diff options
Diffstat (limited to '28103-h')
| -rw-r--r-- | 28103-h/28103-h.htm | 4387 |
1 files changed, 4387 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/28103-h/28103-h.htm b/28103-h/28103-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..c112b31 --- /dev/null +++ b/28103-h/28103-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,4387 @@ +<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" +"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"> +<html> +<head> +<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content= +"text/html; charset=utf-8"> +<title>The Doctrines of Predestination, Reprobation, and +Election.</title> + +<style type="text/css"> + body {font-family:'Bookman Old Style','Book Antiqua','Garamond'; font-size:12pt;text-align:justify;margin-left:3em;margin-right:3em} + p {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0} + hr {text-align:center;width:15%;margin-top:1.7em;margin-bottom:1.5em} + p.pnn {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0} + p.ps {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em} + p.pn {text-indent:1.5em} + p.pns {text-indent:1.5em;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em} + p.pc {text-align:center;margin-top:1.5em;margin-bottom:1.5em;font-size:10pt} + p.pch {text-align:center;font-size:14pt;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:1em} + p.pcn {padding-left:3em;text-indent:-2em} + p.p0 {padding-left:2em;text-indent:-2em} + p.p0s {padding-left:2em;text-indent:-2em;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em} + p.p1 {padding-left:5em;text-indent:-2em} + p.p1s {padding-left:5em;text-indent:-2em;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em} + p.p2 {padding-left:6em;text-indent:-2em} + p.p2s {padding-left:6em;text-indent:-2em;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em} + p.p3 {padding-left:7em;text-indent:-2em} + p.p3s {padding-left:7em;text-indent:-2em;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em} + .sc {font-variant:small-caps} + p.f9 {font-size:9pt} + p.f11 {font-size:11pt} + p.f14 {font-size:14pt} + p.f16 {font-size:16pt} + p.f18 {font-size:18pt} + + p.mbt {margin-bottom:0.3em} + p.mb1 {margin-bottom:1em} + p.mb2 {margin-bottom:2em} + p.mb4 {margin-bottom:4em} + p.mb12 {margin-bottom:12em} + + p.mt17 {margin-top:1.7em} + p.mt2 {margin-top:2em} + p.mt3 {margin-top:3em} + p.mt5 {margin-top:5em} + p.mt12 {margin-top:12em} + +</style> +</head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of The Doctrines of Predestination, +Reprobation, and Election, by Robert Wallace + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: The Doctrines of Predestination, Reprobation, and Election + +Author: Robert Wallace + +Release Date: February 17, 2009 [EBook #28103] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: UTF-8 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DOCTRINES OF PREDESTINATION *** + + + + +Produced by Keith G. Richardson + + + + + +</pre> + +<p><a href="#Title">Title Page.</a></p> +<p><a href="#Preface">Preface.</a></p> +<p><a href="#Contents">Table of Contents.</a></p> +<p><a href="#Index">Index.</a></p> +<div style="text-align:center"> +<p style="font-size:12pt;margin-top:3em;margin-bottom:0.3em"> +EVANGELICAL UNION DOCTRINAL SERIES.</p> +<p style="font-size:11pt;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:12em"> +(<i>FIFTH ISSUE</i>.)</p> +<p style="font-size:14pt;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em">THE +DOCTRINES</p> +<p style="font-size:9pt;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1em">OF</p> +<p style="font-size:16pt;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:10em"> +PREDESTINATION, REPROBATION, AND ELECTION.</p> +<p style="font-size:12pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em"> +<i>EVANGELICAL UNION DOCTRINAL SERIES.</i></p> +<hr> +<p style="font-size:9pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1.5em"><i>The +following Volumes of the Series are now ready,<br> +Price is. 6d. each:</i>—</p> +<p>REGENERATION: Its Conditions and Methods. By the Rev. +R<span class="sc">obert</span> C<span class="sc">raig</span>, +M.A.</p> +<p>THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD. By the Rev. R<span class= +"sc">obert</span> M<span class="sc">itchell</span>.</p> +<p>THE HOLY SPIRIT’S WORK: Its Nature and Extent. By the Rev. +G<span class="sc">eorge</span> C<span class="sc">ron</span>.</p> +<p>THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. By the Rev. W<span class= +"sc">illiam</span> A<span class="sc">damson</span>, D.D.</p> +<hr> +<p style="font-size:9pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:10em"> +<i>OTHERS IN PREPARATION.</i></p> +<p style= +"font-size:17pt;letter-spacing:0.3em;margin-top:12em; margin-bottom:2em"> +<a name="Title">THE DOCTRINES</a></p> +<p style="font-size:9pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:4em">OF</p> +<p style="font-size:18pt;margin-top:0;margin-bottom:1.3em"> +PREDESTINATION, REPROBATION,</p> +<p style= +"font-size:18pt;letter-spacing:0.3em;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:5em"> +AND ELECTION.</p> +<p style="font-size:9pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1.5em">BY</p> +<p style= +"font-size:14pt;letter-spacing:0.2em;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0.5em"> +ROBERT WALLACE,</p> +<p style="font-size:9pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:14em"> +<i>Pastor of Cathcart Road E. U. Church, Glasgow.</i></p> +<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0.2em">LONDON: HAMILTON, +ADAMS, & CO.</p> +<p style="margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0.5em">GLASGOW: THOMAS D. +MORISON.</p> +<p style="font-size:10pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:16em"> +1880.</p> +<p style= +"font-size:16pt;letter-spacing:0.2em;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em"> +<a name="Preface">PREFACE.</a></p> +<hr></div> +<p>W<span class="sc">ere</span> a number of shipwrecked mariners +cast upon an island, one of their first inquiries would be, Is it +inhabited? Having observed footmarks upon the sand, and other +tokens of man’s presence, another question would be, What is the +character of the people? Are they anthropophagi, or are they of a +friendly disposition? The importance of such questions would be +realised by all. Their lives might depend upon the answer to the +latter.</p> +<p class="pn">We look around upon the universe, and everywhere +observe marks of design, or the adapation of means to ends. The +conviction gathers upon us with deepening power, that there must +have been a supreme intelligence arranging the forces of nature. +If I throw the dice box twenty times, and the same numbers always +turn up, I cannot resist the conclusion that the dice must have +been loaded. The application is simple. But, as in the case of +the mariners, a second question arises, viz.:—What is the +character of the Being revealed in nature? Is He beneficent, or +like the fabled Chronus, who devoured his children? It is +substantially with this second question that the following work +has to do. It is a treatise concerning the character of God.</p> +<p class="pn">The subjects discussed have been for many years the +occasion of much controversy and difficulty. Whilst to certain +minds it were more agreeable to read exposition of Christian +truth, yet the followers of Christ may often have to contend for +the faith once delivered to the saints. Our Lord’s public +ministry showed how earnestly He contended for the truth. At +every corner He was met by the men of “light and leading” amongst +the Jews, and who did their best to oppose Him. Paul, too, when +he lived at Ephesus, disputed “daily in the school of one +Tyrannus, and this continued by the space of two years.” The +period of the Reformation was also one of earnest discussion +between the adherents of the old faith and the followers of +Luther. The questions discussed in those days, both in apostolic +and post-apostolic times, were eminently practical; but they were +not a whit more so than the questions of Predestination, +Reprobation, and Election. These touch every man to the very +centre of his being when he awakes from the sleep of +indifference, and wishes to know the truth about the salvation of +his soul. It has been our object, in the present volume, to +dispel the darkness which has been thrown around those subjects, +and to let every man see that the way back to the bosom of the +heavenly Father is as free to him as the light of heaven.</p> +<p class="pn">The following treatise consists of an Introduction +bearing on the history of the questions discussed; Part I. treats +of Predestination; Part II. is on Reprobation, and Part III. on +Election.</p> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:18pt;letter-spacing:0.1em;margin-top:10em; margin-bottom:1em"> +<a name="Contents">CONTENTS.</a></p> +<hr> +<p class="pcn"><a href="#Intro">I<span class= +"sc">ntroduction</span>.</a></p> +<hr> +<p style="text-align:center;margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:2em"> +<a href="#P1"><i>PART I.—PREDESTINATION.</i></a></p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C1">CHAPTER I.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">T<span class="sc">he</span> W<span class= +"sc">ord</span> P<span class="sc">redestination, and the</span> +D<span class="sc">octrine as held by</span> C<span class= +"sc">alvinists.</span></p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C2">CHAPTER II.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> P<span class= +"sc">redestination in reference to</span> D<span class= +"sc">ivine</span> W<span class="sc">isdom.</span></p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C3">CHAPTER III.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">T<span class="sc">he</span> D<span class= +"sc">octrine of</span> P<span class="sc">redestination considered +with reference to</span> A<span class="sc">lmighty</span> +P<span class="sc">ower.</span></p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C4">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">P<span class="sc">redestination considered with +reference to</span> D<span class="sc">ivine</span> F<span class= +"sc">oreknowledge</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C5">CHAPTER V.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">P<span class="sc">roof</span>-T<span class= +"sc">exts for</span> C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> +P<span class="sc">redestination</span> E<span class= +"sc">xamined</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C6">CHAPTER VI.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">O<span class="sc">bjections to</span> +C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> P<span class= +"sc">redestination</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P1C7">CHAPTER VII.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">G<span class="sc">eneral</span> S<span class= +"sc">ummary of the</span> D<span class="sc">octrine</span>.</p> +<hr> +<p style="text-align:center;margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:2em"> +<a href="#P2"><i>PART II.—REPROBATION.</i></a></p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P2C1">CHAPTER I.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">T<span class="sc">he</span> C<span class= +"sc">alvinistic</span> D<span class="sc">octrine of</span> +R<span class="sc">eprobation stated</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P2C2">CHAPTER II.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">T<span class="sc">he</span> B<span class= +"sc">ible</span> U<span class="sc">sage of the</span> +W<span class="sc">ord</span> R<span class= +"sc">eprobation</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P2C3">CHAPTER III.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">P<span class="sc">roof</span>-T<span class= +"sc">exts for</span> C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> +R<span class="sc">eprobation</span> E<span class= +"sc">xamined</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P2C4">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">O<span class="sc">bjections to</span> +C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> R<span class= +"sc">eprobation</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P2C5">CHAPTER V.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">S<span class="sc">ummary of the</span> +B<span class="sc">ible</span> D<span class="sc">octrine of</span> +R<span class="sc">eprobation</span>.</p> +<hr> +<p style="text-align:center;margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:2em"> +<a href="#P3"><i>PART III.—ELECTION.</i></a></p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C1">CHAPTER I.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">T<span class="sc">heories of</span> C<span class= +"sc">alvinistic</span> E<span class="sc">lection</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C2">CHAPTER II.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection involves</span> P<span class="sc">ositive</span> +R<span class="sc">efusal to</span> P<span class= +"sc">rovide</span> S<span class="sc">aving</span> G<span class= +"sc">race for the</span> L<span class="sc">ost</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C3">CHAPTER III.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection considered in</span> R<span class="sc">eference to +the</span> S<span class="sc">overeignty of</span> G<span class= +"sc">od</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C4">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection</span> J<span class="sc">udged by the</span> +R<span class="sc">eason</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C5">CHAPTER V.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">B<span class="sc">ible</span> T<span class= +"sc">exts in</span> P<span class="sc">roof of</span> +C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection</span> C<span class="sc">onsidered</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C6">CHAPTER VI.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">O<span class="sc">bjections to the</span> +C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> D<span class="sc">octrine +of</span> E<span class="sc">lection</span>.</p> +<p class="pch"><a href="#P3C7">CHAPTER VII.</a></p> +<p class="pcn">T<span class="sc">he</span> S<span class= +"sc">criptural</span> V<span class="sc">iew of</span> +E<span class="sc">vangelical</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection</span>.</p> +<p style="text-indent:1.5em;margin-top:12em; margin-bottom:2em"> +For God so loved the world that He gave His only beloved Son, +that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have +everlasting life.—<i>Jesus.</i></p> +<hr> +<p class="pn">I reject the Calvinistic doctrine of +Predestination, not because it is incomprehensible, but because I +think it irreconcilable with the justice and goodness of +God.—<i>Bishop Tomlin.</i></p> +<p style="text-indent:1.5em;margin-top:4em; margin-bottom:12em"> +God our Saviour will have all men to be saved.—<i>Paul.</i></p> +<div style="text-align:center"> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:14pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em"> +<a name="Intro">THE DOCTRINES</a></p> +<p class="pc">OF</p> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:14pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em"> +PREDESTINATION, REPROBATION, AND ELECTION.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch">INTRODUCTION.</p> +</div> +<p>R<span class="sc">egarding</span> the predestinarian +controversy, it has been said, “Hardly one among the many +Christian controversies has called forth a greater amount of +subtlety and power, and not one so long and so persistently +maintained its vitality. Within the twenty-five years which +followed its first appearance upwards of thirty councils (one of +them the General Council of Ephesus) were held for the purpose of +this discussion. It lay at the bottom of all the intellectual +activity of the conflicts in the Mediæval philosophic schools; +and there is hardly a single subject which has come into +discussion under so many different forms in modern controversy” +(<i>Ch. Encyc</i>.)</p> +<p class="pn">Although the controversy between Pelagius and +Augustine began in the fifth century, it is an interesting +inquiry—What was the mind of the earlier Christian writers on the +subject? Of course their opinion cannot settle the truth of the +question in debate, but it has a very important bearing upon the +subject. The late <a name="Eadie">Dr. Eadie</a> +claimed the voice of antiquity for the system of the Confession +of Faith. He says, “The doctrine of predestination was held in +its leading element by the ancient Church, by the Roman Clement, +Ignatius, Hermas, Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, before Augustine +worked it into a system, and Jerome armed himself on its behalf” +(<i>Ec. Cyc.</i>) This statement may be fairly questioned, and, +we think, successfully challenged. <a name="Cunningham">Dr. +Cunningham</a>, in his <i>Historical Theology</i>, remarks, +“The doctrine of Arminius can be traced back as far as the time +of Alexandrinus, and seems to have been held by many of the +Fathers of the third and fourth centuries.” He attributes this +to the corrupting influence of Pagan philosophy (<i>Hist. +Theo.</i>, Vol. II., p. 374). This is not a direct contradiction +to Eadie, but it shows that truth compelled this sturdy Calvinist +to admit that non-Calvinistic views were held in the earlier +and best period of the Church. The question, however, is one that +must be decided by historical evidence, and not by authority. +And what is that evidence? <a name="Mosheim">Mosheim</a>, in +writing of the founders of the English Church, says, “They +wished to render their church as similar as possible to that which +flourished in the early centuries, and that Church, as no one can +deny, was an entire stranger to the Dordracene doctrines” +<i>Reid’s Mos.</i>, p. 821). The <a name="Dort">Synod of Dort</a> +met in <span class="sc">a.d.</span> 1618, and condemned the Arminian +doctrine, and decided in favour of Calvinism; but, according to +Mosheim, this system of Calvin was unknown to the early Church. +<a name="Faber">Faber</a> maintains the same. He says, +“The scheme of interpretation now familiarly, though perhaps (if +a scheme ought to be designated by the name of its +<i>original</i> contriver) not quite correctly, styled Calvinism, +may be readily traced back in the Latin and Western Church to the +time of Augustine. But here we find ourselves completely at +fault. Augustine, at the beginning of the fifth century, is the +first ecclesiastical writer who annexes to the Scriptural terms +‘elect’ and ‘predestinate’ the peculiar sense which is now +usually styled Calvinistic. With him, in a form scarcely less +round and perfect than that long and subsequently proposed by the +celebrated Genevan reformer himself, commenced an entirely new +system of interpretation previously unknown to the Church +Catholic. What I state is a mere dry historical fact” (<i>Faber’s +Apos. Trin.</i>, <i>Cooke’s Theo.</i>, p. 305).</p> +<p class="pn">Prosper of Acquitania was a devoted friend and +admirer of Augustine, and not wishing to be charged with +propagating new views, wrote to the Bishop of Hippo (Augustine) +desiring to know how he could refute the charge of novelty. +“For,” saith he, “having had recourse to the opinion of almost +all that went before me concerning this matter, I find all of +them holding one and the same opinion, in which they have +received the purpose and the predestination of God according to +His prescience; that for this cause God made some vessels of +honour and other vessels of dishonour, because He foresaw the end +of every man, and knew before how he would will and act” +(<i>Whitby’s Pos.</i>, p. 449). This was a frank acknowledgment +on the part of Prosper, who was a man of ability, and Secretary +to Leo, and it carried much farther than was intended. The fact, +however, was patent that the Christian Church for some four +hundred years was a stranger to what is known as the doctrine of +Calvin. The view thus stated is confirmed by Neander. When +Prosper and Hilary appealed to the Bishop of Rome, they doubtless +expected that he would favour the system of Augustine, and +condemn the Semi-pelagians (modern E.U.’s). If so, they were +mistaken. The bishop was chary, and whilst speaking +contemptuously of those presbyters who raised “curious +questions,” he left it undecided what the curious questions were. +He had said in his letter to the Gallic bishops, “Let the spirit +of innovation, if there is such a spirit, cease to attack the +ancient doctrines;” but he did not say what was ancient and what +was novel. <a name="Neander">Neander</a> upon this +remarks: “The Semi-pelagians, in fact, also asserted, and they +could do it with even more justice than their opponents, that by +them the ancient doctrine of the Church was defended against the +false doctrine recently introduced concerning absolute +predestination, and against the denial of free-will tenets, +wholly unknown to the ancient Church” (Vol. IV., p. 306). The +concluding words are almost identical with those of Mosheim, just +quoted.</p> +<p class="pn">Bishop Tomline, who gave special attention to this +phase of the subject—viz., the state of opinion in the Church +previous to Augustine, says, “If Calvinists pretend that absolute +decrees, the unconditional election and reprobation of +individuals, particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the +entire destruction of free-will in man in consequence of the +fall, were the doctrines of the primitive Church, let them cite +their authority, let them refer to the works in which these +doctrines are actually taught. If such opinions were actually +held we could not fail to meet with some of them in the various +and voluminous works which are still extant. I assert that no +such trace is to be found, and I challenge the Calvinist of the +present day to produce an author prior to Augustine who +maintained what are now called Calvinistic opinions” (Preface +VII.)</p> +<p class="pn">The extracts which he gives from the writings of +the Fathers are so many and extended that we can only give a few. +<a name="Clement">Clement of Rome</a>, a +contemporary of the apostles, says: “Let us look stedfastly at +the blood of Christ, and see how precious His blood is in the +sight of God, which, being shed for our salvation, has obtained +the grace of repentance for all the world” (p. 288). <a name= +"Martyr">Justin Martyr</a>, who lived about the +middle of the second century, says, “But lest anyone should +imagine that I am asserting things that happen according to the +necessity of fate, because I have said that things are foreknown, +I proceed to refute that opinion also. That punishments and +chastisements and good rewards are given according to the worth +of the actions of every one, having learnt it from the prophets, +we declare to be true; since if it were not so, but all things +happen according to fate, nothing would be in our own power; for +if it were decreed by fate that one should be good and another +bad, no praise would be due to the former, nor blame to the +other; and, again, if mankind had not the power of free-will to +avoid what is disgraceful and to choose what is good, they would +not be responsible for their actions” (Tom., p. 292). <a name= +"Irenaeus">Irenæus</a>, who lived near the end of +the second century, says, “The expression ‘How often would I have +gathered thy children together, and ye would not’ (Matt. xxiii. +37), manifested the ancient law of human liberty, because God +made man free from the beginning, having his own power as he had +also his own soul to use the sentence of God voluntarily, and not +by compulsion from God. For there is no force with God, but a +good intention is always with Him. And therefore He gives good +counsel to all. But He has placed the power of choice in man, in +that those who should obey might justly possess good, given +indeed by God, but preserved by ourselves” (Tom., p. 304). +<a name="Tertullian">Tertullian</a> (<span class= +"sc">a.d.</span> 200), “Therefore, though we have learned from +the commands of God both what He wills and what He forbids, yet +we have a will and power to choose either, as it is written, +‘Behold I have set before you good and evil, for you have tasted +of the tree of knowledge’ ” (Tom., p. 320). <a name="Origen"> +Origen</a> (<span class="sc">a.d.</span> 230) says, “We +have frequently shown, in all our disputations, that the nature +of rational souls is such as to be capable of good and evil” +(Tom., p. 323). Ambrose (<span class="sc">a.d.</span> 374) says, +“The Lord Jesus came to save all sinners” (Tom., p. 377). +<a name="Chrysostom">Chrysostom</a> (<span class= +"sc">a.d.</span> 398) says, “Hear also how fate speaks, and how +it lays down contrary laws, and learn how the former are declared +by a Divine spirit, but the latter by a wicked demon and a savage +beast. God has said, ‘If ye be willing and obedient,’ making us +masters of virtue and wickedness, and placing them within our own +power. But what does the other say? That it is impossible to +avoid what is decreed by fate, whether we will or not. God says, +‘If ye be willing ye shall eat the good of the land;’ but fate +says, ‘Although we be willing, unless it shall be permitted us, +this will is of no use.’ God says, ‘If ye will not obey my words, +a sword shall devour you;’ fate says, ‘Although we be not +willing, if it shall be granted to us, we are certainly saved.’ +Does not fate say this? What, then, can be clearer than this +opposition? What can be more evident than this war which the +diabolical teachers of wickedness have thus shamelessly declared +against the Divine oracles” (Tom., p. 458).</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Fathers">Besides the names +thus given, Tomlin appeals to and gives quotations from the +following authors of antiquity</a> as confirming his +statement—viz., Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, +Lactantius, Eusebius, Athenasius, Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, +Jerome, &c. The testimony of the Fathers is clearly against +the Calvinistic system. We do not, of course, claim them as +settling the controversy; this must be done by an appeal to +reason and the Scriptures; but it is nevertheless deserving of +attention, that for some 400 years the stream of opinion in the +Church ran in a contrary direction to that of Geneva. The system +of Calvin is, that God wishes only some men to be saved, and that +everything is fixed; and it was clearly held before Augustine’s +time, that God wished all men saved, and that men were free, +which they could not be if all things were foreordained.