God's hand and his counsel determined before to be done." Here, then, the doctrine for which we contend, is so plainly taught, that even comment is useless. Let those who abuse and misrepresent these teachings, remember that they are but abusing God ; and we rejoice to know that to him they are responsible. We have thus explained what is meant by the Decrees of God. We believe that " God has fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass — that he has fore-ordained or purposed to save a portion of the human race, and that he has purposed to permit another portion to live just as they wish, in sin, for which they are to be forever destroyed. Judge whether these things are so. IT so, God knows our future history — he knows the cir- cumstances of our death, and he knows whether we will be prepared for heaven or hell. But how can God know these things with unerring cer- tainty, if they are not to be as he knows they will be. Of course these things are hid from us ; we know not our future history. This only we do know, and it is enough for us : " He that believeth on the Son hath ever- lasting life : and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him." 13 OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. IV. Before closing this subject, we are to notice some of the objections that are frequently urged against this doctrine, or rather against the word of God. It is a remarkable fact, and I call especial attention to it, that the objections sometimes urged against the Decrees of God, as taught by Presbyterians, are the very same that the Apostle Paul anticipated would be made against the doctrine as taught by himself in the ninth chapter of Romans, where the doctrine is clearly stated, proved, and illustrated. He represents the objector as saying, " Is there unrfghteousness with God ?" Just as some men now object, and say, well, if your doctrine is true, the very doctrine that the Apostle here teaches, then God is " unrighteous and more cruel than Satan." The Apostle further represents the objector as saying, if this doctrine is true, then it destroys the responsibility of man and of course his free agency. " Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will." To these and other objections commonly urged against this doctrine, for an answer, we might content ourselves, by giving the same withering rebuke to those who urge them, that the Apostle did to those he anticipated as thus objecting : "Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest against God? shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus ?" But as our Armenian brethren urge objections against the Decrees of God, I deem it my duty to meet them, and I believe that many of the very objections that they urge against our doctrines lie with equal weight against their own. First — Your attention will be directed to one of the objections anticipa- ted by the Apostle, viz : If the doctrine of decrees is true, then God is an unjust being. To deal unjustly with any man is to treat him worse than he deserves. If God treats any of his creatures worse than they deserve, he deals unjustly with them ; otherwise he does not. Are the elect treated worse than they deserve 1 Surely not. They are treated just the reverse — infinitely better than they deserve. Then they cannot accuse God of injustice. The non-elect have no reason to complain ; for God only punishes them according to their sins. None ha\e reason to complain that they are treated unjustly, because God passes them by, and leaves them free to sin, and then punishes them for sins wilfully committed. If fifty of our citizens should violate the laws of our land by commit- ting the highest crimes known in law, would there be any injustice in punishing them for the crimes they wilfully committed. Certainly none. So God might have passed by our entire race, when we had sinned and wilfully transgressed his holy law, and there could have been no reason- able complaint. Surely no man will say that God was under obligations to give bis Son for our redemption. Then Christ might have remained forever in the bosom of his Father, and still God would have been just. In tha/ event, not one of our race could have been saved ; so that God would have been just, even if he had not saved one of the human family. But, say some of our opposers, unless God saves all he ought not to save any, when all are equally guilty. So proud man may say, and even dic- tau to God and tell him what he ought to do. " Nay, but O man who art thou that repliest against God." If this objection is worth anything, it lies with equal weight against the Armenian system. We teach that God pur- posed to do from eternity just what they say he in fact does. They tell is, and not unfrequently in the most harsh and boisterous terms, that 'many will be forever lost in hell, while many will be saved. Why this 14 difference ? Why are many lost 1 0, say our opponents, because some will not repent. Just what we teach ; God foreseeing that many would not repent, determined to punish them for their sins. Why then charge Pres- byterians with making God unjust, when we teach that God has deter- mined to do the very thing that our very charitable opponents say that he in fact does do. Second — It is objected, that if God fore-ordains whatsoever come to pass he is the author of sin. Some may say and think so, but Presby- terians neither say nor think so. We do not understand the term ordain or fore-ordain to mean fatality or physical necessity. When it is said that Christ " was verily fore-ordained before the foundation of the world," we do not mean that he was under the physical necessity of dying or wa3 compelled by fate to die. But this is our meaning when we speak of fore- ordaining an event. "It is to form such a purpose respecting it, as ren- ders certain its future existence, through positive or permissive agency." Now, does