</p> +<p class="pn">Besides this, it is a remarkable fact that the +errors of the early heretics bore a close resemblance to those +held by the followers of Calvin. Irenæus, writing of Saturnius, +says, “He first asserted that there are two sets of men formed by +the angels, the one good and the other bad. And because demons +assisted the worst men, that the Saviour came to destroy bad men +and demons, but to save good men” (Tom., p. 515). Gregory of +Nazianzum, warning his readers against heresy, says, “For certain +persons are so ill-disposed as to imagine that some are of a +nature which must absolutely perish,” &c. (Tom., p. 522). +Jerome, commenting on Eph. v. 8, remarks,. . . “There is not, as +some heretics say, a nation which perishes and does not admit of +salvation” (Tom., p. 525). Do not the heretical opinions +denounced by the Fathers bear a close resemblance to the “elect” +and the “reprobate” of the Confession of Faith?</p> +<p class="pn">The departure from the ancient creed of the Church +arose out of the controversy with Pelagius. This monk, surnamed +Brito (from being generally believed to be a native of Britain), +is supposed to have been born about the middle of the fourth +century. Nothing is now known regarding the place of his birth, +or precise period when he was born. His name “is supposed to be a +Greek rendering of (Pelagios, of or belonging to the sea) the +Celtic appellative Morgan, or sea-born.” He never entered holy +orders. If tradition is to be trusted, he was educated in a +monastery at Bangor, in Wales, of which he ultimately became +abbot. In the end of the fourth century he went to Rome, having +acquired a reputation of sanctity and knowledge of the +Scriptures. Whilst here he made the acquaintance of Cœlestius, a +Roman advocate, who espoused his views, and gave up his own +profession, and devoted himself to extend the opinions of his +master. About <span class="sc">a.d.</span> 405, they began to +make themselves known, but attracted little attention; and after +the sack of the city by the Goths, <span class="sc">a.d.</span> +410, they left and went to Africa. The two friends seem to have +separated here. Pelagius went to Jerusalem, whilst Cœlestius +remained in Africa. The latter desired to enter into holy orders, +and sought ordination. His opinions had become known, however, +and objections were lodged against him. He appealed to Rome, but +did not prosecute his case. He went to Ephesus instead. The +proceedings at Carthage in this matter are noteworthy, as they +were the occasion of introducing Augustine into the controversy. +He was determined not to let the subject rest, and sent Orosius, +a Spanish monk, to Jerusalem, and got the question brought before +a synod there in <span class="sc">a.d.</span> 415. This assembly, +however, refused to condemn <a name="Pelagianism">Pelagius</a>. +In <span class="sc">a.d.</span> 418, the emperor banished the +heresiarch; and after this history fails to give any reliable +account of him. He had spoken what he thought, and had stirred +the minds of men in three continents. When the Council of Carthage +met, there were twelve charges of heresy laid against him. A +summary of his opinions is given by Buck, and is as follows: +—(1.) That Adam was by nature mortal, and whether he had sinned +or not, would certainly have died. (2.) That the consequences +of Adam’s sin were confined to his own person. (3.) That +new-born infants are in the same situation with Adam before +the fall. (4.) That the law qualified men for the kingdom +of heaven, and was founded on equal promises with the +Gospel. (5.) That the general resurrection of the dead does not +follow in virtue of the Saviour’s resurrection. (6.) That the +grace of God is given according to our merits. (7.) That this +grace is not given for the performance of every moral act, the +liberty of the will and information in points of duty being +sufficient. If these were the opinions of Pelagius, then, +according to our finding, he had erred from the truth. I say +“if,” because it is not safe to trust an opponent when professing +to give the views of an antagonist. He is apt to confound +deductions with principles which are denied.</p> +<p class="pn">Although we do not know where and when Pelagius was +born, nor the place and time of his death, we have reliable +information on these points regarding Augustine. He was born at +Tagaste, a town in north Africa, on 13th Nov., <span class= +"sc">a.d.</span> 354. He was the child of many prayers by his +devoted mother Monica. The early portion of his life was spent in +idleness and dissipation, but he was at last converted in a +somewhat remarkable manner. He turned over a new leaf in his +moral life, and became a most devoted Christian. Although +considered inferior to Jerome (his contemporary) as regards +Biblical criticism, he was a man of genius, and a strong +controversialist. He contended against the Donatists, the +Manichæans, and the Pelagians. When the Vandals were besieging +Hippo, he died on the 28th of August, <span class= +"sc">a.d.</span> 430, in the 76th year of his age. No father of +the early Church has exercised a greater influence upon +theological opinion than he has done.</p> +<p class="pn">The system now known as Calvinism should be +designated “Augustinianism,” Augustine being, as remarked, the +real author of the system, and not the Genevan divine. Regarding +the central tenets of his creed, it is said: “He held the +corruption of human nature, and the consequent slavery of the +human will. Both on metaphysical and religious grounds he +asserted the doctrine of predestination, from which he +necessarily deduced the corollary doctrines of election and +reprobation; and, finally, he supported against Pelagius, not +only these opinions, but also the doctrine of the perseverance of +the saints,” (<i>Ch. En.</i>, Aug.) Besides introducing a new +theological system, Augustine put his imprimatur upon the burning +of heretics. When the magistrate Dulcitius had some compunctions +about executing a decree of Honorius, Augustine wrote to him and +said, “It is much better that some should perish by their own +fires, than that the whole body should perish in the everlasting +fires of Gehenna, through the desert of the impious dissension” +(<i>Ch. En.</i>, Aug.) Calvin therefore could not only claim the +authority of Augustine for his dogmas, but he might have claimed +him also as justifying the burning of Servetus. But this by the +way.</p> +<p class="pn">With the voice of the Fathers against him, and, as +we think, unwarranted by the light of philosophy and the true +interpretation of Scripture, how came it about, it may be asked, +that Augustine adopted the system which should be called by his +name? The true answer to this will be found, we apprehend, in a +variety of considerations. His early dissipated life, his nine +years connection with Manichæism, the extreme statements of +Pelagius, his own strange conversion by hearing, when weeping and +moaning under a fig-tree, a young voice saying quickly, “<i>Tolle +lege, tolle lege</i>” (take and read, take and read), and which +he took as a Divine admonition; these, combined with the +commotion of the times, would lend their influence to the +position he came to occupy. His system, whilst it accords glory +to God, is one-sided, by ignoring the function man has to perform +in applying the remedial scheme.</p> +<p class="pn">Although Pelagius had got many to espouse his +opinions, yet his tenets were again and again condemned by the +councils of the Church. The controversy, however, very soon +diverged from strictly Pelagian lines, and entered upon a new +track—viz., that of Semi-pelagianism, to which is closely allied +the principles advocated by the Evangelical Union of Scotland. +From extremes there is generally a recoil, and this was the case +as regards Augustinianism. Certain monks at <a name="Adrumetum" +id="Adrumetum">Adrumetum</a> drew conclusions from the system +which, whether they are admitted or not, are its logical outcome. +They said, “Of what use are all doctrines and precepts? Human +efforts can avail nothing, it is God that worketh in us to will +and to do. Nor is it right to reproach or to punish those who are +in error, and who cannot sin, for it is none of their fault that +they act thus. Without grace they cannot do otherwise, nor can +they do anything to merit grace; all we should do, then, is to +pray for them” (Neander, Vol. IV., p. 373). Augustine endeavoured +to neutralise these opinions by writing two books explaining his +views. Regarding these answers, Neander observes, “But such +persons,” as the monks, “must rather have found in this a further +confirmation of their doubts.”</p> +<p class="pn">Whilst the monks of Adrumetum drew natural +conclusions from the dogmas of Augustine, there came determined +opposition to the new creed. It came from the south of France. +<a name="Cassian">John Cassian</a>, who had been a +deacon under Chrysostom, had established a cloister at Massila +(Marseilles), and had become its abbot, entered the lists against +the Bishop of Hippo. He departed from the opinions of Pelagius +regarding the corruption of human nature, and he recognised +“grace” as well as justification in the sense of Augustine. But +he widely differed from him, as will be seen from the summary of +<a name="SemiPel">Semi-pelagianism</a> given by +Buck. It is as follows: “(1.) That God did not dispense His grace +to one man more than another in consequence of an absolute and +eternal decree, but was willing to save all men if they complied +with the terms of the Gospel. (2.) That Christ died for all +mankind. (3.) That the grace purchased by Christ, and necessary +to salvation, was offered to all men. (4.) That man before he +received this grace was capable of faith and holy desires. (5.) +That man was born free, and consequently capable of resisting the +influence of grace, or of complying with its suggestions.” Buck +remarks, “The Semi-pelagians were very numerous, and the doctrine +of Cassian, though variously explained, was received in the +greatest part of the monastic schools in Gaul, from whence it +spread itself far and wide through the European provinces. As to +the Greeks and other Eastern Churches, they had embraced the +Semi-pelagian doctrine before Cassian.” Yet when, as in 1843, +similar opinions were proclaimed in Scotland, they were +everywhere met with the cry of “New Views,” although they had +been held so extensively 1400 years before! So much for +ignorance.</p> +<p class="pn">The name “Semi-pelagians” was not assumed by the +party, lest they should be held as maintaining the dogmas of +Pelagius; neither was it given until long after the early heat of +the controversy. Their opponents still stigmatised them as +Pelagians, although they had departed from the system advocated +by the British monk.</p> +<p class="pn">The controversy continued to occupy the mind of the +Church during the latter part of the fifth and beginning of the +sixth centuries. In <span class="sc">a.d.</span> 475 a synod held +at <a name="Arles">Arles</a> sanctioned the views of +the Semi-pelagians, and compelled the presbyter Lucidus, who was +an earnest advocate of Augustinianism, to recant. Another synod, +held at Lugdunum in the same year, put also its imprimatur upon +them. But there was not complete agreement, and the divines who +had been banished by the Vandals from northern Africa held a +council in <span class="sc">a.d.</span> 523, and under their +auspices Fulgentius of Ruspe composed a defence of Angustine’s +views; (Kurtz, p. 213)</p> +<p class="pn">For a considerable time after this the controversy +may be said to have remained quiet, but broke forth with great +fury in the ninth century. <a name="Gottschalk">Gottschalk</a>, +the son of a Saxon count, had been dedicated by his parents +to the service of religion, and in due course entered the +monastery of Fulda. He did not take to cloister life, and +petitioned an assembly held at Metz to be released from his +monastic vows. His request was granted, but Rabanus Maurus, +who was the abbot, appealed to Lewis the Pius, and endeavoured +to show that all <i>oblati</i> (lay brethren dedicated to the +service of the Church) were bound to perpetual obligation. +Lewis revoked the decision of the assembly, and Gottschalk +had to go back to cloister life, which he did by entering the +monastery of Orbais. Here he became an ardent student of the +writings of Augustine, and sought to propagate his views. +“He affirmed a <i>prœdestinatio duplex</i>, by virtue of +which God decreed eternal life to the elect, and the elect to +eternal life; and so also everlasting punishment to the +reprobate, and the reprobate to everlasting punishment, for the +two were inseparably connected” (Neander, Vol. VI., p. 180).</p> +<p class="pn">On returning from a pilgrimage to Rome Gottschalk +happened to meet Noting (Bishop of Verona), and expounded to him +his views. Sometime after this meeting the bishop had a +conversation with Rabanus (who was now Bishop of Mayence), and +informed him regarding Gottschalk’s opinions. Rabanus promised to +send a reply, which shortly afterwards he did, in two “thundering +epistles.” The controversy now waxed warm, too much so for the +monk. He was condemned, imprisoned, and scourged. He threw his +treatises into the fire, but intimated his willingness to go +through the ordeal of stepping into cauldrons of boiling water, +oil, and pitch, being thoroughly convinced that he had the truth +upon his side. His offer was treated by Hincoma as the boast of a +Simon Magus. He died in prison.</p> +<p class="pn">In the Middle Ages the schoolmen took sides in this +controversy, but there was no general agitation upon the subject. +The “Dark Ages” had set in, and remained until the Renaissance +and the revival of learning in the fifteenth and sixteenth +centuries. The European countries had been greatly agitated by +the Crusades, which had collateral issues of an important +character. Turbulent spirits had been weeded but, and the royal +authority had become better established. Independence of thought +began to assert itself in Wickliffe; and Huss and Jerome of +Prague paid the penalty of martyrdom for gainsaying Rome. But a +bright morning was at hand. Luther arose. His voice, like a +clarion trumpet among the Alps, produced echoes all around. His +doctrines spread like wild-fire. Amongst the countries which +readily received them was Holland. <a name="CharlesV">Charles V. +</a> was determined to crush the nascent spirit of liberty in +that portion of his dominions, and inaugurated a persecution by +which 50,000 people lost their lives. The Dutch maintained their +rights, and in due course the Protestant religion was that of +the land. The opinions of Calvin were adopted generally. He had +adopted the system of Augustine, as already intimated, and he had +a great influence upon the Protestants generally outside Germany. +James Arminius was born at Oudewater in 1560. He lost his father +when quite young, and the merchants of Amsterdam undertook his +education upon condition that he would not preach out of their +city unless he got their permission. Having gone to Geneva, he +sat at the feet of Theodore Beza, one of the most rigid of +Calvin’s followers. After travelling in Italy he returned to +Holland, and was duly appointed a minister of religion in +Amsterdam. About this time certain clergymen of Delft had become +dissatisfied with the doctrine of predestination, and Arminius was +commissioned to answer them. But in prosecuting his inquiries he +began to doubt, and then to change his views. He saw that he could +not defend the system of Calvin, and having the courage of his +convictions, he spoke out his mind. He excited intense opposition, +and was visited, without stint, with the <i>odium theologicum</i>. +All the pulpits began to fulminate against him. In the midst of the +controversy he died, 19th October, 1609. He was admitted by his +opponents to have been a good man. In 1610 his followers +presented a Remonstrance to the assembled States of the province +of Holland. From this circumstance they have been called +Remonstrants. In this celebrated document the following +propositions were stated:—“(1.) That God had indeed made an +eternal decree, but only on the conditional terms that all who +believe in Christ shall be saved, while all who refuse to believe +must perish; so that predestination is only conditional. (2.) +That Christ died for all men, but that none except believers are +really saved by His death. The intention, in other words, is +universal, but the efficacy may be restricted by unbelief. (3.) +That no man is of himself able to exercise a saving faith, but +must be born again of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit. (4.) +That without the grace of God man can neither think, will, nor do +anything good; yet that grace does not act in men in an +irresistible way. (5.) That believers are able, by the aid of the +Holy Spirit, victoriously to resist sin; but that the question of +the possibility of a fall from grace must be determined by a +further examination of the Scriptures on this point.” The last +proposition was decided in the affirmative in the following year +(1611).</p> +<p class="pn">A synod was convened at Dort in 1618, from which +the followers of Arminius were excluded. It put its approval upon +the views of Calvin. The discussion soon assumed a political +aspect, which Maurice of Orange turned to his own account, put +Oldenbarnveldt to death, and sent Grotius to prison.</p> +<p class="pn">In the <a name="ChurchEngland">Church of England</a> +divines may hold either view of this question. The saying has been +ascribed to Pitt: “The Church of England hath a Popish liturgy, a +Calvinistic creed, and an Arminian clergy” (Bartlett). Whilst she +has had such genuine Calvinists as Scott and Toplady, she has also +produced men who held that the Saviour died for all—viz., Hales, +Butler, Pierce, Barrow, Cudworth, Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Patrick, +and Burnet. The Wesleyan body are decidedly anti-Calvinistic.</p> +<p class="pn">In 1643 an assembly of divines met at Westminster, +and although they could not agree about church government, they +came to a finding about doctrines, and drew up the Confession of +Faith and the Catechism, which are thoroughly Calvinistic. The +Church of Scotland adopted these formularies, and although there +have been several secessions from her, they were not upon the +ground of doctrine as expressed in the creed. In 1843, however, a +decided departure took place in this respect, in one of the +offshoots of the Church—viz., in that of the United Secession +Church. The Rev. James Morison had declared it to be his belief +that Christ died for all men. He was charged with heresy and +deposed. Other brethren threw in their lot with him, and in due +course the Evangelical Union was formed. Its primary doctrines +are that the Divine Father loves all men, that Christ died for +all men, and that the Divine Spirit gives sufficient grace to all +men, which, if improved, would lead to their salvation.</p> +<p class="pns">Such, then, is a brief outline of the main +historical facts in this controversy, and it is worthy of note, +as remarked, that for the first 400 years of the Christian era +the Calvinistic system of theology was unknown to the Christian +church. It began, as we have seen, with Augustine, and being +adopted by Calvin was widely spread in those countries which +received at the Reformation Protestant principles. It comprehends +truths of vast value to man, but which are not peculiar to it. +They are held as firmly by opponents as by the followers of +Calvin; such, for instance, as the inspiration of the Bible, the +doctrine of the Trinity, the inability of man to work out a glory +meriting righteousness, justification by faith alone, and the +necessity of the Spirit’s work in regeneration. As in the Church +of Rome, there have also been ranged under the banner of the +Genevan divine men of the most varied accomplishments and the +most saintly character. But men are often better than their +professed creed, and often worse. As a system it has passed its +meridian, and although ministers and elders are still required to +profess their faith in its peculiarities, it has lost its hold on +the popular mind. <a name="Froude">Mr. Froude</a>, in +his celebrated address to the St. Andrew’s students, said, “After +being accepted for two centuries in all Protestant countries as +the final account of the relations between man and his Maker, +Calvinism has come to be regarded by liberal thinkers as a system +of belief incredible in itself, dishonouring to its object, and +as intolerable as it has been itself intolerant. To represent man +as sent into the world under a curse, as incurably wicked—wicked +by the constitution of his flesh, and wicked by eternal decree; +as doomed (unless exempted by special grace, which he cannot +merit, or by an effort of his own obtain), to live in sin while +he remains on earth, and to be eternally miserable when he leaves +it; to represent him as born unable to keep the commandments, yet +as justly liable to everlasting punishment for breaking them, is +alike repugnant to reason and to conscience, and turns existence +into a hideous nightmare. To deny the freedom of the will is to +make morality impossible: to tell men that they cannot help +themselves, is to fling them into recklessness and despair. To +what purpose the effort to be virtuous, when it is an effort +which is foredoomed to fail; when those that are saved are saved +by no effort of their own and confess themselves the worst of +sinners, even when rescued from the penalties of sin; and those +that are lost are lost by an everlasting sentence decreed against +them before they were born? How are we to call the Ruler who laid +us under this iron code by the name of wise, and just, or +merciful, when we ascribe principles of action to Him which, as a +human father, we should call preposterous and monstrous?” Error, +however, like disease, is not easily eradicated; but as men get +better acquainted with God, those dark and heathenish conceptions +regarding him entertained by Calvinists, such as the foredooming +of children and men to endless misery, will give place to nobler +thoughts of the Author of our being.</p> +<p class="p0">“I doubt not through the ages one increasing +purpose runs,</p> +<p class="p0s">And the thoughts of men are widened with the +process of the suns.”</p> +<p class="pn">In 1879 the <a name="UPChurch">United +Presbyterian Church</a> adopted what is known as the “Declaratory +Act,” which is a clear departure from the rigid Calvinism of the +Confession of Faith. In this declaration God’s love is said to be +world-wide, and the propitiation of Christ to be for the “sins of +the whole world.” They hold the Confession dogmas in harmony with +the Declaratory Act, but it is an attempt to put the new cloth on +the old garment, or the new wine into the old bottles. It is +impossible that God can love the whole world, and yet foredoom +millions to be lost. The two views are destructive of each other. +This church, one of the most intelligent in the country, cannot +stand where it now is. It is bound to go forward.</p> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:16pt;margin-top:10em; margin-bottom:0.3em"> +<a name="P1">PART I.—PREDESTINATION.</a></p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C1">CHAPTER I.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">THE WORD PREDESTINATION, AND THE DOCTRINE AS +HELD BY CALVINISTS.</p> +<p>THE word “predestinate” signifies, according to the +<i>Imperial Dictionary</i>, “to predetermine or foreordain,” “to +appoint or ordain beforehand by an unchangeable purpose.” The +noun, according to the same authority, denotes the act of +decreeing or foreordaining events; the act of God, by which He +hath from eternity unchangeably appointed or determined +whatsoever comes to pass. It is used particularly in theology to +denote the preordination of men to everlasting happiness or +misery. The term is used four times in the New Testament, and +comes from the Greek word <i>proorizo</i>, which signifies, “to +determine beforehand,” “to predetermine” (Liddell and Scott). +Robinson gives as its meaning, “to set bounds before,” “to +predetermine,” “spoken of the eternal decrees and counsels of +God.” According to the lexicographers, the meaning—as far as the +word is concerned—is plain enough. It is quite clear from the +Scriptures that God predestinates or foreordains. This is +admitted on all sides. But here the questions arise—What is the +nature of God’s predestination? and does it embrace all events? +The Confession of Faith gives the following deliverance on the +subject—“God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy +counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably foreordain +whatsoever comes to pass.” The Larger and Shorter Catechisms +express the same idea. This was the opinion of the Westminster +divines, and is the professed faith of Presbyterians in general +in Scotland. One of the most eminent theologians of the school of +Calvin—Dr. C. Hodge—vindicates this deliverance of the Assembly. +He says, “The reason; therefore, why any event occurs, or that +passes from the category of the possible into that of the actual, +is that God has so decreed” (Vol. I., p. 531). He says again, +“The Scriptures teach that sinful acts, as well as those which +are holy, are foreordained” (Vol. I., p. 543). And, again, “The +acts of the wicked in persecuting the early Church were ordained +of God, as the means of the wider and more speedy proclamation of +the Gospel” (Vol. I., p. 544). He says, moreover, “Whatever +happens God intended should happen, that to Him nothing can be +unexpected, and nothing contrary to His purposes” (Vol. II., p +335). The same writer, in speaking of the usage of the term +“predestination,” remarks, “It may be used first in the general +sense of foreordination. In this sense it has equal reference to +all events, for God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass:” It +will thus be seen that the Confession, and the Catechisms, and +Hodge, as one of the most eminent expounders of these +formularies, uphold the doctrine, that everything which happens +was foreordained by God to happen. The doctrine as thus stated is +clearly the foundation of the whole system of Calvinism. If this +is shaken, the entire structure topples to its base. Being so +important, its advocates have sought to strengthen it by +appealing to the Divine attributes and to passages from holy +writ. Let us then examine their arguments derived from the +attributes, and the texts they have adduced.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C2">CHAPTER II.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">CALVINISTIC PREDESTINATION IN REFERENCE TO +DIVINE WISDOM.