it follow that because God fore-ordained or purposed to save a portion of our race, and fore-ordained to permit another portion to go on in sin, or to leave them to themselves to pursue their own course, that he is the author of their sins ? Take an illustration : Suppose you knew that by preaching the Gospel to five men, one of them would repent and turn from sin, but you also knew that the repentance of that one would so enrage the others that they would curse the very God of their existence, and cruelly persecute the man that repented. Knowing these things with certainty, you determined to preach to the five men, and thus save one instrumentally ; do you not at the same time decree, in one sense, the cuksing and persecution of the others ? and yet you are in no sense the author of their wickedness. Because God enlightens some, and others are hardened by the use of the same means and God punishes them for the neglect and abuse of the means of grace, does that make God the author of sin ? There certainly is a vast difference between the sun's being the source of heat and light and being the cause of darkness. When the sun sets darkness follows, but would any man in his senses say, that the sun, which is the fountain of light, was also the fountain of dark- ness ? So God is not the source of sin, but when he withdraws his pre- sence and influence, sin invariably follows ; but that no more makes God the author of sin, than the setting of the sun makes it the source of darkness. But it is sometimes insinuated that this distinction between the efficient and permissive decrees of God is not found in our standards, but is a modern invention. Read at your leisure, from our Confession of Faith, and you will find in the answer to the 19th question of the Larger Cate- chism, and in the 6th ch. of the Conf., sec. 1st, the distinction made be- tween efficient and permissive decrees. You will find the same distinc- tion also made in the 3d ch. of the Conf., sec. 1st, and ch. 5, sec. 4 ; where also it is expressly denied that God is the author of sin. The same distinction has been made by Presbyterians in all ages. Augustine, more than twelve hundred years before an Armenian Methodist had an exist- ence, made the same distinction that we do between the EFFICIENT and PERMISSIVE decree of God. See his work on the Trinity, book 3, ch 4. Calvin made the same distinction ; our Scotch brethren in their explana- tory CatechisnV published about a century ago, made the same distinction. Here is the extract : " Quest. 2C. How does the decree of God extend to things naturally and morally good ? 15 Am. Effectively : because Cod is the author and efficient cause of all good.— Phil. ch. ii, v. 13. Quest. 27. How does it extend to things morally evil ? Ans. Permissively and directively only. — Acts, ch. xiv., v. 16. Quest. 31. How do you prove that God cannot be the author of sin? Ans. From the contrariety of it to his nature and law," etc. Does this look like making God the author of sin, or like a modern in- vention 1 But Presbyterians are not alone in making this distinction. An eminent Methodist, Rev. Richard Watson, says : " It is obvious, that by nothing can we fairly avoid this consequence," (i. e. of making God the author of sin,) " but by allowing the distinction between determinations to do on the part of God, and determinations to permit certain things to be done by others." " A decree to permit involves no such consequen- ces," as making God the author of sin. — Theology of Watson, vol. 2, page 424. Now hear Mr. Wesley's testimony on this subject. In his sermon entitled " God's love to fallen man," relative to the fall of Adam, he says : " Was it not easy for the Almighty to prevent it?" He answers: " It was undoubtedly in his power to prevent it ; for he hath all power, both in heaven and earth. But it was known to him at the same time that it was best, on the whole, not to prevent it." These eminent divines most sen- sibly admit the distinction that we make between the efficient and permiss sive decree of God. If, however, the Calvfnistic view of this subject makes God the author of sin, the Armenian system does the same thing. Let us catechise an Armenian brother a little. Quest. 1. Do you believe that God knew when he placed Adam in the garden of Eden that he would sin 1 Ans. Yes, God knowing all things past, present and future, knew that he would fall. Quest. 2. Had God power to prevent him from sinning I Ans. Yes, for God is all-powerful. Quest. 3. If God knew that our first parents would sin and he had power to prevent it, but did not, did he not. PERMIT it? Yes, answers Watson and Wesley. , This is Calvanism, and if it makes God the author of sin, then the Armenian system does just the same thing. Third — It is objected, that if this doctrine is true, the Atonement of Christ is not sufficient for the sins of the whole world. Presbyterians of this and of all ages, so far as we have their history, have taught that the Atonement of Christ was sufficient for the sins of the whole world. The reason why any are lost is because " they never truly come to Christ and therefore cannot be saved." (See Confession of Faith.) Calvin says the blood of Christ is sufficient for the whole world." (See Com. on John 2d chap.) The Synod of Dort says in chap, ii, sec. 3, of their proceedings : ,( The death of the Son of God is abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world." We do not teach then that the Atonement is insuf- ficient for the sins of the world. Is, there no difference then, (do you ask ?) between Armenians and Calv/nists on this point ? They tell us that Christ died intentionally to save all men. This we deny. For if you say that Christ intended to save all men, you must take one of these two positions : 1st — Either that all men will be saved, or 2d — that Christ was defeated in his intentions. In