</p> +<p class="ps">T<span class="sc">he</span> wisdom of God is held +as proving universal foreordination. Being infinitely wise—such +is the argument—He will act upon a plan, as in creation, and as +wise people do in regard to affairs in general. And this is +perfectly correct. The question, however, is not whether God has +a plan, but what that plan comprehends? Sin being a factor in the +programme of life, the Divine wisdom or plan will be exercised in +reference to it. There are two ways in which this may be done. It +may be foreordained as part of the plan, as is seen in the above +extracts. But another way is this: The Divine wisdom may be +exercised in regard to sin, not as ordaining it, but as +overruling it, and in turning it to account. That the evil deeds +of men bring into view features of the Divine character which +would not otherwise have been seen, is no doubt true, but this +does not save the wrong-doers from the severest blame. But what +is wisdom? It is the choosing of the best means to effect a good +end. The ultimate end of creation is the glory of God, as He is +the highest and the best of beings. There can be nothing higher +than himself He desires the <i>confidence</i> and the <i>love</i> +of men.</p> +<p class="p0 f11">“Love is the root of creation, God’s +essence.</p> +<p class="p0 f11">Worlds without number</p> +<p class="p0 f11">Lie in His bosom like children; He made them +for this purpose only,—</p> +<p class="p0s f11">Only to love and be loved +again.”—T<span class="sc">egner</span>.</p> +<p class="pn">Men are asked to give Him their trust and love. It +is right that they should do so, for He is infinitely worthy of +them. But what are sinful actions? Essentially they are foolish, +and issue in misery. And if God foreordained them, how can we +esteem Him as wise and good? And if not to our intelligence wise +and good, how can we give Him our confidence and love? Trust and +love are based upon the perception of the true and the good. If I +find a man who is destitute of these qualities of character, to +love him with approval is, as I am constituted, an impossibility. +But to ordain the “acts of the wicked,” as Hodge says that God +did, in order to spread Christianity, was neither just nor good. +It was doing evil that good might come. Instead of being wise it +was, if it were so, an exhibition of unwisdom as regards the very +end of creation, as it was fitted to drive men away from, instead +of bringing them to, God. And yet wisdom, Divine wisdom, was +exercised in reference to those very persecutions. It was true, +as Tertullian said, that the “blood of the martyrs was the seed +of the Church.” By means of the sufferings of the early +Christians men’s minds were directed to that religion which +supported its adherents in the midst of their accumulated +sorrows. Their patience, their heroic bravery in facing grim +death, threw a halo of moral glory around the martyrs which +touched the hearts of true men who lived in the midst of general +degeneration. The Christians were driven from their homes, but +they carried the truth with them.</p> +<p class="pn">“The seeds of truth are bearded, and adhere we know +not when, we know not where.” In the world of nature there are +seeds with hooks, and others have wings to be wafted by the +breeze to their proper habitat. And if Divine wisdom watches over +the seeds of the vegetable kingdom, does it not stand to reason +that it will do so in regard to truth? God overrules the evil, +and makes it the occasion of good. Joseph was immured in jail, +but from it he ascended to a seat next the throne. Christ was +crucified, but from the blessed cross came streams of blessing. +Paul was incarcerated, but from his prison came “thoughts that +breathe and words that burn,” that have kept alive the flame of +piety for more than a thousand years. The people of God still +suffer, but, like the asbestos cloth when thrown into the fire, +they, by these sufferings, become purified and made meet for the +coming glory. In thus overruling evil, God, we say, shows the +highest wisdom and love fitted to secure our trust and affection; +but to ordain evil would be an illustration of supreme folly, +fitted to lower him in the estimation of angels and of men.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C3">CHAPTER III.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">THE DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION CONSIDERED WITH +REFERENCE TO ALMIGHTY POWER.</p> +<p><a name="Power">T<span class="sc">he</span> +P<span class="sc">ower of</span> G<span class="sc">od</span></a> +is held as supporting universal foreordination. As in the case of +wisdom, God’s power must be recognised as infinite. It is true, +indeed, that creation does not prove this, since it is limited, +and no conclusion can be more extensive than the premises. But +looking at the nature and multitude of His works, we cannot +resist the conviction that there is nothing (which does not imply +a contradiction) that is “too hard for the Lord.” He is infinite +in power. But the power of God is guided by His wisdom and His +love, just as is the power of a good and a wise king. In +governing His creation, it stands to reason that He will govern +each creature according to its nature—brute matter by physical +law, animals by instinct, and man in harmony with his rational +constitution. God does not reason with a stone, or plead with a +brute; but He does so with man. “Come, now, and let us reason +together, saith the Lord” (<a name="Isa1:18">Isa. i. +18</a>). It would be absurd to punish a block of granite because +it was not marble, or to condemn the horse because he could not +understand a problem in Euclid. To do so would be to treat the +creatures by a law not germane to their nature. It is, indeed, a +radical vice in Calvinistic reasoning that, because God is +omnipotent, He can as easily therefore create virtue in a free +being as He can waft the down of the thistle on the breeze. It is +quite true that “whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in +heaven and in earth” (<a name="Psa125:6">Ps. cxxxv. +6</a>). But the question is—What is His pleasure in regard to the +production of virtue? Is it a forced or free thing? Every good +man will cheerfully ascribe to God the praise of his (the good, +man’s) virtue. God gave him his constitution; God’s Spirit +brought to bear on him the motives of a holy life. Had there been +no Spirit, there would have been no holy life. Yet there is a +sense in which the personal righteousness of the good man is his +own righteousness. It consists in right acts, in right acts as +regards God and as regards man. God told him what to do, and when +he did it the acts became his acts, and were not the acts of God, +nor of any other. When he does the thing that was right, he is +commended—when he does not, he is blamed. Conversing one day with +a Calvinistic clergyman, he intimated that a certain person had +declared that the only thing stronger than God in the world was +the human will. We remarked that we did not approve of such a +mode of expression. And rightly so. It implies a confusion of +ideas, confounding physical power which is almighty, and moral +power, which is suasory and resistible. Stephen charged the Jews +with resisting the Spirit. “Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in +heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your +fathers did, so do ye” (Acts vii. 51). Because they resisted him, +would it be right to say that they were physically stronger than +God? We replied to the clergyman that we supposed that the person +who used the expression meant that God did not get people to do +what He wished. The reply was that we were equally wrong. We then +asked, “Do you think that God wishes people to keep His law?” He +refused to answer the question. But why would he not? Aye, why? +He was in this dilemma: If he said that He did wish them to keep +His law, he would have been met by the question, Why then does He +not make them do so? Everywhere the law is broken. If he said +that God did not wish them to keep His law, would not this have +been to put the Holy One on a level with the great enemy of man? +This brings out the idea that whilst God is possessed of infinite +power, in the exercise of that power He has respect to the +constitution of man in the production of virtue. He does not +override the constitution, and treat it as if it were a nullity. +To do so would be absurd, for forced virtue is not virtue at all. +God is all-powerful, but He is also <span class= +"sc">all-wise</span>.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C4">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">PREDESTINATION CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO +DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE.</p> +<p><a name="GodForeknowledge">T<span class= +"sc">he</span> F<span class="sc">oreknowledge</span> of God</a> +is held as evidence that He has foreordained whatsoever comes to +pass. He foreknows, so it is argued, but He does so because He +has foreordained. Calvin says, “Since He (God) doth not otherwise +foresee the things that shall come to pass than because He hath +decreed that they should so come to pass, it is vain to move a +controversy about foreknowledge, when it is certain that all +things do happen rather by ordinance and commandment” (B. iii.) +Toplady says “that God foreknows futurities, because by His +predestination He hath rendered their futurition certain and +inevitable.” Bonar says, “God foreknows everything that takes +place, because he Has fixed it” (<i>Truth and Error</i>, p. 50). +The same doctrine is held by the younger Hodge—that foreknowledge +involves foreordination.</p> +<p class="pn">There have been some who have denied the infinitude +of God’s knowledge, notably <a name="Clark">Dr. Adam +Clarke</a>. He held that God, although possessed of omnipotence, +yet as He chooses not to do all things, so also although He +possesses the power of knowing all things, yet He chooses to be +ignorant of some things. In refuting this notion, Dr. Hodge +remarks, “But this is to suppose that God wills not to be God, +that the Infinite wills to be finite. Knowledge in God is not +founded on His will, except so far as the knowledge of vision is +concerned—<i>i.e.</i>, His knowledge of His own purposes, or what +He has decreed shall come to pass. If not founded on His will it +cannot be limited by it. Infinite knowledge must know all things +actual or possible” (Vol. I., p. 546). Although the motive +underlying Clarke’s argument is good, yet it is not wise to +sacrifice the Divine intelligence to the Divine goodness. God is +the infinitely perfect one, but to suppose that He is ignorant of +what will happen tomorrow is to limit His perfections, and make +Him a dependent being. But neither can we accept the Calvinistic +doctrine, that God foreknows because He has foreordained. This, +properly speaking, is not foreknowledge, but <i>after</i> +knowledge, since it comes after the decree. It is, moreover, +simply assertion. It is not a self-evident proposition, and is +neither backed by reason nor Scripture. The great difficulty, +however, with our Calvinistic friends is regarding certainty. If +God is certain that an event will happen, then, so it is argued, +it must happen. If we deny that there is an absolute necessity +for the event as an event happening, then it is replied that God +in that case was not certain. But this is sophistical +reasoning—slipshod philosophy. God was certain that the event +would happen, but He was also certain that it need not have +happened. The Divine knowledge is simply a state of the Divine +intelligence, and never causes any thing. It comprehends all that +is past, all that now is, and all that will ever be. But it +comprises more than this, and herein lies the key of the mystery. +It takes in the possible, or that which is never realised in the +actual. Human knowledge does this—and how much more the Divine! +God knows that the thief will steal; He is certain that he will +do it, but He is also certain that he need not do it. His being +certain that the theft will take place does not necessitate the +theft. It (the certainty) exercises no controlling agency upon +the wrong-doer. Dr. W. Cooke remarks, “What is involved in +necessity? It is a resistless impulse exerted for a given end. +What is freedom? It involves a self-determining power to will and +to act. What is prescience? It is simply knowledge of an event +before it happens. Such being, we conceive, a correct +representation of the terms, we have to inquire, where lies the +alleged incompatibility of prescience and freedom? Between +freedom and necessity there is, we admit, an absolute and +irreconcilable discrepancy and opposition; for the assertion of +the one is a direct negation of the other. What is free cannot be +necessitated, and what is necessitated cannot be free. But +<i>prescience</i> involves no such opposition. For simple +knowledge is not coercive; it is not impulse; it is not influence +of any kind: it is merely acquaintance with truth, or the mind’s +seeing a thing as it is. If I know the truth of a proposition of +Euclid, it is not my knowledge that makes it true. It was a +truth, and would have remained a truth, whether I knew it or not, +yea, even, if I had never existed. So of any fact in history; so +of any occurrence around me. My mere knowledge of the fact did +not make it fact, or exercise any influence in causing it to be +fact. So in reference to the Divine prescience; it is mere +knowledge, and is as distinct from force, constraint, or +influence as any two things can be distinct one from the other. +It is force which constitutes necessity, and the total absence of +force which constitutes liberty; and as all force is absent from +mere knowledge, it is evident that neither foreknowledge nor +afterknowledge involves any necessity, or interferes in the least +degree with human freedom. Man could not be more free than he is, +if God were totally ignorant of all his volitions and actions” +(<i>Deity</i>, p. 293). Calvinists sometimes entrench themselves +behind God’s foreknowledge as behind a rampart of granite, but it +gives in reality no support to their system. That God knows the +possible, and the contingent, was illustrated in the case of +<a name="Keilah">David at Keilah</a>. He had taken up +his temporary residence in this town. Saul was out on the war +path, and David wished to know if he would visit Keilah, and if +so, whether the men of Keilah would deliver him up. The answer +was that Saul would come, and the people would deliver him up. +Receiving this answer from God, he left. This shows that God’s +knowledge does not necessitate an event (see 1 Sam. xxiii.)</p> +<p class="pn">He knows what might be, but which never will be. He +saw how men would act in regard to David, but His knowledge did +not make them do it. And He knows how men will act regarding the +rejection of salvation, but this does not necessitate them to +ruin their souls. He is certain that they might have been saved. +There was a perfect remedy for their need; they had power to take +it, and refused. The lost might have been saved; or, in other +words, every man in hell might have been in heaven.</p> +<p class="pn">The late <a name="Kinloch">Lord +Kinloch</a> in his <i>Circle of Christian Doctrine</i>, has +several judicious remarks on this subject. In his chapter on +predestination he says:—“The choice of free agents cannot have +been predestinated in any proper sense of the word, that is, +cannot have been fixed beforehand so as to fall out in one way, +and no other, irrespectively of his own will. To say that it has +been so, involves a contradiction in terms, for it is to say that +a man chooses and does not choose at one and the same moment. The +choice may be foreseen, must indeed in every case be foreseen by +God, otherwise the government of the universe could not be +conducted. But to foresee and foreordain are essentially +different things” (p. 121). He says again, “What God appoints; +He, to whom the whole of futurity lies open at a glance, +necessarily appoints beforehand. Hence arises the axiomatic +distinction which I find the key to the subject. All that God is +himself to do He not merely foresees but foreordains. All that He +does not do himself, but leaves man to do by the very act of +creating him a free agent, the choice, namely, between one course +and another, is foreseen but not predestined” (p. 124). The ideas +of Lord Kinloch are sound, and we deem them irrefutable.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C5">CHAPTER V.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">PROOF TEXTS FOR CALVINISTIC PREDESTINATION +EXAMINED.</p> +<p>T<span class="sc">he</span> Scriptures are supposed to teach +the doctrine that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. +It were impossible within the compass of this short treatise to +consider at large all the passages that have been imported into +this controversy. We shall, however, consider a few which seem to +favour the dogma.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Eli">T<span class="sc">he</span> +S<span class="sc">ons of</span> E<span class= +"sc">li</span></a>.—In <a name="ISa2:25">1 Sam. ii. +25</a>, it is written regarding the sons of Eli, “Notwithstanding +they hearkened not to the voice of their father, <i>because</i> +the Lord would slay them.” The whole stress of the argument from +this passage lies in the word “<i>because</i>.” They were not +able to hearken to their father, because God had determined to +slay them. There are two objections to this view, the first +critical and the second moral. The Hebrew particle translated +because is—<i>ki</i>. It is again and again translated by the +word “that,” and there is no reason in the world why it should +not have been so translated in this passage. By substituting +“that” for “because,” there is no support to predestination. It +simply denotes, in such case, that they would not believe their +father, which doubtless was the case from their depraved habits. +The <i>moral</i> objection is that God had made their return to +good impossible, whilst He declares that He is not willing that +any should perish. On these grounds we reject the +interpretation.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Micaiah">M<span class= +"sc">icaiah and</span> A<span class="sc">hab</span></a>.—The +parabolic representation of Micaiah is held as proving not the +bare permission of an event, but the actual deception of Ahab. +The matter is recorded in <a name="IKi22">1 Kings +xxii</a>. Jehoshaphat had paid a visit to his neighbour, the King +of Israel, Ahab. The latter proposed that the former should +accompany him in an attack upon Ramoth-gilead. Ahab’s prophets +had promised success to the enterprise. Jehoshaphat wished to +inquire of the prophet of the Lord. Ahab told them that there was +one, Micaiah by name, but that he hated him as he always +prophesied evil of him. He was sent for, however, and when he +came he was asked if they should go up against Ramoth-gilead. He +answered, “Go and prosper; for the Lord shall deliver it into the +hand of the king.” This was evidently spoken in such a tone and +manner, that Ahab said, “How many times shall I adjure thee that +thou tell me nothing but that which is true in the name of the +Lord?” The prophet then uttered a few words about the dispersion +of the army, which were very unpalatable to the king. He then +said, “I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of +heaven standing by Him on His right hand and on His left.” A +question was asked who would persuade Ahab to go up, and at last +one answered that he would go and be a lying spirit in the mouth +of the prophets, and that he would persuade him. The narrative +proceeds, and it is added, “And He (the Lord) said, Thou shalt +persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so. Now +therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth +of all these thy prophets” (1 Kings xxii.) It is held that this +narrative proves that God intended to deceive Ahab. I could +understand an infidel trying to make capital out of such a +passage; but for a professed Christian to go to it to prove that +God intended to deceive Ahab, appears at first sight to transcend +belief. To do so is to sap the foundations of religion. How much +reason has the Bible to say, “Save me from my friends!” No doubt, +the interpretation of the passage given lies on the same lines +with the general system of the true Calvinists, and is quite of a +piece with their declaration that God foreordained the Jews to +crucify Christ. But, let us look at the passage. If God had +intended to deceive Ahab, as saith Calvin, the course taken was +the very opposite of what was fitted to secure the end. Micaiah +was His recognised prophet; He spoke through him, and warned Ahab +against going up. The result, if he did, was predicted; was this +deception? The method adopted by the prophet was highly dramatic, +and fitted to impress both the kings with the folly of the +enterprise. It was a <span class="sc">lying</span> spirit that +was to inspire the emissaries of Baal, and advise the attack. And +if God’s prophet intimated disaster—which actually occurred—where +was there deception? When it is said that God told the lying +spirit to go and deceive Ahab, this is the mere drapery of the +parable, and must be held as denoting sufferance, and not +authoritative command. When the literal meaning of a passage +leads to absurdity, we are required, to seek for its spirit or +other explanation. Christ said, “Give to him that asketh of thee; +and from him that would borrow of thee, turn not thou away.” To +carry this out literally would be impossible; but the +<i>spirit</i> of the passage is beautiful, teaching, as it does, +the heavenly charity characteristic of the good man. Christ +demanded of those who would become His disciples, that they +should hate their brethren; but no honest interpreter would take +this literally. The passage evidently means that we owe a higher +allegiance and love to Christ than any earthly relationship. The +parable of Micaiah, taken literally, makes God to take part in +the work of Satan, whilst He also works against himself, in +inspiring His own prophet. Such a method must be rejected. The +great truth brought out in the parable is this—viz., that a man +rejecting heavenly counsel becomes a prey to evil spirits, which +drive him to ruin.</p> +<p class="pn">L<span class="sc">imitation of</span> D<span class= +"sc">ays</span>.—<a name="Job14:5">Job xiv. 5</a> is +appealed to. The words are, “Seeing his days are determined, the +number of his months are with thee, thou hast appointed his +bounds that he cannot pass.” We do not see any bearing the +passage has upon the subject under discussion—universal +predestination, It brings before us the Divine Sovereignty, by +virtue of which God has determined the laws of the constitution +of man, and that there is a period in his life beyond which he +cannot go. But he may shorten this period, for “bloody and +deceitful men do not live half their days,” and many people +commit suicide, and break one of God’s commands. Does God +determine the number of suicides? Yes, if Calvinism is true; for, +according to it, He hath “foreordained whatsoever comes to +pass.”</p> +<p class="pn">R<span class="sc">estraint on</span> W<span class= +"sc">rath</span>.—<a name="Psa76:10">Psalm lxxvi. +10</a> is appealed to. The words are, “Surely the wrath of man +shall praise thee: the remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.” +Dying men catch at straws, and, to appeal to this passage is as +if one were catching at a straw. It brings before us the great +truth that God overrules evil, and brings good out of it. The +methods by which God does this are not stated, but would be +suited to the peculiar circumstances of each case. We see +illustrations of the principle in the destruction of the +Egyptians, the deliverance of the three Hebrews from the furnace, +and the general history of the Church. But to bring good out of +evil and cut down persecutors, are very different things from +“foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass.”</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> S<span class= +"sc">tanding of the</span> C<span class= +"sc">ounsel</span>.—<a name="Isa46:10">Isaiah xlvi. +10</a> is appealed to. It is as follows:—“My counsel shall stand, +and I shall do all my pleasure.” Now there is no doubt that God’s +counsel shall stand, nor that He will do all His pleasure; but +the questions are, what is His counsel, and what is His pleasure? +To bring the passage forward on behalf of universal +foreordination is to assume the point in debate, and it is +therefore inadmissible. God has a definite purpose regarding +individuals and nations. It is to make the best out of every man +that He can in harmony with the freedom of the will; and it is +the same regarding nations. The principle of His dealing is +stated in these words,—“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall +eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be +devoured by the sword” (Isa. i. 19). This is the Divine counsel +and pleasure regarding man still.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Evil">E<span class="sc">vil in +the</span> C<span class="sc">ity</span></a>.—<a name="Amos3:6" +id="Amos3:6">Amos iii. 6</a> is appealed to. It is as +follows:—“Shall the trumpet be blown in the city, and the people +not be afraid? Shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath +not done it?” The word rendered “<i>evil</i>” (<i>ra</i>) occurs +more than 300 times in the Old Testament, and has various shades +of signification. It is translated as meaning “sorrow” (Gen. +xliv. 29), “wretchedness” (Neh. xi. 15), “distress” (Neh. ii. +17). It is applied to “beasts,” “diseases,” “adversity,” +“troubles.” It stood as the opposite of “good,” and sometimes +meant “sin.” To determine its meaning in any particular instance, +we must consider the context. In the beginning of the third +chapter of Amos, punishment is threatened against the people: +“You only have I known of all the families of the earth; +therefore will I punish you for all your iniquities.” When +trouble and distress come upon a people, they may be said to come +from God as the result of their disobedience. He vexes them in +His “sore displeasure.”</p> +<p class="pn">There are various species of evil—as metaphysical +evil, or the evil of limitation; physical evil, or departure from +type; moral evil, or sin; and penal evil, or the punishment of +sin. Looking at the context, it is perfectly clear that the +prophet has reference to the last-mentioned. The people had +broken God’s laws, and were punished by God for their misdeeds. +It might take the form of pestilence or famine, but whatever was +its shape, it was a messenger from God. He sent it because the +people had done wrong. This interpretation is in harmony with the +usage of the word, and satisfies the moral conscience.</p> +<p class="pn">The passage in <a name="Isa45:7" id= +"Isa45:7">Isaiah xlv. 7</a>, “I make peace and create evil,” has +obviously the same meaning, as it stands in contrast to “peace.” +“Peace” is representative of blessings; “evil” is the synonym of +distress and sorrow. The prophet is supposed to allude to the +Persian religion, according to which there were two great beings +in the universe—viz., Oromasden, from whom comes good, and +Ahriman, from whom comes evil. It is very doubtful whether the +prophet had any such reference. Barnes says,—“The main object +here is, the prosperity which should attend the arms of Cyrus, +the consequent reverses and calamities of the nations whom he +would subdue, and the proof thence furnished that J<span class= +"sc">ehovah</span> was the true God; and the passage should be +limited in the interpretation to this design. The statement, +then, is that all this was under His direction.”</p> +<p class="pn">P<span class="sc">redestination and the</span> +C<span class="sc">rucifixion of</span> C<span class= +"sc">hrist</span>.—<a name="Act2:23">Acts ii. 23</a> +is appealed to. It reads thus: “Having been delivered by the +determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and +by wicked hands have crucified and slain.” But how can these +words prove universal foreordination? It might be said, that if +God foreordained the bad deeds of the crucifiers, the principle +is established. True; but did He foreordain them? The words +simply declare that God had given up Christ, and that in so doing +He had acted in harmony with a settled plan, and that the Jews +had wickedly taken the Saviour and slain Him. From the throne of +His excellency God saw the character of the people that lived in +<span class="sc">a.d.</span> 33; that they stood upon religious +punctilio, and “as having the form of godliness whilst destitute +of its power,” that they would do as the Scriptures foretold; and +yet He determined to send His son into their very midst, and when +He came, they took Him and crucified Him. In all that they did +they acted freely. Had it not been so, had they been acting under +an iron necessity, then the apostle could not have brought +against them the charge of having done what they did with “wicked +hands.” That charge, that homethrust, explodes the Calvinistic +argument, as far as the verse is concerned.</p> +<p class="pn">Another passage is <a name="Act4:22_28" id= +"Act4:22_28">Acts iv. 27, 28</a>. It reads thus: “For of a truth +against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod +and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, +were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy +counsel had determined before to be done.” But the question is +simply this,—what was it that God had determined to be done? We +cannot admit that God had fixed unalterably the doings of Herod, +Pilate, and their unholy allies, for the simple reason given in +explaining Acts ii. 23—viz., that if such were the case, then +there is no foothold upon which to condemn those high-handed +sinners. They were verily guilty, but we cannot find a shadow of +fault with them if they were only doing what they were +foreordained to do. What, then, had God determined to be done? He +had determined to send His son into the world to make an +atonement for sin. But this might have been done without the +betrayal, the trial, and the crucifixion. I may determine to go +to a distant city without determining the <i>mode</i> of travel. +One way may be pleasant, another disagreeable in the highest +degree, and yet the latter may be chosen because of certain +collateral issues.</p> +<p class="pn">So Christ’s death might have been determined on, +but not the <i>mode</i>. Atonement might have been made in +another way than on the cross. It was not the crucifixion that +made the atonement, but its value lay in the death of the Son of +God. Had He expired during the sore agony in the garden, would +not His death have been meritorious? The adjuncts, the trial and +crucifixion, were not therefore necessary to give His death +atoning power. But God saw what the Jews would do,—that they +would, in the exercise of their free agency, and without any +decree, put Christ to death; and yet He sent Him at the time He +did. All the glory of grace, therefore, redounds to the praise of +the Lord, and the ignominy rests upon the Jews and the Gentiles. +As a proof of universal foreordination, the passage proves +nothing.</p> +<p class="pn">G<span class="sc">od worketh all</span> +T<span class="sc">hings</span>.—<a name="Eph1:11" id= +"Eph1:11">Ephes. i. 11</a> is adduced as upholding the +predestination of all events. It reads thus: “In whom also we +have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to +the purpose of Him who worketh all things after the counsel of +His own will.” The stress of the passage as a proof rests on the +words, “who worketh all things.” But according to the canon of +interpretation already stated—viz., that when the literal +interpretation of a passage leads to absurdity, it cannot be the +true one. John in his first epistle (ii. 20) says, “But ye have +an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.” To take +these words literally would be to make those Christians to whom +they were addressed to possess all knowledge, and thus make them +equal to God, which is absurd. The words must be limited to the +subject matter in which they are found. The apostle is speaking +of the anointing of Christians, the imparting unto them of the +Holy Ghost, and the phrase “all things” denotes things necessary +to salvation, It is said (Acts ii. 44) that the first Christians +“had all things common.” But to take the words literally would be +to outrage propriety. In Philippians ii. 14, it is written: “Do +all things without murmurings and disputings.” Here, again, the +words must be limited in their application, otherwise the +Christians were commanded to do all kinds of evil if commanded, +without a murmur or dispute. This could not be, hence the words +must be restricted to the duties devolving on them. So there +must, of necessity, be restriction upon the passage in Ephesians +quoted in the Confession of Faith. It must be restricted, +otherwise it will follow that God is the only worker in the +universe. And what is done in the world? God’s laws are broken; +but if He is the only worker, then He is the only breaker of His +own laws! This is absurd, hence the literality must be given up. +The obvious meaning is, that in the redemptive scheme God has +wrought it all out according to the wise plan He had formed +respecting it, just as He works out all His plans in nature and +in providence.</p> +<p class="pn">We know of no stronger passages than those +mentioned, although others have been quoted. It is the easiest +thing in the world to quote verses from the Bible as supporting a +dogma; it is quite a different thing to show that they prove +it.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C6">CHAPTER VI.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">OBJECTIONS TO CALVINISTIC PREDESTINATION.</p> +<p>T<span class="sc">here</span> are very grave objection’s to +this doctrine, that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to +pass. They are so formidable, indeed, that in view of them the +doctrine to our finding must be rejected. On another occasion we +stated several of these, which, with a few modifications, were +the following:—</p> +<p class="pn">(1.) In the first place, we object to the doctrine +of universal foreordination because, if adhered to, it makes +science and philosophy <i>impossible</i>. These are all based +upon the trustworthiness of consciousness, and if this is false +we have no foundation to build upon. When we interrogate +consciousness it testifies to our freedom. But if every volition +is fixed, as it is held it is, by a power <i>ab extra</i> from +the mind exercising the volition, then consciousness is +mendacious; it lies when it testifies to our freedom, and, +therefore, cannot be trusted; thus, science, philosophy, and +religion become impossible. The old Latin saw <i>falsum in uno, +falsum in omnibus</i>, which, when freely translated, is—one who +gives false evidence on one point may be doubted on all points. +And where does this lead to? It leads to Pyrrhonism in science +and philosophy, and indifferentism in religion. The doctrine is +thus a foundation for universal scepticism.</p> +<p class="pn">(2.) In the second place, we object to universal +foreordination because it leads to <a name="Pantheism" id= +"Pantheism">Pantheism</a>, a phase of Atheism. Pantheism as +Pantheism may be viewed statically or dynamically. The static +Pantheist assumes that all properties are properties of one +substance. This was the feature of the vedanta system of Hindu +philosophy, which holds that nothing exists but Brahma. “He is +the clay, we are the forms; the eternal spider which spins from +its own bosom the tissue of creation; an immense fire, from which +creatures ray forth in myriads of sparks; the ocean of being, on +whose surface appear and vanish the waves of existence; the foam +of the waves, and the globules of the foam, which appear to be +distinct from each other, but which are the ocean itself.” Now, +if our consciousness is only a dream, which this doctrine of +foreordination makes it out to be, what are we all, in such a +case, but mere <i>simulacra</i>, ghosts, shadows? This, and +nothing more. We thus reach the fundamental principle of the +Hindu philosophy, which is this, <i>Brahma only exists, all else +is an illusion</i>.</p> +<p class="pns">The dynamic Pantheist holds that all events are +produced by one and the same cause. This is precisely the +doctrine of the out-and-out Calvinist. God is said to be the +“fixer” of whatsoever comes to pass; and Pantheism says every +movement of nature is necessary, because necessarily caused by +the Divine volition. He is the soul of the world, or as Shelley +says—</p> +<p class="p2 f11">“Spirit of nature, all-sufficing power,</p> +<p class="p2s f11">Necessity, thou mother of the world.”</p> +<p>The only platform from which Pantheism can be assailed is our +consciousness of self,—of our own personality and freedom,—from +which we rise to the personality and the freedom of God. The +tenet of universal foreordination takes from us this “coigne of +vantage,” and lands us in dynamic Pantheism.</p> +<p class="pns">(3.) In the third place, we object to universal +foreordination because it destroys all <a name="Moral" id= +"Moral">moral distinctions</a>. Praise has been bestowed upon +Spinoza because he showed that moral distinctions are annihilated +by the scheme of necessity. But, indeed, it requires very little +perception to see that this must be the case. If God has, as is +said, determined every event, then it is impossible for the +creature to act otherwise than he does. A vast moral difference +stands between the murderer and the saint. But if the doctrine of +universal foreordination is true, we can neither blame the one +nor praise the other. Each does as it was determined he should +do, and could not but do, and to blame or praise anyone is +impossible.</p> +<p class="p1 f11">“Man fondly dreams that he is free in act;</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Naught is he but the powerless worthless +plaything</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Of the blind force that in his will itself</p> +<p class="p1s f11">Works out for him a dread necessity.”</p> +<p class="pn">There is therefore, according to this system, no +right, no wrong, no sin, no holiness; for wherever necessity +reigns, virtue and vice terminate. “Evil and good,” says the +Pantheist, “are God’s right hand and left—evil is good in the +making.” Everything being fixed by God we can no more keep from +doing what we do, than we can keep the earth from rolling round +the sun. Since this monstrosity in morals results from the +doctrine, it is evidently false.</p> +<p class="pn">(4.) We object, in the fourth place, to universal +foreordination, because it makes God the <a name="SinAuthor" id= +"SinAuthor">author of sin</a>, the caveat of the Confession +notwithstanding. It is said that God’s foreknowledge involved +foreordination. If so, the matter may be easily settled +thus:—Does God foresee that men will sin? Of course He does. But +if foreknowledge involves foreordination, then by the laws of +logic He has foreordained sin. Syllogistically thus:—God only +foreknows what He has fixed; but He foreknows sin, ergo, He fixed +sin. We cannot resist this conclusion if we hold the premises. +The Confession says He has foreordained everything, yet is He not +the author of sin. But is it not clear as day that the author of +a decree is the author of the thing decreed? David was held +responsible for his decree regarding Uriah, and justly so. Had he +been as clever as the authors of the Confession he could have +parried that homethrust of Nathan, “Thou art the man.” If +everything that comes to pass was foreordained; David might have +said, “I beg pardon, Nathan; it is true that I made the decree to +have Uriah killed, but I did not kill him. Is it not the case +that the author of a decree is not responsible for the sin of the +decree?” Would Nathan have understood this logic? We think not. +But if the Confession had been then in existence (if the +anachronism may be pardoned), he might have appealed to it +against Nathan; and we never should have had that awful +threnody—the fifty-first Psalm. There is, then, no escape from +the conclusion, that if everything that comes to pass has been +foreordained, so also must it be the case with sin, for it also +comes to pass. I open the page of history, and find it bloated +with tears and blood. It is full of robberies, massacres, and +murders. As specimens, look at the Murder of John Brown by +Claverhouse; the massacre of St. Bartholomew; the sack of +Magdeburg, when the Croats amused themselves with throwing +children into the flames, and Pappenheim’s Walloons with stabbing +infants at their mothers’ breasts. Who ordained these and a +thousand such horrid deeds? The Confession says that God ordained +them, for He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. Tilly, the +queen-mother, the infamous Catherine de Medici, Charles IX., the +bloody “Clavers” were mere puppets. The Confession goes past all +these, and says that God fixed them to take place. This is +nothing else, in effect, than to place an almighty devil on the +throne of the universe. This is strong language, but it is time, +and more than time, that sickly dilettanteism should be left +behind, and this gross libel on the Creator should be utterly +rejected. He foreordains all His own deeds, but not the deeds of +men.</p> +<p class="pn">(5.) We object to the doctrine of universal +foreordination, in the <i>fifth</i> place, because it makes the +<a name="Judgement">day of judgment</a> a farce. +The books are opened, and men are about to receive acquittal or +condemnation. This is perfectly right if men were free when on +earth, but not so if all their deeds were foreordained by God. +One of the most interesting sights in Strasbourg is the clock of +the cathedral when it strikes twelve. Then the figures move. A +man and a boy strike the bell, the apostles come out, and Christ +blesses them. It is a wonderful piece of mechanism. But the +figures are simply automatic. They move as they are moved. To try +them in a court of justice (should anything go wrong), would be +simply ridiculous—a farce. And if every one of our deeds is +fixed, what better are men than mere automata? To try them, to +judge them, and to award praise and blame for what was done, +would be to burlesque justice. The judgment day, therefore, and +foreordination of all things cannot stand in the same category. +If we hold by the one we must give up the other. God foreknows +all things, but foreordains only what He himself brings to pass. +Man will be judged, condemned, or rewarded, according as he has +acted in life; which judgment implies his freedom or the +non-foreordination of his acts.</p> +<p class="pn">The objections thus adduced are, in our judgment, +quite sufficient to condemn the dogma of universal +foreordination. Yet others of a grave character may be urged +against it. It is a sacred duty as well as a privilege of the +Christian, to defend the Divine administration when attacked by +infidels. But if everything has been fixed how can this be done? +Look at the fall. God knew that it would occur, but, according to +Calvinism, He knew it because He had foreordained it. But the +actors in the whole transaction were severely blamed and +punished. To the serpent it was said, “Because thou hast done +this, thou art cursed above all cattle and above every beast of +the field.” The woman was told that because she had done what she +did, her sorrow was to be multiplied; and the man was driven out +of Paradise, because he had hearkened unto the voice of his wife. +Can such declarations be justified if the transactions recorded +were all foreordained? Each of the parties condemned might have +asked, and done so pertinently—Why put this punishment upon me +when I was simply carrying out the Divine decrees? And what +answer could be given? None that we know of which would satisfy +the reason. And what, then? This—viz., that in the light of the +drama of the fall, the doctrine of universal foreordination must +be given up as a myth which ignores philosophy, and reflects +injuriously upon the Divine character.</p> +<p class="pn">In <a name="Jer7:29">Jeremiah vii. +29-31</a> it is written: “Cut off thy hair, O Jerusalem, and cast +it away, and take up a lamentation on high places . . . for the +children of Judah have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord: +they have set their abominations in the house which is called by +my name, to pollute it. And they have built the high places of +Tophet, . . . to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; +which I commanded them not, nor came it into my heart.” Here the +Lord expressly declares, that instead of having foreordained +these deeds, such an idea was never in His heart. There is here a +clear “Thus saith the Lord” against the dogma of universal +predestination.</p> +<p class="pn">In <a name="Mar5:6">Mark v. 6</a>, it +is said of Jesus that “He <a name="Christ" id= +"Christ">marvelled</a> because of their unbelief.” But we only +marvel when we are ignorant of the <i>cause</i> of a phenomenon. +As soon as we know this the marvel ceases. Had Jesus, therefore, +known that all was fixed, He never would have marvelled. Would +you marvel that the fire had gone out when it was decreed not to +give additional fuel? Would the miller marvel that the mill did +not go when he had ordained that the water should be shut off? +The prefixing of all events, and “marvelling” at anything, are +out of the question. But since Christ did “marvel” it shows that +He believed that they <i>could</i> and <i>ought</i> to have +believed, and that He knew of no reason why they did not. It may +be said that He was a man, and spake and felt like a man. True, +but will the followers of Calvin maintain that he knew more of +divinity than Christ? We should think not.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P1C7">CHAPTER VII.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">GENERAL SUMMARY OF THE DOCTRINE.</p> +<p>W<span class="sc">e</span> have thus endeavoured to show that +the doctrine of universal predestination—the foundation of the +Calvinistic theology—is not based upon the principle of the +Divine wisdom, nor upon Divine power, nor upon Divine +foreknowledge, nor proved by the Scripture texts advanced on its +behalf. It is closely allied to Pantheism and the fate of the +Stoics. It shakes hands with Socialism, which maintains that man +can have no merit or demerit, that he could not be otherwise than +he has been and is (<i>Socialism</i>, by Owen). It is the creed +of the Mahometans. According to them every action in a man’s life +has been written down in the <i>preserved tablets</i>, which have +been kept in the seventh heaven from all eternity. “No accident,” +saith the Koran, “happeneth on the earth, or on your persons, but +the same was entered into the book of our decrees before we +created it. Verily this is easy with God: and this is written +lest ye immoderately grieve for the good which escapeth you, or +rejoice for that which happeneth unto you.” They might fall in +battle, but it was so decreed, and at the resurrection they would +appear with their “wounds brilliant as vermilion, and odorous as +musk.” Since the primary principle of Calvinism is a foundation +principle of Pantheism, Socialism, Stoicism, and Mahometanism, +Calvinists may well question whether they have not been building +upon the sand, instead of the eternal rock of immutable +truth.</p> +<p class="pn">In view of the doctrine we have advocated, viz., +that God has not ordained whatsoever comes to pass, but has left +each man to be the arbiter of his own fate, we can see the +propriety of the exhortation, “I call heaven and earth to record +this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, +blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and +thy seed may live” (Deut. xxx. 19). It is the same still. God has +provided a Saviour for all, and, therefore, for each. It is the +province of the Holy Spirit to testify respecting Christ,—that He +is able to save the very worst, and as willing as He is able. +Each may choose to neglect this Saviour, or reject Him by +choosing some other ground; or may choose Him as his only refuge. +This choice has to be made by each man himself. No man can choose +for another any more than he can eat or drink for another. It +belongs entirely to each to do this. To choose Him is to choose +life. To neglect or reject Him is to choose—death. Which will it +be? The principle—viz., of choice, runs through life. Your +happiness here depends on it in numberless instances. It is +recognised everywhere in the Bible. Its exhortations summed up +are expressed thus—“Turn ye, turn ye, why will you die?” It thus +rests with you, and with you only—after what God has done for +you—whether you shall live or die.</p> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:16pt;margin-top:10em; margin-bottom:0.3em"> +<a name="P2">PART II.—REPROBATION.</a></p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P2C1">CHAPTER I.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION +STATED.</p> +<p>T<span class="sc">he</span> subjects of reprobation and +election are so closely connected that they might be considered +in one chapter. Indeed, so close is the connection, that certain +verses supposed to prove one of them, are also adduced to prove +the other, as—“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” It is, +however, stoutly maintained that election is scriptural, whilst +reprobation is repudiated. It is important to have clear ideas on +the subject.</p> +<p class="pn">What, then, are we to understand by the doctrine of +reprobation? The question is not whether those dying in +impenitency shall be subjected to suffering; for this is held by +the opponents of Calvinism as well as by Calvinists themselves. +The question is this, Is it true that God in a past eternity +foreordained millions of men to endless misery, that to this end +they were born, and to this end they must go? <a name= +"CalvinReprobation">John Calvin</a> held +that it was so. He says, “All are not created on equal terms, but +some are foreordained to eternal life, others to eternal +damnation; and accordingly as each has been created for one or +other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to +life or to death.” He says, again, “If we cannot assign any +reason for God’s bestowing mercy on His people, but just that it +so pleases Him, neither can we have any reason for His +reprobating others; but His will. When God is said to visit in +mercy, or to harden whom He will, men are reminded that they are +not to seek for any cause beyond His will.” He says, again, “The +human mind, when it hears this doctrine, cannot restrain its +petulance, but boils and rages, as if aroused by the sound of a +trumpet. Many, professing a desire to defend the Deity from an +invidious charge, admit the doctrine of election, but deny that +any one is reprobated. This they do ignorantly and childishly, +since there could be no election without its +opposite—reprobation. Those, therefore, whom God passes by He +reprobates, and that for no other cause but because He is pleased +to exclude them from the inheritance which He predestines to His +children”. (<i>Inst</i>., b. iii.). Zanchius held—“It was +therefore the first thing which God determined concerning them +from eternity—namely, the ordination of certain men to +everlasting destruction” (<i>Thesis de Reprob</i>.). Elnathan +Parr maintained, “If a man be reprobated he shall certainly be +damned, do what he can” (<i>Grounds of Divinity</i>). Maccovius +says that “God has indeed decreed to damn some men eternally, and +on this account He has ordained them to sin but each sins on his +own account, and freely.” To like purpose we might quote +Maloratus, Amandus Pollanus, John Norton, John Brown of Wamphray, +Piscator, &c. (<i>Vide Old Gospel</i>, &c., Young, Edin.) +Calvin and his followers did not mince the matter, as these +extracts clearly show.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Lambeth">The Lambeth +Articles</a> expressed the same ideas as above. Article First +says, “God hath from eternity predestinated certain persons to +life, and hath reprobated certain persons to death.” Article +Third runs thus, “The predestinate are a predeterminate and +certain number, which can neither be lessened nor increased.” +Article Ninth has these words, “It is not in the will or power of +every man to be saved.” The Lambeth Articles were drawn up as +expressing the sense of the Church of England, or, rather, a +section of it. They were merely declaratory, and recommended to +the students of Cambridge, where a controversy had arisen +regarding grace. They received the sanction of the Archbishop of +Canterbury, the Bishop of London, and a few others.</p> +<p class="pn">The Synod of Dort, as intimated, was held in 1618, +and had divines in it from Switzerland, Hesse, the Palatinate, +Bremen, England, and Scotland. Its first article runs thus: “That +God by an absolute decree had elected to salvation a very small +number of men, without any regard to their faith or obedience +whatsoever; and secluded from saving grace all the rest of +mankind, and appointed them by the same decree to eternal +damnation, without any regard to their infidelity or impenitency” +(Tom., p. 567). The Synods of Dort and Arles declared that if +they knew the reprobates, they would not, by Austin’s advice, +pray for them any more than they would for the devils (<i>Old +Gospel</i>, &c.) In this they were entirely consistent, +whatever else they might be.