other words, you are compelled to be either a Universalist or a Socinian. If you say that Christ was defeated in his intentions, you rob him of his most glorious attributes, and make him altogether such an one as ourselves. To suppose that Christ was defeated in his intentions, is to impeach his wisdom. If Christ is an all-wise being would he likely undertake what he could not accomplish ? Even men do not act with such folly as this — they never undertake anything when they 16 know they will fail in accomplishing their end. To say, then, that Christ died intending to save all men, is to say that he had not wisdom enough to know that he would be defeated in his intentions. This position, also, takes from the Saviour fore-knowledge. If the Saviour knew before his death that many for whom he died would be lost, he certainly would not have died for them ; for so far as they were concerned he would have died in vain. More than this, if one soul that he intended to save, should finally be lost, in this case the Saviour would be defeated in his intentions ; and if defeated in one instance, he might be defeated in other instances, yea, in the salvation of every one, so that not one for whom he died might be saved. To say that Christ was defeated in his intentions respecting the salvation of one being, is to say that he may be defeated in every instance, and thus God may have given his Son to a cruel death without accomplish- ing any good end. Again, we say that the Atonement of Christ is sufficient for the sins of the whole world, and no one ever will be lost because of any insufficiency in the Atonement. Hence Presbyterians preach from such texts as these : '* Ho ! everyone that thirsteth, come ye to the waters," etc., Christ " by the grace of God should taste death for every man," etc. But this is a very different position from saying that Christ died intending ■* to save all men ; tor then he either was defeated in his intentions or else \ all will be saved. Whom,, then, does Christ intend to save by his death ? Presbyterians and the Bible Say all who believe in him. If we mistake not, this is consonant with our Cumberland brethren, who say, in the 11th ch. of their Confession, section 4 : " God, before the foundation of the world, determined to justify all true believers, and Christ did in the fulness of time, die for their sins," etc. The Book of Discipline of our Methodist brethren contains an article on this subject. If handed to me to read, and if I did not know that it was among the articles of their religion, and that they did not hold to such a doctrine, I would unhesita- tingly pronounce it the production of a Universalist. The article is the twentieth, a part of which reads thus — " the offering of Christ once made, is that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world, both original and actual." According to this article, Christ has made a perfect satisfaction for all the sins of the whole world. How, then, can any be lost, since a perfect satisfaction has been made for all sin ! Our Methodist brethren tell us that the reason why many will be lost, is because they will not repent and believe on Christ. Is the want of either repentance or belief a sin 1 If you say not, then God will condemn no one for the want of either, for he does not condemn without sin. If you say the want of repentance or belief is a sin, then according to the above article a perfect satisfaction has been made for all sin, both actual ^ and original. Take either horn of the dilemma, and the result is ^ ' Universalism. Why urge objections, against Presbyterianism, brethren, since objectious quite as formidable lieVgainst your own system : " First cast out the beam out of thine own eye ; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." Fourth — It is objected, that if this doctrine is true, there is no use of using the means ordained to Salvation. For, say our opponents, " if I am to be saved I will be saved — if I am to be lost I will be lost, do what I may." If this objection, that has no foundation in truth, and, to say the most of it, is puerile in the extreme, was not so often urged against Presbyterians, I would not notice it. , The reply made by a venerable divine, of blessed memory, to an Armenian, who asked him if he was not one who believed " that what was to be would be," is a sufficient answer to this objection. 17 The reply was, " Do you believe that what is to be will not be . ? " As to the use of means, or second causes, our standards clearly teach that God has ordained, not only the end, but the means. (See Confession of Faith, chap, iii, sec. 1.) We teach a doctrine very similar to what we find in the Bible, in a number of places. At one place we are told that God had determined to destroy the earth by a Mood, but that he determined to save one man and his family, not without, but by, the use of means or second causes ; hence the determination also to build the Ark. God determined, and made known his determination, before-hand to save Noah and his family, and that too by the Ark as a weans, or second-cause. So while it is the determination of God to save his people, it is also his deter- mination to save them by the use of means. " What God has joined together let no man put asunder." Our views on this subject are clearly expressed in the 27th chap, of Acts, where we are taught that when Paul was on a voyage to Rome, the men of the ship on which he had embarked seemed about to be lost, so much so, that it is said, " all hope that we should be saved was taken away." But it was otherwise ordered by God, and he by the ministry of an Angel, informed Paul of his intentions and assured him of safety. But did Paul cease to use the means of safety, when he knew before-hand the intention of God to save himself and the ship's crew ? No, when the sailors, who alone were capable of managing the ship, were about to