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Westminster">The +Westminster Assembly</a> met in London in 1643. They drew up the +Confession of Faith and the Catechisms. In its third chapter the +Confession declares:—“By the decree of God, for the manifestation +of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto +everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. +These angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are +particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so +certain and definite that it can neither be increased nor +diminished.” The Confession of Faith is the declared standard of +doctrine of Presbyterians in general in this country. It is +proper to note this fact, because it has been denied that whilst +election is held reprobation is denied. They are both in the +Confession.</p> +<p class="pn">From what we have thus brought forward it appears +evident that, according to Calvin, reputed Calvinistic divines, +the Lambeth Articles, the Synod of Dort, and the Westminster +Assembly, there is a portion of the human family born under the +decree of reprobation—born—we do not like the expression, but it +is the case—born to be damned. It is a harsh expression, but the +blame does not rest with us, but with those who hold the +doctrine.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P2C2">CHAPTER II.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">THE BIBLE USAGE OF THE WORD REPROBATION.</p> +<p>T<span class="sc">he</span> word “reprobation,” according to +the <i>Imperial Dictionary</i>, means “to disallow,” “not +enduring proof or trial,” “disallowed,” “rejected.” Gesenius says +the Hebrew word (<i>maas</i>) primarily means to reject, and is +used (<i>a</i>.) of God rejecting a people or an +individual—<a name="Jer6:30">Jer. vi. 30</a>; vii. +29; xiv. 19; 1 Samuel xv. 23; (<i>b</i>.) of men as rejecting God +and His precepts—1 Samuel xv. 23. The Greek word +(<i>adokimos</i>) denotes, according to Robinson, “not approved,” +“rejected.” In N. T. Metaph., “worthy of +condemnation”—“reprobate”—“useless”—“worthless.” It occurs seven +times in the English translation; once in the Old Testament, and +six times in the New. In none of the instances, however, does it +convey the idea of unconditionalism.</p> +<p class="pn"><i>First passage</i>.—In Jer. vi. 30, it is +written: “Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the Lord +hath rejected them.” But why were they rejected—reprobated? The +answer is contained in the context. It is there said, “They are +all grievous revolters, walking with slanders: they are brass and +iron; they are all corrupters. The bellows are burnt, the lead is +consumed of the fire, the founder melteth in vain; for the wicked +are not plucked away.” Everything had been done to save them, and +when all remedial agencies had failed, they were declared to be +rejected—reprobated.</p> +<p class="pn">The <i>second</i> passage is in <a name="Rom1:28" +id="Rom1:28">Rom. i. 28</a>: “And even as they did not like to +retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate +mind, to do those things which are not convenient.” Here, again, +we have reprobation; but then they were given over to this state +on the ground that they did not like to retain God in their +knowledge. The reprobation was therefore conditional, and not +Calvinistic.</p> +<p class="pn">The <i>third</i> passage is in <a name="IICo13:5" +id="IICo13:5">2 Cor. xiii. 5</a>: “Know ye not your own selves, +how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates.” +Grotius explains <i>adokimoi</i>—“reprobates,” thus: “Christians +in name only and not in deed.” Dr. Hamond as “steeped and +hardened.” Vorstius, “wicked, and unfit for the faith.” Dickson, +“as unworthy of the name of Christian.” Calvin, “unless you by +your crimes have cast off Christ” (Whitby, <i>ad loc</i>.) +Doddridge paraphrases the passage thus: “Are ye not sensible that +Jesus Christ is dwelling in you by the sanctifying and +transforming influences of His spirit, unless ye are mere nominal +Christians, and such as, whatever your gifts be, will finally be +disapproved and rejected as reprobate silver that will not stand +the touch?” The reprobation again implied a condition, and was +non-Calvinistic.</p> +<p class="pn">The <i>fourth</i> passage is as follows:—“But I +trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates” (<a name= +"IICo13:6">2 Cor. xiii. 6</a>). Barnes’s paraphrase +of the text is this: “Whatever may be the result of the +examination of yourselves, I trust (<i>Gr</i>., I hope) you will +not find us false, and to be rejected; that is, I trust you will +find in me evidence that I am commissioned by the Lord Jesus to +be His apostle.” There is nothing in the verse to favour +unconditional reprobation.</p> +<p class="pn">The <i>fifth</i> passage runs thus: “Now I pray God +that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that +ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates” (2 +Cor. xiii. 7). The meaning is plain enough. Paul desired that his +readers should live pure and honourable lives, although he and +these associated with him should be rejected as bad silver is +rejected—reputed silver that cannot stand the tests. The verse +gives no countenance to Calvinistic reprobation.</p> +<p class="pn">The <i>sixth</i> passage is this: <a name="IITi3:8" +id="IITi3:8">“Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do +these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate +concerning the faith” (2 Tim. iii. 8)</a>. But here again we have +the moral state of those men brought before us—they “resisted the +truth,” and were men of corrupt minds. They could not stand the +test of examination, and were rejected or disallowed as members +of the Christian community. There is no unconditionalism +here:</p> +<p class="pn">The <i>seventh</i> text is as follows: <a name= +"Tit1:16">“They profess that they know God; but in +works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto +every good work reprobate” (Titus i. 16)</a>. The passage, +according to all the ancient commentators who write upon it, +refers to the Jews (Whitby). Its meaning is finely hit off by +Doddridge, who; paraphrasing the words, says, “And with respect +to every good work disapproved and condemned when brought to the +standard of God’s word, though they are the first to judge and +condemn others.” They had been tried in the balance and found +wanting. They were so utterly bad that in view of good works they +were of no account. The reprobation was conditional.</p> +<p class="pn">The Greek word (<i>adokimos</i>) is used in +<a name="Heb6:8">Heb. vi. 8</a>, but is translated +“rejected.” It has reference to ground. But why was the ground +rejected, or reprobated? Unconditionally? Nay, but because it +yielded, instead of good fruit, “briers and thorns.” The human +mind is like a field, and God is the husbandman. He uses various +methods to produce the fruits of righteousness, and when these +fail, judgment is pronounced against the mind. And is not this +just?</p> +<p class="pn">As far, therefore, as the word is concerned, there +is not the most distant support given to the doctrine of an +eternal decree foredooming millions of men to hopeless misery. It +is something gained when we find this to be the case.</p> +<p class="pn">On what, then, does the doctrine rest, if not upon +the use of the word? It is supposed to rest upon the sovereignty +of God, and certain passages of Scripture, although the word +“reprobate” is not found in them.</p> +<p class="pn">The term sovereign is from the French “sovereign,” +and that again from the Latin “supernus.” It means supreme in +power, supreme to all others. That God occupies this position +will not be questioned by any one who believes in Him. The +matter, therefore, is not one of sovereignty, or whether God is +‘the only’ absolute Sovereign in the universe. This is admitted. +The question is this—what has God, in the exercise of His +sovereignty, chosen to do? To adduce proofs in its support is +beside the point, since we hold it as firmly as our opponents in +this controversy. Nebuchadnezzar uttered a great truth when he +said that God “doeth according to His will in the army of heaven, +and among the inhabitants of the earth.” But what is His will? Is +man governed by the law of necessity as storms are, and as waters +are? These creatures do as God desires; is it so as regards man? +The condemnation that each passes on himself is the best answer. +Man may transgress, but God by virtue of His absolute sovereignty +has appointed the penalty, and no one can reverse His decree.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P2C3">CHAPTER III.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">PROOF TEXTS FOR CALVINISTIC REPROBATION +EXAMINED.</p> +<p>P<span class="sc">assages of</span> S<span class= +"sc">cripture</span>.—There are certain passages of the Bible +supposed to teach the doctrine of Calvinistic reprobation, and it +may be well to examine their meaning.</p> +<p class="pns">R<span class="sc">eprobation and the</span> +E<span class="sc">vil</span> D<span class="sc">ay</span>.—In +Proverbs xvi. 4, it is written: “The Lord hath made all things +for Himself, even the wicked for the day of evil.” This passage +is supposed to teach the doctrine of Calvin, that some men have +been reprobated from eternity, and come into existence with the +doom of death eternal on their brow. The first part of the verse +presents no difficulty. It brings before us the idea that God +Himself is the great object of creation. It is proper that this +should be so. He is the greatest and the best of beings, and to +have created for a lesser object than Himself would not have been +conformable to the dictate of the reason. It is the second part +of the verse which is supposed to teach the doctrine of eternal +and unconditional reprobation. Calvin’s idea of the passage is +that the wicked were created for “certain death that His name +(God’s) may be glorified in their destruction.” Let us suppose +this to be the meaning—what then? The word “glory” in Hebrew +means “beauty,” “honour,” “adornment.” All around us lies the +beautiful—the earth with her carpet of flowers—and the +overarching skies— the sun, the moon, and the stars, are all +beautiful.</p> +<p class="p1 f11">“Oh, if so much beauty doth reveal</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Itself in every vein of life and motion,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">How beautiful must be the source itself,</p> +<p class="p1s f11">The ever bright one.”—T<span class= +"sc">egner</span>.</p> +<p>But there is a moral beauty in God. It lies in the supreme +moral excellence of His character; in His holiness, in His love, +in His truthfulness, in His patience, in His gentleness, in His +mercy. These attributes existing in God in the highest +perfection, constitute the glory of the Most High. “Beauty and +kindness go together” saith the poet; but is there any kindness +in creating men for the purpose of making them miserable for +ever? For ourselves we see no beauty, no glory in this—but the +reverse. We regard it as a libel upon the character of the ever +blessed God.</p> +<p class="pn">The meaning of the passage is simple enough. God +hath appointed good for the righteous and evil for the wicked. +Though hand join in hand the wicked shall not go unpunished. One +version of the passage is, “Jehovah hath made all things to +answer each other, even the day of calamities for the wicked” +(Davidson’s <i>Commentary</i>). In Collins’ <i>Critical +Commentary</i> it is explained thus: “For Himself or for its +answer or purpose . . . . Sin and suffering answer to each other, +are indissolubly united” (<i>ad loc</i>). Thus interpreted, there +is nothing in the passage to create difficulty.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Joh12:37">John xii. 37</a>, +41, reads thus: “But though He had done so many miracles before +them, yet they believed not on Him: that the saying of Esaias the +prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath +believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been +revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because Esaias said +again, He hath <a name="Blinding">blinded</a> their +eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with +their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, +and I should heal them. These things said Esaias when he saw His +glory, and spake of Him.” Calvin held that John, “citing this +prophecy (of Isaiah), declares that the Jews could not believe +because this curse of God was upon them.” The first portion of +the quotation is from Isaiah liii. 1, “who hath believed our +report?” &c. The question would imply that comparatively few +had at first responded to the Gospel invitation. The larger +portion of the passage is from Isaiah vi. It is as follows: “Go +ye, and tell this people, 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 hearts, and convert, and be healed” (vers. 9, 10). The +passage is quoted by Matthew (xiii. 14, 15). Dr. Randolph, as +quoted by Horne, says on this passage, “This quotation is taken +almost verbatim from the Septuagint. In the Hebrew the sense is +obscured by false pointing. If instead of reading it in the +imperative mood, we read it in the indicative mood, the sense +will be, ‘Ye shall hear, but not understand; and ye shall see, +but not perceive. This people hath made their heart fat, and hath +made their ears heavy, and shut their eyes,’ &c., which +agrees in <i>sense</i> with the evangelist and with the +Septuagint, as well as with the Syriac and Arabic versions, but +not with the Latin Vulgate. We have the same quotation, word for +word, in Acts xxviii. 26. Mark and Luke refer to the same +prophecy, but quote it only in part.” The Hebrew vowel points +which make the passage in Isaiah to be read in the imperative +mood were only introduced some 700 years after the birth of +Christ (Gesenius).</p> +<p class="pn">Read in this light the passage gives no support to +the doctrine sought to be fastened on it. The oracle was +originally applied to the Jews living in the time of Isaiah. They +were then exceedingly depraved; and the evangelist found that the +words were applicable to the Jews living in the time of Christ. +Horne, writing on “accommodation,” observes, “It was a familiar +idiom of the Jews when quoting the writings of the Old Testament +to say that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by such and +such a prophet, not intending it to be understood that such a +particular passage in one of the sacred books was ever designed +to be a real prediction of what they were then relating, but +signifying only that the words of the Old Testament might be +properly adopted to express their meaning and illustrate their +ideas” (<i>Intro</i>., Vol. II.) “The apostles,” he adds, “who +were Jews by birth, and spoke in the Jewish idiom, frequently +thus cite the Old Testament, intending no more by this mode of +speaking than that the words of such an ancient writer might with +equal propriety be adopted to characterise any similar occurrence +which happened in their times. The formula, ‘That it might be +fulfilled,’ does not therefore differ in signification from the +phrase, ‘then was fulfilled,’ applied in the following citation +in Matt. ii. 17, 18, from Jer. xxxi. 15, 17, to the massacre of +the infants in Bethlehem. They are a beautiful quotation, and not +a prediction, of what then happened, and are therefore applied to +the massacre of the infants, according not to their original and +historical meaning, but according to Jewish phraseology +(<i>Vide</i> Kitto, Art. Accom.) The principle of accommodation +clears away all difficulty. It is also in harmony with the +context, as applied in John. Christ exhorted those around Him to +believe in the light, that they might be the children of the +light. But how could He exhort them to believe in the light, if +He knew that the Divine Father had rendered their doing so an +impossibility? Would you ask a man to walk who had no legs? to +look, if he had no eyes? Underlying the exhortation to walk in +the light lay the idea that they were able to perform it. It has +been said that although we have lost the power to obey, God has +not lost the power to command. Dr. Thomas Reid meets this notion +thus: “Suppose a man employed in the navy of his country, and, +longing for the ease of a public hospital as an invalid, to cut +off his fingers so as to disable him from doing the duty of a +sailor; he is guilty of a great crime, but after he has been +punished according to the demerit of his crime, will his captain +insist that he shall do the duty of a sailor? Will he command him +to go aloft when it is impossible for him to do it, and punish +him as guilty of disobedience? Surely if there be any such thing +as justice and injustice, this would be unjust and wanton +cruelty” (Hamilton’s Reid, p. 621).</p> +<p class="pn">Yet whilst there is no decree dooming men to +hardness of heart or moral blindness, this state may be reached. +Many are progressing towards it, many are now in it. They have +turned a deaf ear to the cry of mercy, and are like the ground +that has been often rained upon, but brought out only briers and +thorns. The difficulty of the return of such does not lie with +God, but in the habit of evil contracted and persisted in by the +wrong-doers. God desires the salvation of all men, and has made +the way open for all by the propitiation of Christ.</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> E<span class= +"sc">pistle to the</span> R<span class="sc">omans</span>.—The +apostle of the Gentiles is supposed to have clearly established, +in this epistle, the doctrine that some are born to be saved, and +others born to be lost. The ninth chapter especially has been the +great storehouse of arguments for such as hold this view. The +strong-minded and the weak-kneed have all resorted thither. They +entrench themselves behind such passages as, <a name="Rom9:13" +id="Rom9:13">“Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated;”</a> +“Hath not the potter power over the clay?” and think, by +repeating them, that they have settled the controversy.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="JacobEsau">J<span class= +"sc">acob and</span> E<span class="sc">sau</span>.</a>—We shall +consider the proof texts in this chapter under the form of +inquiry, and answer. Inquirer: “But does not the passage ‘Jacob +have I loved, but Esau have I hated’ (verse 13), prove that the +man Jacob was elected to eternal live, and the man Esau +reprobated or doomed to eternal death?” Answer—Far from it, as we +shall soon see. The passage is a quotation from Malachi i. 2, 3. +If you look at the context of the quotation you will see that the +prophet is speaking of the <i>people</i> “Jacob” and the people +“Esau,” or the Edomites. It is of the utmost moment to see this, +as it has a most important bearing upon the controversy. The +fourth and fifth verses read thus:—“Whereas Edom saith, We are +impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; +thus saith the Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw +down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, +The people against whom the Lord hath indignation for ever. And +your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The Lord will be magnified +from the border of Israel.” The plural pronouns used, “we,” “us,” +“ye,” “they,” and the term “people,” prove that the prophet was +speaking, not of the man “Jacob,” nor of the man “Esau,” but of +the respective peoples which had descended from them. Look now at +the word “loved.” It has been taken to mean God’s electing love. +But if this were so, then it will follow that all the Jewish +people would be saved. And if so, why was it that Paul was so +distressed about them, as he says, in the first part of the +chapter, that he was? He had great “heaviness and continual +sorrow” regarding the spiritual state of his countrymen; but if +they were unconditionally elected to eternal life, then Paul was +certainly carrying a useless burden. The “love” spoken of was +representative of God’s kindness in bestowing upon the people +Jacob the privilege of being the Messianic people. The word +“hated” will thus signify, as the opposite of “loved,” that the +people Esau might be said (from a certain standpoint) to be +“hated;” that is, “less loved” in comparison with the favour +bestowed upon the people Jacob. This meaning is in harmony with +Hebrew idiom. The words “loved” and “hated” are used in a +relative sense. Christ says, “If any man come to me, and hate not +his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and +sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple” +(<a name="Luk14:26">Luke xiv. 26</a>). This passage +throws an important light on the subject. No one will contend +that Christ meant that we should hate our parents. He simply +brings before us this truth, that we were to love Him above all +relatives; but the use of the term “hate” by Him takes it out of +the category of the absolute, and places it in the relative. And +this must be its meaning as used by Paul. If not, if it means +that the race of Esau has been reprobated, then there is no +Gospel for them, and Christ’s command to preach the Gospel to +every creature must be limited. To send a missionary to the Arabs +would be absurd if this doctrine is true. Thank God it is not +so.</p> +<p class="pn">The Jews took up the position that they must be +saved; that they did not need the Gospel; that being Abraham’s +seed they could not possibly be damned. Paul felt deeply grieved +with respect to the position they occupied, and sought to +dislodge them from it. “As to the fine logic of his argument, +bear in mind that he has been proving in the preceding context +that the lineal descent of the Jews from the patriarch Abraham +did not, as they fancied it did, make them curse-proof for +eternity. He proves this in the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth +verses . . . by showing that the Ishmaelites could boast of a +descent as lineal and patriarchal as theirs, and yet it did not +suffice to instal them in the medium Messianic privilege of being +Abraham’s favoured children for time. By showing this, he leaves +us to draw the natural inference that the lineal descent which +could not instal Ishmaelites in the medium Messianic privilege of +being Abraham’s highly-favoured children for time, could never be +sufficient to instal the infatuated Christ-rejecting Jews in the +peerless privilege of being Abraham’s glory-inheriting and +curse-proof spiritual seed, his highly-favoured children for +eternity. . . . He then proceeds to prove again his already +proved position, and thus to clench his argument. This he does in +the third section of the chapter, which begins with the tenth +verse and ends with the thirteenth. . . . His proof consists of +the fact that the Edomites were as purely descended from Abraham +through Isaac, as were the Israelites; and yet, as is manifest at +once from the declaration made to Rebecca, ‘the greater people +shall be inferior to the lesser,’ and from the stronger statement +made to the Israelites themselves by God in Malachi, ‘the people +Jacob have I loved, but the people Esau have I hated,’—this +pure-lineal patriarchal descent of the Rebecca-born Edomites was +not sufficient to elevate them to the enjoyment of the medium +privilege of Abraham’s Messianic children. This being the case, +it was scarcely short of perfect madness for the Israelites to +suppose that <i>their</i> pure descent from Abraham would suffice +to constitute them his glory-inheriting and curse-proof spiritual +children, his highly-favoured seed for eternity. Such is the fine +and matchless logic of the apostle’s argumentation” (Morison, +<i>Romans IX</i>.).</p> +<p class="pn">The interpretation thus given makes the apostle to +be consistent with himself, and in harmony with the “analogy of +faith.” The Calvinistic interpretation makes the apostle +inconsistent with himself, and the command to preach the Gospel +to every creature—a nullity.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Mercy">M<span class="sc">ercy +on whom</span> H<span class="sc">e</span> W<span class= +"sc">ill</span></a>.—<i>Inquirer</i>,—“But did not God claim the +right to extend mercy to whom He pleased, and to withhold it from +whom He pleased?”</p> +<p class="pn"><i>Answer</i>,—It is even so. Paul says, <a name= +"Rom9:15">“For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy +on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I +will have compassion” (Rom. ix. 15)</a>. The quotation is from +Exodus xxxiii. 19. The Israelites had committed the sin of making +the golden calf, and were threatened with destruction; but God +was entreated not to destroy them utterly, and Moses was assured +that God would extend mercy as He should see fit. The quotation +has a bearing upon the position of the Jews and Paul’s argument. +They were filled with self-sufficiency and pride, and in great +danger. In the reply to Moses, God claimed the right of extending +mercy as He pleased, and would not allow Moses to interfere with +His prerogative. The Jews were reminded by the quotation that God +had a right to say on what terms He would have mercy upon +sinners. He does not state the principle after the quotation, but +does so in verses 30-33 of this chapter. He extends mercy to +those who believe in Jesus:</p> +<p class="pn">P<span class= +"sc">haraoh</span>.—<i>Inquirer</i>,—“But what do you make of +Pharaoh? Was he not a typical illustration of the unconditionally +reprobated?”</p> +<p class="pn"><i>Answer</i>,—It is thought so. The apostle refers +to the wicked king in the seventeenth verse. His case was +analogous to that occupied by the Jews. He had been raised up +from a sick bed, treated most graciously, but became hardened +under the influence of mercy, and was at last destroyed. The Jews +had also been very generously dealt with, but instead of yielding +were becoming indurated, and unless they repented, would, as +Pharaoh was, be destroyed. It is said that God hardened Pharaoh’s +heart, and also that He hardened his own heart. Both statements +are true, but looked at from different standpoints. God softens +or hardens human hearts as they keep the mind in truth or +falsehood.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Potter">T<span class= +"sc">he</span> P<span class="sc">otter and the</span> +C<span class="sc">lay</span></a>.—<i>Inquirer</i>,—“But what of +the potter and the clay, verse twenty-one?”</p> +<p class="pn"><i>Answer</i>,—The question discussed in the ninth +of the Romans is a question of Divine sovereignty, or God’s right +to appoint the destinies of men after their moral probation is +over. The potter claimed the right to say what he should do in +respect of the vessels which he had made. Should one become +marred in his hands, he makes it into a vessel of dishonour or +inferiority. If not, if it turned out as he wished it, then it +occupied the position of a vessel of honour. The illustration +came with crushing power against the Jews. The attitude of +hostility which they then occupied was that of being marred in +the hands of God, and He claimed the right of appointing them +their destiny. If they refused the Saviour whom Paul preached, if +they continued morally unregenerated, then the mere fact of being +Abraham’s seed would not save them. As regards their fate +hereafter, they would be as clay in the hands of the potter.</p> +<p class="pn">We have thus seen that those passages so much +relied on have really no bearing upon reprobation or +predestination. They refer to another and distinct +question—namely, that of S<span class="sc">overeignty</span>. Had +God a <span class="sc">right</span> to select the Jacobites as +the Messianic people instead of the Edomites? The Jews would not +dispute this. But had He a right to extend mercy as He saw fit? +Had He a right to destroy Pharaoh when he refused to yield? Had +He a right to deal with the destinies of men as He judged right? +If He had, then the Jews had not a foot to stand upon in their +absurd contention, that because they had descended from Abraham +they must needs be saved. According to Paul’s theology, God, in +the exercise of sovereignty, had appointed faith as the condition +of salvation, and if they refused to comply with the condition, +then, as the Israelites were destroyed in the wilderness for lack +of faith, as Pharaoh was destroyed in the sea when he refused +obedience, and as the potter assigned an inferior position to the +marred vessel, so would the Divine Ruler visit the Jews with evil +if they refused to accept of Christ.</p> +<p class="pn">There is nothing in this ninth chapter to frighten +any one. The Jew expected to be saved by works (see vers. 30-33), +and on the ground of his descent from Abraham. The apostle sweeps +both of these away, and presents Christ as the only ground for +them. And the ground that was for them is for all.</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> S<span class="sc">tone +of</span> S<span class="sc">tumbling</span>.—In <a name="IPe2:8" +id="IPe2:8">1 Peter ii. 8</a> it is written: “And a stone of +stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at +the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” +This text is supposed to teach that the parties spoken of were +appointed to be disobedient. At the first glance it would seem to +teach this. But the principle of interpretation to which we have +referred—namely, that when the mere grammatical construction of a +passage is clearly absurd, it is clear it cannot be the true one, +and we must look for another meaning. Now, if the “whereunto” +refers to the “disobedient,” how could they be charged with +disobedience if they were just doing what they were appointed to +do? If Christ was put before those unbelievers for the purpose of +making them disobey, then would not this be to put a +stumbling-block in their way? Surely such conduct is infinitely +the opposite of a good God.</p> +<p class="pn">Another translation of the passage, including verse +7, is this:—“Unto you, therefore, who believe He is precious; but +unto those who disbelieve, the stone which the builders +disallowed has become the head of the corner, and a stone of +stumbling, and a rock of offence. They, disbelieving the word, +stumble—that is, fall or perish, whereunto also they were +appointed.” That is, unbelievers are appointed to perish if they +continue unbelievers. Horne says, “Hence it is evident that 1 +Peter ii. 8 is not that God ordained them to disobedience (for in +that case their obedience would have been impossible, and their +disobedience no sin), but that God, the righteous Judge of all +the earth, had appointed or decreed that destruction and eternal +perdition should be the punishment of such disbelieving persons +who willingly reject all the evidences that Jesus Christ was the +Messiah, the Saviour of the world. The mode of pointing above +adopted is that proposed by Drs. John Taylor, Doddridge, and +Macknight, and recognised by Greisbach in his <i>Critical Edition +of the New Testament</i>, and is manifestly required by the +context” (Vol. IV., p. 398). The passage as thus explained has no +difficulty. Blessings come to those believing, evil to those +disbelieving.</p> +<p class="pn">F<span class="sc">oreordained to</span> +C<span class="sc">ondemnation</span>.—In <a name="Jud1:4" id= +"Jud1:4">Jude, verse 4</a>, it is written thus: “For there are +certain men crept in unawares, who were of old foreordained to +this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into +lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus +Christ.” The passage contains the reason why the apostle had +urged the Christians to contend earnestly for the faith once +delivered to the saints. The term “ordained” in the passage means +“to write before,” or “aforetime,” “to post up publicly in +writing.” Certain men of bad character had got into the church, +but the condemnation of such had been intimated before. Macknight +says, “Jude means that these wicked teachers had their punishment +before written—that is, foretold in what is written concerning +the wicked Sodomites and rebellious Israelites, whose crimes were +the same with theirs.” To write regarding certain characters, and +intimating their punishment, is a widely different thing from +unconditional reprobation.</p> +<p class="pn">The passages thus examined are the principal ones +brought forward to prove that some men are foreordained to +everlasting ruin. We do not think they prove this, and we reject +the doctrine.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P2C4">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">OBJECTIONS TO CALVINISTIC REPROBATION.</p> +<p><i>In the first place</i>, we object to it because it +impeaches the Divine Fatherhood. God sustains to the human family +the relation of a Father. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, +but not their father. Fatherhood carries in it two +ideas,—creation and similarity of nature. He is the Creator of +the sun and stars, but they do not possess a nature like His. But +in man there is a Divine likeness, an epitome of God. There is +the power of thought, will, and feeling. In this broad view every +man is a son of God. He has been created by Him, and, so far, is +like Him. It is very true that man has rebelled and ignores the +relationship. But denial of relationship does not abolish it. A +son may deny his own father, and claim another to be so; and men +have denied God, and acted as the children of the devil. But +although they have rebelled, He earnestly remembers them. They +are prodigals, but they are His prodigals. He made them, and He +feels for them. A good father feels for all his children. Could +we call a father a good father who foreordains that one-half of +his offspring should be burned? But this is the doctrine of +Calvinistic reprobation! It cannot stand in the light of the +parable of the prodigal son. As that father in that parable felt +to his prodigal child, so God <i>feels</i> to every one of His +prodigals.</p> +<p class="pn">We reject this doctrine of unconditional +reprobation,</p> +<p class="pns"><i>In the second place</i>, because it impeaches +the Divine <i>sincerity</i>. Sincerity is descriptive of the +harmony that exists between the feelings of the heart and the +utterances of the lips.</p> +<p class="p3 f11">“Sincerity,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">The first of virtues, let no mortal leave</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Thy onward path, although the earth should +gape,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">And from the gulph of hell destruction cry</p> +<p class="p1s f11">To take dissimulation’s winding way.”</p> +<p>An insincere man, who professes one thing whilst he feels +another, is universally despised. Now, when I take up the Bible, +what do I find? I find it full of invitations to all men to come +and be saved. “Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be +saved.” “Ho, every one that thirsteth; come ye to the waters.” +“Turn ye, turn ye, why will you die?” Now, these invitations are +addressed to all alike. Their value turns on this—does God +<i>mean</i> what He says? Not so if Calvinistic reprobation be +true. But if He does mean what He says—that He really wishes all +saved—then these utterances reveal the great heart of God as it +gathers round every human being; and the Calvinistic dogma of +unconditional reprobation is a huge lie, that should be thrown +back to the place whence it came.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P2C5">CHAPTER V.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF <a name= +"Reprobation2">REPROBATION</a>.</p> +<p>T<span class="sc">here</span> is a doctrine of reprobation +taught in the Bible. The word, as we have seen, is several times +used in the sacred writings. It means, according to classic +Greek, “not standing the test,” “spurious, base, properly (1.) of +coin, (2.) of persons,” “ignoble, mean” (Liddell and Scott). In +the Bible it signifies the same thing, “disapproved,” “rejected,” +“undiscerning,” “void of judgment.” Cruden says, “This word among +metallists is used to signify any metal that will not undergo the +trial, that betrays itself to be adulterate or reprobate, and of +a coarse alloy. . . . A reprobate mind, that is, a mind hardened +in wickedness, and so stupid as not to discern between good and +evil.” We are quite familiar with the idea in everyday life. +Ships, horses, land, governments, individuals, are being +constantly subjected to trial, and, being found wanting, are +rejected, <i>reprobated</i>. And what thus takes place in the +lower plane of things, takes place in the sphere of morals. Men +are now on trial for eternity. If they act as God wishes them, +they shall walk with him in white, and sit down at the +marriage-supper of the Lamb; but if not, then they will be +rejected. The great principle is neither more nor less than +this—namely, that men shall reap as they sowed. The principle is +just. If men sow nettle-seed or the seed of briers and thorns, is +it not fair that they should reap the fruit? The great principle, +then, of the Bible is this: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye +shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye +shall be devoured by the sword” (Isaiah i. 19, 20).</p> +<p class="pn">It is a blessed thing, then, to know that on your +head there is no decree of unconditional reprobation. You may be +saved. Your heavenly Father wishes you saved, for He is “not +willing that you should perish” (2 Peter iii. 9); and He wishes +“all men saved” (1 Timothy ii. 4), and therefore you. He has done +all He can for you. Will you be saved? It rests with you to build +only on Christ, and conform your life after the pattern He has +left.</p> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:16pt;margin-top:10em; margin-bottom:0.3em"> +<a name="P3">PART III.—ELECTION.</a></p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C1">CHAPTER I.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">THEORIES OF CALVINISTIC ELECTION.</p> +<p>I<span class="sc">f</span> the question of Calvinistic +reprobation is fitted to freeze the blood and repel the mind from +God, that of election, as represented by the same school, is +calculated to perplex and disturb the inquirer after truth. At +the noonday meeting in Glasgow, some time ago, the prayers of +those present were requested on behalf of a lady who was troubled +with the doctrine of election! She is, we believe, a type of +thousands. Poor woman! had she listened to the teachings of +Scripture instead of to those of man, she need have had no +trouble in the matter. Heaven’s order is—“Believe in the Lord +Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” In other words, believe +that God loves yourself, that Christ made an atonement for thy +sin, and thou shalt enter among the saved ones—or the elect.</p> +<p class="pn">There are four different theories regarding this +subject:—</p> +<p class="pn">(1.) There is, <i>first</i>, the <a name= +"Supralapsarianism">supralapsarian +theory</a>. Those who hold this view are high Calvinists. +According to this theory, God, without any regard to the good or +evil works of men, resolved by an eternal decree, <i>supra +lapsum</i>, antecedently to any knowledge of the fall of Adam, +and independent of it, to reject some and save others; or, in +other words, that God intended to glorify His justice in the +condemnation of some as well as His mercy in the salvation of +others, and for that end decreed that Adam should necessarily +fall (Buck).</p> +<p class="pn">(2.) The <i>second</i> theory is designated +<a name="Sublapsarianism" id= +"Sublapsarianism"><i>sublapsarianism</i></a>. According to this +view, God permitted the first man to fall into transgression +without absolutely predetermining his fall; or, that the decree +of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that +freedom which Adam had. In other words, they regard the decrees +of election and reprobation as having reference to man in his +fallen condition. But according to this theory God loves only a +portion of our race—gives His Son to die for this only, and His +converting grace to this only. This portion is designated the +elect.</p> +<p class="pn">(3.) A <i>third</i> view is that God loves all men, +has given His Son to die for all men, but His saving grace is not +given to all, but only to some. This is modern Calvinism. +“Election is then,” says Dr. Payne, “God’s purpose to exert upon +the minds of certain members of the human family that spiritual +and holy influence which will secure their ultimate salvation” +(<i>Lect. on Sovy</i>.)</p> +<p class="pn">(4.) A <i>fourth</i> view is that God loves all +men, that Christ died for all men, and that converting grace is +given to all men; and that those of mankind who believe God’s +testimony regarding His Son, become His elect or chosen ones. It +is this view which we support. The first three theories have +points of difference and agreement, but in their last analysis +they come to this, that God does not wish all men saved, only +some—the elect.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C2">CHAPTER II.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">CALVINISTIC ELECTION INVOLVES POSITIVE REFUSAL +TO PROVIDE SAVING GRACE FOR THE LOST.</p> +<p>Dr. P<span class="sc">ayne</span>, one of the subtlest and +most accomplished of modern Calvinists, argues strongly against +the notion that the decree of election involves the decree of +reprobation. He says “I may determine to relieve one out of +twenty destitute families in my neighbourhood, without positively +determining not to relieve the others; and if any one should ask +me why others are not relieved, it would be sufficient to reply +that the giving of actual relief can only spring from a +determination to relieve, which in reference to them does not +exist. I may determine to take a book from the shelf, without a +positive determination not to take the others. There may, indeed, +be such a determination, but it is not necessarily implied in the +determination to take, and that is all that I am obliged to +prove—the other books may not even be thought of” (p. 40). Dr. +Payne was a very subtle dialectician, but we fear he has here +imposed upon himself in these illustrations. It is very true that +when I determine to select book “A” from my library, that book +“B” may not have been before my mind, and that I did not +knowingly determine to reject it. But it may have been, and if it +was, then the selection of “A” only, carried with it the +rejection of “B.” A father sees his two children perishing in the +waters. He jumps into a boat, and reaches the scene of disaster. +The children are sinking from sheer exhaustion. He takes one into +the boat, and returns to shore. He could easily have saved the +other, but did not, and he tells the people this on landing, and +that he must be simply judged by his act of saving the rescued +child, and that he is not to be held as passing a decree of +reprobation against the other. This, we submit, is Dr. Payne’s +case. And will it bear looking at? I don’t think it. Dr. Payne +adds, “This reasoning applies yet with greater force to the great +Eternal. There must exist in the mind of God a determination to +do what He actually does, because His actions are the result of +His volitions or determinations. But where God does not act, +where He does nothing, He determines nothing. It is childish to +suppose that because when He acts, there must be a determination +to act, when he does not act, there must be a determination not +to act, since a determination is necessary to a state of action, +but it surely is not necessary to a state of rest. When Jehovah +created the present universe, is it necessary to suppose that +there existed in His mind a positive determination not to create +any of the other possible universes which were present to His +views? Surely not.” But we should say, Surely yes. If twenty +plans are presented to me, and I select one only, does not this +imply the rejection of the others? To the Divine mind there must +have been present the conception of many different kinds of +worlds than the one we are in; but of the possibles He chose the +present system as, all things considered, the best. Had there +been a better world and God did not make it, it must have been, +according to the optimists, either because God did not know of +it, or was unable to make it, or was unwilling,—all of which +suppositions are either incompatible with the omniscience, the +omnipotence, or the goodness of God. When the Creator selected +the present system, He rejected the “possibles” that might have +been brought into being. I am surprised that Dr. Payne should say +that “determination” is not necessary to a state of rest, or +non-action. In thousands of instances non-action—rest—is as much +the result of volition as is the most determined activity. The +old divines used to divide sin into acts of commission and +omission. But in every sin of omission there was action implied. +If I do not help the needy when he crieth, my non-help—my rest as +regards aid—carries action in it—determination. Dr. Payne again +says, “When God determined to save man, did that volition +necessarily imply a positive determination not to save the angels +who kept not their first estate? No one, it is presumed, Will +answer in the affirmative. It implies, indeed, that fallen angels +were not included in the merciful purpose of God, that there was +no volition to save them; but no degree of ingenuity can gather +any conclusion beyond this from the facts of the case. Why, then, +should a positive determination, on the part of God, to save some +of the human family be supposed to imply of necessity a counter +and positive determination not to save the other members of the +family. Not to save men is not to act, it is just doing nothing.” +But this is a very partial view of the case. What God did in the +case of the fallen angels we know nothing, and can affirm +nothing. But one may do nothing from one side of things, and do a +great deal from another. The priest and the Levite just did +nothing as far as helping the man was concerned. They rested, but +in this rest there was action which has covered them with obloquy +for all time. And if God has special influence at His disposal, +and determines to give it to some when He <span class= +"sc">knew</span> that others needed it as much, and yet withholds +it from them, His withholding it is as much an act as the gift of +it. He passed the non-elect over in applying the influence, and +no ingenuity can make it otherwise. But what He does in time He +determined to do in eternity—He determined to pass them over. The +illustration, therefore, of the book is worthless.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C3">CHAPTER III.</a></p> +<p class="p0s f11">CALVINISTIC ELECTION CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE +TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD.</p> +<p><a name="Sovereignty">T<span class= +"sc">he</span> Divine sovereignty</a> may be said to be the great +foundation on which the various shades of Calvinists take their +stand. Here they think they are as safe as if they stood on +adamant. But assertion is not argument, and he who asserts must +prove.</p> +<p class="pn">Dr. Payne, in his preliminary lecture, discusses +the question of sovereignty, and endeavours to show that there is +a difference between supremacy and sovereignty. By the former +punishment is inflicted, by the latter good. If by sovereingty we +mean that God has absolute power to do whatsoever He pleases, +then it will comprehend the penalty of transgression, as well as +the bestowment of good. And this, as we apprehend, is the correct +view of the case. The Divine sovereignty being one of the main +pillars of his system, Dr. Payne gives various illustrations of +it.</p> +<p class="pn">(1.) He instances the varied <a name="Mental" id= +"Mental">mental powers</a> bestowed on men. He says, “The mind of +one man is marked by infantile weakness, of another by a giant’s +strength. Nothing can elevate the former, nothing permanently +depress and overpower the latter. . . . In the case of certain +persons, the reasoning powers preponderate; in that of others, +the imagination. One man has little judgment, but an exuberant +fancy. Another has received the gift of a piercing intellect; but +if it be clear as a frosty night, it is also as cold. A third is +all impetuosity and fire, but it is a fire that scorches and +consumes everything that comes in its way. We can account for +these diversities by the principle of sovereignty alone. God +‘divideth to every man severally as He will,’ ‘He giveth none +account of these matters,’ ‘He has a right to do what He will +with His own.’ ” Now, we do not question God’s right to do what +He will with His own, but is this difference in mental calibre +purely an arbitrary act? Has brain, nerve, habit, nothing to do +with the case? and marriage? and education? Look at the +biographies of prominent men, and what do we find? Much depends +evidently on the <a name="GreatMen">mother</a>, as +in the case of Bacon, Erskine, Brougham, Cromwell, Canning, +<a name="Byron">Byron</a>. The last-mentioned, writing +of himself, says, that his “springs of life were poisoned.” His +mother was a most passionate woman, and is reported to have died +of a fit of ill-nature at the sight of her upholsterer’s bills. +The possession, then, of talent is not purely arbitrary, but +dependent on parentage, training, surroundings. There was one +question, indeed, which would have upset the whole of these +illustrations. It was this:—Whence comes insanity? It would never +be contended that God made some individuals insane and others +sane, by a merely arbitrary act. We find, in hundreds of +instances, that it is hereditary. One observer considers that +six-sevenths of the cases arise from this one cause. When, then, +Dr. Payne quotes the words, “He giveth none account of these +things,” we ask, is it so? Has He not written His mind in the +providence around us? Let certain habits be encouraged, certain +marriages entered into, and we require no ghost to rise and tell +us what the issue will be. God is telling it to us every day. +Departure on the part of parents from organic laws entails +misery, even to imbecility, on the children. We do not, of +course, deny that there are diversities among men; but we do deny +that these are purely arbitrary, like the gift of special grace, +and are therefore inept as illustrative of it.</p> +<p class="pn">(2.) Dr. Payne refers to <a name="Providential" id= +"Providential">providential blessing</a> as illustrative of +sovereignty. He remarks, “That inequalities in the external +condition and circumstances exist, is manifest to all. The +questions, then, which force themselves upon our attention are +these: Do these inequalities originate with God, or with man?” He +asks, “Why one is born rich, and another poor? How is it to be +explained that two persons equal in talent and moral worth, +obtain such unequal measure of success? . . . The facts are +entirely to be resolved into Divine sovereignty. God is here +exercising the right of testimony, the bounties of His providence +upon men, as it seems good in His sight.” It is very true that +God is the source of all the good in the world, but does He +bestow it arbitrarily? If a man neglects being <i>thrifty</i>, +and lives beyond his means, his offspring will inherit his +poverty. There are economic as well as physical laws in the +world, and the non-observance of them descends unto the third and +fourth generations.</p> +<p class="pn">Dr. Payne appeals to health as illustrating his +position. He says, “It is impossible to account for the fact that +of two individuals equal in point of moral worth, one is the +constant subject of bodily infirmity, and the other the habitual +possessor of health; but by admitting that the hand of +sovereignty confers upon the latter a measure of good to which he +has no claim” (p. 32). Doubtless, health is a precious blessing; +but is it given arbitrarily, like special grace? Every one knows +that its possession depends upon the observance of laws, both in +parents and offspring. It is the result of complying with +<i>conditions</i>, and there is no analogy between it and the +gift of special influence, which is entirely unconditional.</p> +<p class="pn">The chief illustration which Dr. Payne gives of +Divine sovereignty is, “The exertion of that holy influence upon +the minds of the chosen to salvation, by which they are brought +to the knowledge and belief of the Gospel, together with the +Divine purpose to exert this influence of which it is at once the +index and the accomplishment” (p. 33). We shall, however, +endeavour to show that there is no such irresistible influence as +that for which the doctor contends. God is a sovereign—the only +absolute sovereign in existence; but He is all-wise and all-good, +not willing that any should perish.</p> +<p class="pn">We have thus examined those illustrations of Dr. +Payne. They are a kind of stock in trade of those who build their +faith upon the dogmas of Calvin.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C4">CHAPTER IV.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">CALVINISTIC ELECTION JUDGED BY THE REASON.</p> +<p><a name="Reason">T<span class="sc">he</span> +reason</a> is supposed to affirm the doctrine that God has chosen +some men to get saving grace, and some men only. The question is +asked, “Is God the cause or author of man’s salvation, or is man +the author of his own salvation?” It is maintained that God being +entirely the author of man’s salvation, and that as man is +brought into a state of safety by infallible grace, and as God +exercises this grace, He must have determined to do it in +eternity. The doctrine of election is thus supposed to be +affirmed by the reason. But this is a very summary process of +settling the question. How stands the case? If by “salvation” is +meant the <i>meritorious ground</i> of salvation, then the +question about its authorship is very single. God is the sole +author. He devised the plan, He wrought it out, and He applies it +to the hearts of men. To Him belongs all the glory.</p> +<p class="pn">But the question of merit being settled, there is +another. It is this—Are there <i>immeritorious</i> grounds of +salvation, and are men required to be active in their moral +regeneration? We must distinguish between God’s action and that +of man. To confound them is a grand mistake. In the Bible we find +certain moral conditions insisted upon in order to moral +deliverance. There is a human side in the matter. Are not men +called upon “to look?” “to hear?” “to come?” “to eat?” “to +repent?” “to choose?” these terms represent acts which men are +called upon to perform. God does not “look” or “choose” or +“repent” for men. They must “choose” or die. The Spirit comes to +them, points out their sinful state, and places Christ before +them as their Saviour. When they give ear unto him, and put their +trust in Jesus, they become saved. They have no more merit in the +matter than a beggar has when he accepts alms, or a prisoner when +he accepts a pardon.</p> +<p class="pn">Salvation, then, as regards merit, is entirely of +God, but men are required to be active in their own deliverance. +But why do some yield, and some not? This question has often been +asked, and it is supposed that it stops all further argument. Let +us look, however, at the saved man. God has wrought out the +remedy, the Holy Spirit plies the sinner with motives for +accepting the Saviour, and under His persuasion he yields himself +up unto God, and gives Him all the glory of His salvation. Both +scripturally and philosophically the man’s saved condition is +accounted for. And can anything be said against it? Look now at +the unsaved man: why has he not believed? To press for an answer +to this question is just to press for an answer to another—viz., +why do men sin? Can any one give a reason for it that will stand +scrutiny? No one, not even God; and to demand an answer in these +circumstances is unphilosophical and impertinent. The one +believes through grace, and the other resists and dies. We submit +that this is a fair explanation of the case. The believer acts in +harmony with the reason, the unbeliever is guilty of sin; and no +reason can be given for sin.</p> +<p class="pn">The view thus advocated has been held as a denial +of the Spirit’s work. If by the Spirit’s work is understood a +faith-necessitating and will-overpowering work, then certainly +the Spirit’s work is thus denied. But this is to cut before the +point. There are, for instance, different views of inspiration, +as the inspiration of direction, superintendency, elevation, and +suggestion. Suppose I were asked what theory of inspiration I +held regarding any portion of the Bible, and I answered that I +had none, but took the Scriptures as God’s message to men, would +it be fair argument to assert that I denied inspiration? +Manifestly not. But neither is it fair to raise the cry that the +Spirit’s work is denied because a particular theory regarding +that work is denied, the theory, namely, which makes it to be +physical or mechanical.</p> +<p class="pn">Incorrect views of the Spirit’s work have been +entertained by theologians in consequence of erroneous +conceptions regarding the degeneracy of human nature. Augustine +held that man can do nothing which will at all contribute to His +spiritual recovery. He is like a lump of clay, or a statue +without life or activity. In consequence of these views, he held +that grace in its operation on the heart was +irresistible,—sometimes through the word, at other times without +it. Dr. Knapp says, “God does not act in such a way as to +infringe upon the free will of man, or to interfere with the use +of his powers” (Phil. ii. 12, 13). Consequently, God does not act +on men immediately, producing ideas in their souls without the +preaching or reading of the scriptures, or influencing their will +in any other way than by the understanding. Did God act in any +other way than through the understanding, he would operate +miraculously and irresistibly, and the practice of virtue under +such an influence would have no intrinsic worth; it would be +compelled, and consequently incapable of reward (<i>Theo</i>., p. +408). He says again, “The doctrine of the Protestant church has +always been that God does not act immediately on the heart in +conversion, or, in other words, that He does not produce ideas in +the understanding, and effects in the will, by His absolute +Divine power without the employment of external means. This would +be such an immediate conversion and illumination as fanatics +contend for, who regard their own imaginations and thoughts as +effects of the Spirit” (p. 400). If our creed on this subject is +to be based on the Bible, it leaves us in no doubt upon the +matter. In speaking of the new birth it is written, “Of His own +will begat He us by the word of truth, that we should be a kind +of firstfruits of His creatures” (Jas. i. 18). Here the truth is +used as the medium in conversion, and not a syllable about +irresistible influence. The apostle Peter states the same thing: +“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, +by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1 Peter +i. 23). Our Lord, in explaining the parable of the sower +said—“The seed is the word of God,” and seed, in order to +germination, must have an appropriate soil.</p> +<p class="pn">C<span class="sc">alvinistic</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection</span> U<span class="sc">nconditional</span>:—The +followers of Calvin, however they differ among themselves +regarding certain standpoints, agree in this, that evangelical +election is unconditional. The Confession of Faith declares that +election is “without any foresight of faith or good works or +perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the +creature as conditions or causes moving Him (God) thereunto” +(<i>Confess</i>., Chap. III.) Dr. Payne says of the elect, “They +were not chosen to salvation on account of their foreseen +repentance, and faith, and obedience, for faith and repentance +are the fruit, not the root of predestination” (p. 47.) And +again, “The electing decree, which is unconditional” (p. 38).</p> +<p class="pn">The Bible has been appealed to as supporting this +view, that election is eternal and unconditional, and we shall +consider certain of the passages thus appealed to.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C5">CHAPTER V.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">BIBLE TEXTS IN PROOF OF CALVINISTIC ELECTION +CONSIDERED.</p> +<p>I<span class="sc">n</span> <a name="Mat20:16" id= +"Mat20:16">Matthew xx. 16</a> it is written: “For many are +called, but few are <a name="Chosen">chosen</a>.” +These words occur at the conclusion of the parable of the +marriage of the king’s son. A great feast had been provided and +parties invited. A second invitation was sent out, in harmony +with oriental usage; but those first invited made excuses, and +refused to come. The servants were then commissioned to go out +and give an invitation to all and sundry, and the wedding was +furnished with guests. When the king came in to see the guests, +he found a man without a wedding garment, and asked him how he +had come in not having on one. The man remained speechless. It is +then added, “many are called, but few are chosen.” Now, the +election which Calvinists contend for is eternal and +unconditional. Does the above passage prove this? We think it +proves the reverse. There was a rejection and a choosing, but +each was based on state or personal condition. The man was +rejected because he had not on the wedding garment; the others +were chosen because they had it on. Suppose that there was no +robe for the man, would he or should he have been speechless? +Might he not have risen up in the midst of the assembly, and +said, “Sire, I received the invitation in the highway. I was +pressed to come to the feast. When I came there was no robe for +me, and even if there had been one, there was no one to help me +to put it on; and by a fatal accident in childhood I lost an arm, +and was unable to do it myself. Yet I received the invitation, +and that is the reason why I am here.” Would not such a speech +have been perfectly satisfactory? And where the justice of +condemning the man to be cast, in these circumstance, into outer +darkness? But the punishment meted out to the man, showed that +there was a robe for him, and that he might have put it on. The +choice, therefore, of sitting at the marriage feast was +conditional, and not, as Calvinists contend, unconditional.</p> +<p class="pn">The choice, moreover, was after the calling, and is +<i>yet</i> to take place, and as a consequence the passage does +not prove that election is eternal. No doubt, whatever God does +in time He purposed to do in eternity, but we should distinguish +between a purpose to choose and the choice itself.</p> +<p class="pn">There is nothing, then, in this passage to perplex +any one. God, the infinite Father and heavenly King, has provided +a feast of love for all men, and therefore for you, O reader, +whosoever you are. Christ has wrought out a robe of righteousness +for all, and therefore for you. The Holy Spirit prays you to be +clothed with it—that is, to depend on Christ and Christ only, and +not upon your doings or upon your feelings. When you cease to +depend on self and to rest entirely on Jesus, there springs up in +the heart an aspiration to be Christ-like, and to be wholly His. +By being clothed with Christ’s righteousness you will have, by +God’s grace, a title to sit down at the heavenly feast, and a +moral meetness for heavenly society.</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> <a name= +"ElectForeknown">E<span class= +"sc">lect</span> F<span class="sc">oreknown</span></a>.—In +<a name="Rom8:29">Romans viii. 29, 30</a>, it is +written: “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to +be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the +first-born among many brethren. Moreover, whom He did +predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He +also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” +This passage is one of the strongholds of the view we contend +against; but if it prove eternal election, it will also prove +much more than this. If the persons spoken of were eternally +elected, then they were also eternally called, and eternally +justified, and eternally glorified. They would thus be justified +before they sinned, and glorified before they had a being. The +verbs are all in the aorist tense, and what is true of one verb +is true of all the others. An interpretation burdened with such +consequences cannot be true.</p> +<p class="pn">Dr. Payne has very few remarks on the passage, but +they are emphatic enough. “The passage is so conclusive,” he +says, “that it scarcely seems to require or even to admit of many +remarks,” and he does not give many. The simple question is this: +does this passage prove unconditional election? Is there anything +in the context to prove the reverse? We think that there is. In +the twenty-eighth verse the apostle says, “And we know that all +things work together for good to them that love God, to them that +are the called according to His purpose.” He is thus writing of a +certain class of persons, or of persons in a certain moral state, +that moral state being that they were lovers of God, as he +expressly states in verse 28. He does not say that they were +visited by a special and irresistible influence bestowed on them +and withheld from others. He simply asserts that those lovers of +God had all things working for their good; that they were called +or invited to glory, as (in 1 Peter v. 10) it is said, “But the +God of all grace, who hath called us unto His eternal glory by +Christ Jesus.” And having intimated their call, Paul goes on to +show what was the destiny awaiting the believer. He says, “For +whom He did foreknow,” and when he said this he could not mean +the mere knowledge of entities, or of persons, for this reason, +that God knows the finally lost as well as the finally saved. The +apostle therefore could only mean that God, knowing beforehand +those who would love him, fore-appointed or decreed in eternity +that those who possessed this moral state should be conformed to +the image of His Son, or personal appearance of Christ (1 John +iii. 2). Those lovers of God thus predestinated are invited to +heavenly bliss, and will be ultimately justified before the +world, and glorified. The twenty-eighth verse, then, lays down +the condition upon which the whole passage rests; and to bring +forward the text as a proof of unconditional election, is simply +to ignore the context. As far as this portion of the Bible is +concerned, there is nothing to perplex the most simple. Become a +lover of God, and the destiny sketched by the apostle awaits you. +We become lovers of God by believing in His love to us. “We love +Him,” says John, “because He first loved us” (1 John iv. 19).</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> U<span class= +"sc">nborn</span> C<span class="sc">hildren</span>.—<a name= +"Rom9:11">Romans ix. 11</a>, is appealed to. It +reads thus: “For the children being not yet born, neither having +done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to +election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth.” This +verse is parenthetical, lying between the tenth and twelfth +verses. They read thus, verse 10: “And not only this, but when +Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;” +verse 12: “It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the +younger.” It is the eleventh verse which is taken as proving +Calvinistic election. It is supposed to refer to the spiritual +and eternal condition of the respective parties. But how stands +the case? The original statement is found in Genesis xxv. 22, 23: +“Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be +separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger +than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger.” +Now, if we take the passage in the Calvinistic sense, that it +refers to salvation, what will follow? This, namely, that all the +descendants of Jacob would be saved, and all the descendants of +Esau utterly lost. If this were so, then why should Paul have +been so troubled about the spiritual state of his countrymen, as +he says he was, in the preamble of this very chapter? The +hypothesis, makes the apostle to stultify himself as a +logician.</p> +<p class="pn">The Calvinistic interpretation will not stand +looking at, there being, in fact, no reference to salvation in +the passage. The apostle quotes the text, the purport of which is +that in a certain respect the people of Esau would be inferior to +the people of Jacob. The Jews held that, being Abraham’s seed, +they were safe for eternity. The apostle’s argument, then, is +this: The people of Esau were as truly descended from Abraham as +you, my countrymen, are, and yet this descent did not entitle +them to be the Messianic people; and if mere descent did not +entitle to this, how much less would it entitle to heavenly +glory? The text, then, has really no bearing upon evangelical +election, but simply to the election of the Jews to theocratic +privileges.</p> +<p class="pn">C<span class="sc">hosen before the</span> +F<span class="sc">oundation of the</span> W<span class= +"sc">orld</span>.—<a name="Eph1:4">Ephesians i. +4</a>, is appealed to. It reads thus: “According as He hath +chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we +should be holy and without blame before Him in love.” This is an +old favourite text in support of eternal and unconditional +election. But does it prove it? Those Christians to whom Paul +wrote were chosen before the foundation of the world. True, but +what does this mean? Does it prove eternal election? To elect is +to “pick out,” “to select.” But the parties spoken of could not +be <i>actually</i> elected or chosen before they existed. Before +you can take a pebble from an urn, it must first be in the urn. +So before man can be <i>actually picked</i> out of the world, he +must <i>first</i> be in it: hence election must be a work of +time. Paul speaks of his kinsmen who were in Christ before him +(Rom. xvi. 7); but if election is eternal, then the one could not +be in Christ before the other. The language then in Eph. i. 14, +can only refer to the <i>purpose</i> of God to select certain +persons in time—<span class="sc">believers</span>—to be “holy and +without blame.” The bearing of the passage, then, is the same as +many others, and is simply this, that whatever God does in time, +He determined to do in eternity. His purpose was formed before +the foundation of the world, or in eternity.</p> +<p class="pn">Neither is there any countenance given to the idea +that the election was <i>unconditional</i>. This is clearly shown +by the words “<span class="sc">in him</span>.” The Catechism asks +the question, “Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate +of sin and misery?” and the answer is, “God having out of His +mere good pleasure from all eternity elected some to everlasting +life, did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of +the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into a state of +salvation by a Redeemer.” If this is a true version of the case, +then the saved were elected first when they were <i>out of</i> +Christ. But the passage in Ephesians says the reverse of this. +They were elected being <span class="sc">in</span> C<span class= +"sc">hrist</span>. To be in Christ is just to be united to Him by +faith—a believer in Christ as the great High Priest of +humanity.</p> +<p class="pn">C<span class="sc">hosen to</span> S<span class= +"sc">alvation</span>.—<a name="IITh2:13">2 Thess. ii. +13</a>, is appealed to. It reads thus: “But we are bound to give +thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, +because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation +through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” +The question then is, does this passage prove eternal and +unconditional election? As to its being eternal, the only portion +of the verse that bears on this is the phrase “from the +beginning.” Barnes says the words mean “from eternity.” But the +words themselves do not prove this. When the Jews asked Jesus who +He was, He answered, “Even the same that I said unto you from the +beginning.” It clearly does not mean “eternity” here. Again, in 1 +John ii. 7, it is written: “The old commandment is the word which +ye have heard from the beginning.” Here, also, it is evident that +the words cannot mean from “eternity,” since they did not exist +in eternity. But supposing the words did refer to eternity, then +their meaning could only denote the purpose of God, since they +had in eternity no real existence. We take the words to signify +the commencement of the Christian cause in Thessalonica. Whedon’s +paraphrase is: “From the first founding of the Thessalonian +church.” Watson takes them to denote, “The very first reception +of the Gospel in Thessalonica.” Whatever view is taken of the +words, the idea of an <i>actual</i> eternal election is +excluded.</p> +<p class="pn">Dr. Payne depends upon the verse as supporting his +view of unconditional election. In concluding his criticism of +the passage he says, “The election, then, here spoken of is not +an election of future glory founded on foreseen faith and +obedience; but an election to faith and obedience as necessary +pre-requisites to the enjoyment of this glory, or perhaps, more +correctly speaking, as partly constituting it” (pp. 84, 85.) +Unfortunately for this argument the apostle uses the word +“<i>through</i>” (en), not “<i>to</i>” (eis). He says that they +were chosen to salvation or glory through sanctification of the +Spirit on God’s part and belief of the truth on theirs; or, in +other words, he contemplates the Christians at Thessalonica as +objects of future glory, and they had come to occupy this +position by God’s gracious Spirit dealing with them through the +truth, and by their believing the truth thus brought to them. The +passage shows the means by which they had become chosen or +elected persons. They believed the T<span class="sc">ruth</span>, +and you may do the same.</p> +<p class="pn">E<span class="sc">lection and</span> F<span class= +"sc">oreknowledge</span>.—<a name="IIPe1:1">1 Peter i. +1</a>, is appealed to in support of Calvinistic election. It +reads thus: “Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the +Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and +sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” But this cannot prove +that the election spoken of was eternal, because the Spirit’s +work takes place in time, and not in eternity. Neither does it +prove that it was unconditional. It is through the Spirit that +men are convicted of sin, and led by His gracious influences to +trust in Jesus. The epistle was written to believers, to those +who had been “born again” (1 Peter i. 23), and he says that they +were elected, choice ones, according to God’s foreknowledge, who +knew from eternity that they would believe under His grace; and +they were, being believers, chosen unto obedience, and also to a +justified state, or “the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.” To +contend that if a man believes under what is termed “common +grace,” this is to make himself to “differ,” and to take the +praise of salvation to himself, is in our opinion entirely wrong. +Does the patient who takes the medicine under the persuasion of a +kind physician, and is cured, have whereof to boast? Because the +blind beggar takes an alms, has he whereof to glory? Neither do +we see that a poor guilty sinner has any reason for boasting +when, under the persuasion of the Divine Spirit, he accepts a +full pardon of all his sins. Were a prisoner who has been +condemned to be visited by the sovereign, and a pardon put into +his hands, to go afterwards through the streets shouting, “I have +saved myself—I have saved myself,” we should say the man was +crazed. Why will not theologians look at things from a +commonsense point of view? There is nothing in the passage to +prevent you at once entering among the elect.</p> +<p class="pn">M<span class="sc">aking</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection sure</span>.—In <a name="IIPe1:10">2 +Peter i. 10</a>, it is written thus: “Wherefore the rather, +brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: +for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” But the passage +says nothing about the <i>time</i> when they were elected, nor +whether they were elected to get a peculiar influence to +necessitate faith. It implies the negative of the Calvinistic +opinion. The Christians were exhorted to make their election +sure. But if they were elected by an infallible decree, how could +they make it sure? It was, by the theory, sure, independent of +them. The exhortation shows that Peter did not know anything of +the dogma, and that he held that men had to do with watching over +their spiritual life, so that their calling to glory and their +election might not fail.</p> +<p class="pn">A R<span class="sc">emnant according to</span> +E<span class="sc">lection</span>.—In <a name="Rom11:5" id= +"Rom11:5">Romans xi. 5</a>, it is written thus: “Even so at the +present time there is a remnant according to the election of +grace.” It is true that the words “election” and “grace” occur in +this passage; but the simple question is, what is their meaning? +The apostle had asked, in the first verse, “Hath God cast off His +people?” And he repudiates the idea, and refers to the state of +matters in the time of Elijah. The prophet had thought that he +was the solitary worshipper of God; but in this he was mistaken. +Seven thousand men were yet true to the Lord, and had not bowed +the knee to Baal. So at the time the apostle wrote there was a +few, a “remnant” of the nation who had believed through grace, +and were chosen, elected, to receive the blessings of pardon and +the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. God had not, therefore, cast +off His people, since He was saving all of them who believed. In +the exercise of His sovereign wisdom He has made, however, +<i>faith</i> to be the condition of salvation both for Jew and +Gentile. And there is nothing arbitrary in this. In our everyday +life we are required to exercise, and are constantly exercising, +faith. If we wish to cross the Atlantic, we must exercise faith +in regard to the seaworthiness of the ship. We marry, lend money, +take medicine, and a thousand other things, upon the principle of +faith. We will not allow a man into our family circle who holds +us to be liars. Should he take that position we exclude him from +friendly fellowship. If he would get good from us in a certain +sphere of things, faith in us is absolutely requisite. It is the +same with God. If we would be blessed with the sweet peace of +pardon, we can only have it by believing in the testimony that +God has given regarding the Son, that He tasted death for every +man—died, therefore, for us.</p> +<p class="pn">The passages of Scripture we have thus considered +are those mainly depended on in support of the Calvinistic +doctrine of election. The doctrine, like the chameleon, has +different shades, according to the school. The high +predestinarians, or, as they are called, +“<i>supra-lapsarians</i>,” maintain, as we have seen, that God +created a certain number to be saved, and a certain number to be +lost. The <i>infra</i>- or <i>sublap</i>-<i>sarians</i>, maintain +that God contemplated the race as fallen, and determined to save +a given number, and a given number only, and to reprobate a given +number. Regarding the former a Saviour has been provided for them +and irresistible grace. The modern Calvinists differ, as we have +also seen, from both of these schools, and hold that God loves +all, and has provided a Saviour for all, but that converting +grace is given only to some. There is a consistency, a grim +consistency, in the two former views; but the latter limps, it +divides the Trinity. It makes God’s love to be world-wide, +Christ’s death to be for all, but the gracious or converting work +of the Spirit is limited. But however these systems differ from +each other, they all agree in this, that God is not earnestly +desirous of saving all men. And this, as we hold, is the damning +fact against them all.</p> +<p class="pn">There are certain specific objections, however, to +which we now beg attention.</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C6">CHAPTER VI.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">OBJECTIONS TO THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE OF +ELECTION.</p> +<p>(1.) W<span class="sc">e</span> object, in the <i>first</i> +place, to the Calvinistic doctrine of election, because it is +absurd to call it election. The advocates of the three views of +election mentioned stoutly maintain that the persons chosen are +chosen unconditionally; in other words, they are chosen not on +account of any mental or moral quality in them. It is on this +account designated <i>unconditional</i>. There is nothing +whatever in the persons chosen on which to ground the choice. +Supposing this to be the case, can there be any choice, election? +Mr. Robinson has put the case thus: “What is election? Is it +possible to choose one of two things, excepting for reasons to be +found in the things themselves? Ask a friend which of a number of +oranges he will take. If he sees nothing in them to determine +selection, he says, ‘I have no choice.’ Ask a blind man which of +two oranges, that are out of his reach, he prefers, and you mock +him by proposing an impossibility. If they are put near him, that +he may feel them or smell them, or if by any other means he can +judge between them, he can choose, otherwise he cannot choose. If +they lie far from him, he may say, ‘Give me the one that lies to +the east, or the west;’ but that is a lottery, an accident, +chance, certainly no choice. Therefore, to assert that the cause +of election is not in anything in the person chosen, is really to +deny that there is any election. And it is a curious fact that +the most vehement predestinarians, while they flatter themselves +that they are the honoured advocates of the Divine decrees, by +sequence set aside election altogether. Their hypothesis +annihilates the very doctrine for which they are most zealous, +and, if it may be said without irreverence, introduces the dice +box into the counsels of heaven” (<i>Bible Studies</i>, p. 192). +If we look into life, we always find that when we elect or +choose, we do so because of something in the person or thing +elected. It is so as regards food, drink, dress, houses, +pictures, statues, books; it is so, too, as regards members of +Parliament, ministers for pastorates, and in marriage. We are, +indeed, so constituted that we cannot conceive of choice or +election except upon the grounds of freedom in the elector, and +something to differentiate the object chosen from others of like +nature. The Confession of Faith says, however, that those who are +predestinated unto life are chosen “without any foresight of +faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any +other thing in the creation, as conditions or causes moving Him +thereunto, and all to the praise of His glorious grace” +(<i>Con</i>., chap. iii.) Yet the Bible says expressly, “But know +that the Lord hath set apart him that is godly for himself” (Ps. +iv. 3); “Hath not God chosen the poor in this world rich in +faith?” (Jas. ii. 5.) There is a setting apart, or choosing, but +it is not unconditional, as these verses show.</p> +<p class="pn">No doubt, the <i>motive</i> of those who hold +unconditional election is good, arising from a desire to give all +the glory of salvation to God, and from the frequency of the term +“grace” in regard to our deliverance. But the great object of +giving all the glory to God may be, and is accomplished, without +doing violence to Scripture, or trampling upon common sense. The +principle or system of Syenergism does this. It simply means that +man is active in his own conversion. It was advocated in his +later years by Melancthon. We have not, however, to do with the +<i>motive</i> of our friends, but with the philosophy of the +subject; and to assert that men are chosen to salvation apart +from condition, is only assertion, and an absurd assertion, too. +Try it in regard to anything, and its folly will be apparent. +Why, then, insist upon it in religion? Are we to throw reason to +the dogs when we speak on scriptural subjects?</p> +<p class="pn">(2.) In the <i>second</i> place, we object to the +Calvinistic theory of election, because it <a name="Philosophy" +id="Philosophy">ignores and tramples upon a primary principle of +philosophy</a>. The principle is this: “That a plurality of +principles are not to be assumed when the phenomena can possibly +be explained by one” (Hamilton’s <i>Reid</i>, p. 751).</p> +<p class="pn">It is what is known as the law of parsimony. The +three views of election referred to have bound up with them, as +an integral portion of the system, the theory of +<i>irresistible</i> grace. Take this away, and they fall to +pieces as a rope of sand. A man who has hitherto lived an ungodly +life becomes converted, and the question arises—how are we to +account for this moral phenomenon? Our friends from whom we +differ account for it in this way: In the past eternity God saw +that the man would come upon the stage of time, and determined to +visit his soul with an irresistible influence, under the +operation of which he became converted. Now this is to them a +very satisfactory way of accounting for the conversion. But may +not this change in the man take place without this <i>tertiam +quid</i>, or third something? If it may, then to import it into +the controversy is to violate the law of parsimony or maxim of +philosophy, that it is wrong to multiply causes beyond what are +necessary. But let us look at life: let us enter the sphere of +human experience. We find men, for instance, who in politics were +at one period pronounced Radicals, like Burdett, becoming +Conservative in their opinions; and men, like the Peelites, +changing from the Conservative side to that of the Liberals. In +accounting for this we do not call in a mysterious and occult +influence to solve the matter. It is explainable without this. +Take the case of medicine. We find men educated in the allopathic +system changing, and becoming disciples of Habnemann. Ask them +how it came about, and they answer at once, that it was by +considering the results. Take a case of intemperance, An old +inebriate attends a temperance lecture, listens attentively, +becomes persuaded of the value of abstinence, signs the pledge, +and spends the remainder of his life a sober man. He loved the +drink, and now he hates it. Ask him how it came about? He tells +you at once that the facts and arguments of the lecture convinced +him of the evil of the drink, and led him to abandon it for ever. +A great change has been effected, but in perfect harmony with the +known laws of mind. Let us now look at religion. Paul arrives at +Corinth, and preaches the Gospel to the inhabitants of that +degenerate city. They listened to the wondrous story of redeeming +love, and became changed through means of it. Was there anything +in the nature of the truth preached to them and believed by them +fitted to do this? We think that there was. They had sins—were +guilty. Paul told them of a Saviour who died for them. This met +their case. They were degraded, foul; the religion Paul preached +appealed to their sense of right, to their gratitude, to their +fears and their hopes; and believing it, they became regenerated +in their moral nature. They had been won to God by the “Gospel” +(1 Cor. iv. 15). As temperance truth revolutionises the drunkard, +so does Gospel truth the sinner (1 Peter i. 23, 25). The apostle +was the agent employed by the Holy Spirit, and believing the +message he brought, they were believing the Spirit (See 1 Samuel +viii. 7). Since, then, the truth believed is a sufficient reason +for the change, why introduce the theory of irresistible grace? +It may be replied that this kind of grace is used to get the +sinner to attend to the message.</p> +<p class="pn">But attention to any subject is brought about by +considering motives. Man has the power over his attention. It is +the possession of this power which is a main item in constituting +him a responsible being. He may or may not attend to the voice of +God. If he attends to it he lives; if not, he dies. If God used +force in this matter, why reason with men and appeal to them as +He does?</p> +<p class="pn">We appeal to Christian consciousness. Let any +Christian give a reason of the hope that is in him—and it is all +perfectly reasonable. All through, in the great matter of +conversion, he acted freely. He attended to the Divine +message—but there was no compulsion. Why, then, insist upon +irresistibility when it is repudiated by Christian consciousness? +We know no reason for it but the exigencies of the system. If you +are waiting for it you are being deceived.</p> +<p class="pn">(3.) We object, in the <i>third</i> place, to the +Calvinistic view of election, because it makes God a <a name= +"Persons">respecter of persons</a>. What is it to be +a respecter of persons? Literally, it means “an accepter of +faces.” According to the <i>Imperial Dictionary</i>, it signifies +“a person who regards the external circumstances of others in his +judgment, and suffers his opinion to be biased by them, to the +prejudice of candour, justice, and equity.” It is to act with +partiality. It is of the utmost moment that respect of persons +should not be shown in the domestic circle, on the bench; or in +the church. If a father shows favouritism to one son less worthy, +say, than the others, he lays himself open to the charge of +partiality, unevenness in his procedure, and it tends to alienate +the affections of his other children. To show it on the bench is +to sully the ermine, and bring the administration of justice into +disrepute. Whoever else may exhibit it, the church is required to +have clean hands in the matter (James ii.)</p> +<p class="pn">We are so constituted that we cannot love or hate +by a mere fiat of the will. Before we can love one another with +complacency, there must be the perception of excellence. And it +is the same as regards God. Hence it is of the last importance +that to our mental view He should be pure, holy, impartial, good. +To love Him if we thought Him otherwise, would be impossible. Now +God has abundantly shown, both in providence and in the Bible, +that He is not a respecter of persons. He executes His laws +indiscriminately—upon all alike. Fire burns, poison kills, water +drowns all and sundry. If the laws of health are broken, the +penalty is enforced on each transgressor according to the measure +of his transgression. It is the same with moral penalties. If a +man lies, or steals, or is mean, or selfish, he will suffer moral +deterioration, which will pass through his moral being as a +leprosy. Our physical, mental, and moral natures are thus under +their respective laws, and whosoever breaks these laws God +executes the penalty on the transgressor. There is in this +respect no favouritism—no respect of persons.</p> +<p class="pns">There are, as a matter of course, diversities upon +earth. All cannot occupy the same place. We have not the +brilliancy and luxuriancy of the tropics, but we have our +compensations. And it is the same with life in general. In +comparison with the rich the poor have a rough road to travel, +but they are not without their compensations. The moral life is +the higher life of man, and in the stern school of adversity +there are developed noble traits of character.</p> +<p class="p2 f11">“Though losses and crosses</p> +<p class="p2 f11">Be lessons right severe,</p> +<p class="p2 f11">There’s wit there you’ll get there,</p> +<p class="p2s f11">You’ll find no other where.”</p> +<p>The diversities we find in life are not arbitrary acts, as we +have already seen, but dependent upon adherence or non-adherence +to law.</p> +<p class="pn">The same great principle that regulates the +providential government of God, is brought clearly out in the +Scriptures. It is remarked by Cruden that “God appointed that the +judges should pronounce their sentences without any respect of +persons (Lev. xix. 15; Deut i. 17); that they should consider +neither the poor nor the rich, nor the weak nor the powerful, but +only attend to truth and justice, and give sentence according to +the merits of the cause.” It is said in Proverbs that it is not +good to have respect of persons in judgment (Prov. xxiv. 23). +Peter declared that there is no respect of persons with God; and +Paul said, “For there is no respect of persons with God” (Romans +ii. 11). James declared that if the Christians to whom he wrote +showed respect of persons they committed sin (James ii. 9).</p> +<p class="pn">The Bible is thus exceedingly careful to guard the +Divine character from the charge of partiality. And obviously so. +Let but the idea be entertained in the mind for a moment, and it +leaves a slime behind it as if a serpent had passed through the +corridor of our dwelling. The simple question then is, Does this +doctrine of Calvinistic election exhibit God as a respecter of +persons? It clearly does so. According to it, God, irrespective +of any conditions in the creature, appoints a certain number to +be saved and leaves the rest to perish. And is not this +partiality? Is not this favouritism? Since the doctrine thus +reflects on the Divine character, it deserves condemnation.</p> +<p class="pn">(4.) In the <i>fourth</i> place, we object to the +Calvinistic doctrine of election, <i>because it is opposed to the +letter and spirit of many passages of the Bible</i>. We beg +attention to a few. Consider the <a name="GodOath" id= +"GodOath">O<span class="sc">ath of</span> G<span class= +"sc">od</span></a>. “As I live, saith the Lord, I have no +pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn +from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye, from your evil way, for +why will ye die, O house of Israel?” (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). Would +not any one reading these words naturally conclude that God +really wished all the people to be saved? Have they not a ring of +genuine sincerity about them? We cannot conceive that such a +question would have been asked, viz., “Why will ye die?” had +their death been inevitable. Not only was it not inevitable, but +the earnest entreaty to return showed that God intensely desired +their salvation. Yet, if Calvinism is true, the oath of God and +His earnest entreaty, as far as millions of the human race are +concerned, are simply as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. +Nay, more, they are a solemn mockery. I see two men floundering +in deep water; I jump into my boat and save one, and bring him +safely to shore. I could easily have saved the other had I wished +it, but did not. Were I then to stand on the bank of the river +and ask the sinking man, Why will you die? what would be thought +of me, or any man, who should act such a part? Such conduct would +be cruel, cruel to any poor soul in its death-struggle. Yet this +is exactly the part God is made to perform by the high +Calvinists, and is endorsed by their more modern brethren. He +could easily save every one if He wished it, they say: But this +assertion cannot stand in the presence of God’s oath and His +earnest entreaty to turn and live.</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> V<span class= +"sc">ineyard</span>.—Let us look at the case of the vineyard, as +recorded in Isaiah v. The house of Israel is there compared to a +vineyard which God had planted. After detailing what had been +done, the question is asked, “What could have been done more to +my vineyard that I have not done in it? wherefore, when I looked +that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?” +(verse 4). The moral condition of Israel was anything but good. +God had looked for judgment, but there was oppression, and for +righteousness, but behold a cry! Yet the question in this fourth +verse carries the idea that He had done all that He wisely could, +in the circumstances, to reform and save them. But they were not +reformed, they were not saved. It might indeed be affirmed that +this was because they had not been visited by “special +influence,” or converting grace. But if this kind of grace is the +only kind that is fructifying, and was for sovereign reasons +withheld, how could the question be asked, “What could have been +done more to my vineyard that I have not done in it?” The one +thing needful had <i>not</i> been done, if this hypothesis is +true, and in view of it the question could not have been put at +all. But it was put, and this shows that God had done all that He +wisely could do to save the people, and that He did not keep back +the needed grace, for which Calvinists contend.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Tears">C<span class= +"sc">hrist’s</span> T<span class="sc">ears over</span> +J<span class="sc">erusalem</span></a>.—The tears of our Lord over +the city of Jerusalem are a clear demonstration against the +Calvinistic doctrine of election. It is said, “When He was come +near, He beheld the city, and wept over it, saying, If thou hadst +known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which +belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes” +(Luke xix. 41, 42). When a woman weeps it is not an infrequent +phenomenon. Her nerves are more finely strung than man’s, and a +touching tale or sympathetic story brings the tears to her eyes +and sobs from her lips. When men weep it indicates deep emotion; +and when Christ looked upon the city, His soul was moved with +compassion, and He wept. He knew what had been done for the +guilty inhabitants—how God had borne with them—and the doom that, +like the sword of Damocles, hung over them, and His tender heart +found relief in tears. In the presence of this weeping Redeemer +can we entertain the Calvinistic notion that He could easily have +saved the people, <i>if He had only wished it</i>? He wished to +gather them as a hen doth her chickens under her wings, but they +would not come. Were there not another passage in the Bible than +the one just referred to (Matthew xxiii. 37), it is sufficient to +dispose of the theory that God uses irresistible grace in saving +men. He had used the most powerful motives to bring them to +himself, but they would not come.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="Wesley">John Wesley</a>, in +writing on Predestination, says,—“Let it be observed that this +doctrine represents our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, the righteous, +the only-begotten Son of the Father, full of grace and truth, as +an hypocrite, a deceiver of the people, a man void of common +sincerity. For it cannot be denied that He everywhere speaks as +if He was willing that all men should be saved. Therefore, to say +that He was not willing that all men should be saved, is to +represent Him as a mere hypocrite and dissembler. It cannot be +denied that the gracious words which came out of His mouth are +full of invitations to all sinners. To say, then, He did not +intend to save all sinners, is to represent Him as a gross +deceiver of the people. You cannot deny that He says, ‘Come unto +me all ye that are weary and heavy laden.’ If, then, you say He +calls those that cannot come, those whom He knows to be unable to +come, those whom He can make able to come but will not; how is it +possible to describe greater insincerity? You represent Him as +mocking His helpless creatures, by offering what He never intends +to give. You describe Him as saying one thing and meaning +another, as pretending the love which He had not. Him in whose +mouth was no guile, you make full of deceit, void of common +sincerity; then, especially when drawing nigh the city He wept +over it, and said, ‘O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the +prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often +would I have gathered thy children together, and ye would not.’ +Now, if ye say they would but He would not, you represent Him +(which who could hear) as weeping crocodile’s tears; weeping over +the prey which himself had doomed to destruction” (Ser. 128).</p> +<p class="pn">Consider the <i>last commission</i> of Christ. +Before our Lord left the world He said to His apostles, “Go ye +into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature.” +Good news was thus to be proclaimed to every human being. If the +commission meant anything it meant this, that God was honestly +and earnestly desirous of saving every one. And this is in +beautiful harmony with the exhortation in Isaiah: “Look unto me +and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth” (Isa. xlv. 22). It is +also in keeping with the words of Jesus recorded by John: “For +God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that +whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have +everlasting life” (John iii. 16); and with what the apostle Peter +says, that “God is not willing that any should perish, but that +all should come to repentance” (2 Peter iii. 9); and with what +the apostle Paul says, that God “will have all men to be saved” +(1 Tim. ii. 4). But whilst the commission to preach the good news +is in harmony with these express statements, it is out of joint +and incongruous with the Calvinistic doctrine of election, that +God wishes only a few of the human family saved.</p> +<p class="pn">Consider the <a name="Invitations" id= +"Invitations">H<span class="sc">oly</span> S<span class= +"sc">pirit’s</span> I<span class="sc">nvitation</span>.</a> In +Revelation xxii. 17, it is written: “And the Spirit and the bride +say, come. And let him that heareth say, come. And let him that +is athirst come, and whosoever will let him take the water of +life freely.” Whilst we are so constituted that we cannot believe +a proposition the terms of which we do not understand, and whilst +there is much that is inscrutable in the Spirit’s work, yet the +passage just quoted clearly means, if it means anything, that the +Holy Spirit invites all to come and drink of the life-giving +water. We cannot doubt His sincerity. When all are invited to +drink, it is implied that there is water for all, and that it is +free to all, and that they have power to drink. We may not ask +one to drink at an empty fountain without being guilty of the +sheerest mockery; and neither may we ask the wounded and disabled +man, who cannot walk a step, to come and drink, without being +guilty of the same. This invitation of the Spirit, then, is +inconsistent with the Calvinistic notion that His converting +grace is limited. Says the late <a name="Guthrie" id= +"Guthrie">Dr. John Guthrie</a>, “Was it antecedently to be +supposed that a Divine Father who loves all, and so loved as to +give His own and only-begotten for our ransom, and that the +Divine Son, who as lovingly gave Himself, would send the Divine +Spirit mediatorially to reveal and interpret both, who should not +operate in the world on the same principle of impartiality and +universality? What philosophy and theology thus dictate, +Scripture confirms. Christ promised His disciples an interpreting +and applying Spirit, who should convince the <i>world</i>. +Prophets predicted, and Pentecost proved, that God was pouring +out His Spirit on all flesh. These influences were, in their +largest incidents, soul-saving; through being moral, they were +resistible. Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost, said Stephen, and +the Holy Ghost himself saith to-day, Oh that ye would hear His +voice; which He would not do if faith came by another sort of +influence which He only could give, and which He did not mean to +give till <i>to-morrow</i>, or next year, or not at all! In that +last and most gracious of Gospel invitations, which the incarnate +Himself utters in Rev. xxii. 17, among other inviters, the Spirit +says, come! and says it to all; which surely, as He is the Spirit +of truth, He would not do, if not a soul could come till He +himself put forth an influence which He had predetermined to +bestow only on a select and favoured number. The ugly limitation +will not do. The work and heart of the loving Spirit are, and +must be, as large as those of the Father and the Son, whom He +came to reveal.” (<i>Discourses</i>, Ser. X.)</p> +<p class="pn">The objections thus tendered to the Calvinistic +theory of election are sufficient separately, and much more so +collectively, to condemn the dogma. We impute no motives to the +honoured men who hold the doctrine. They are doubtless as sincere +in their belief as we are in ours. It did seem to us, at one +time, that God could convert men if He wished it; but the dictum +of Chillingworth—“the Bible and the Bible alone is the religion +of Protestants,” overturned that idea. The words of Jesus, “How +often would I have gathered thy children together, . . . but ye +would not,” showed that Jesus was wishful to save the people; but +His wish was not realised, because they “would not.” And the +Bible and philosophy are in harmony. We could easily conceive, +that were certain individuals to be taken by almighty effort from +one sphere, and placed in another, they would be converted. +Christ confirms this idea. He said, “Woe unto thee, Chorazin! woe +unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works which have been +done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have +repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes” (<a name="Mat11:21" id= +"Mat11:21">Mat. xi. 21</a>). But as God loves all equally with +the love of compassion, this exercise of miracle in one case +would lead to the exercise of miracle in another. And what would +this involve? It would simply lead to the overturning of God’s +moral providence, which is based upon, and carried on in +conjunction with, the highest wisdom. Parents may often be found +sacrificing their wisdom to their love, but it is not so with +God. All His attributes are in harmony. Justice is not sacrificed +to love, nor love to justice. There is thus, in the Divine +character, a firm and unchanging basis for the most profound +veneration and the most intense affection.</p> +<p class="pn">Regarding the particular illustration of the people +of Sodom, Tyre, and Sidon, and why Christ had not done mighty +works there, Dr. Morison has remarked, “It was not befitting our +Saviour to become incarnate at <i>all times</i>, or even <i>at +two different epochs</i> in the history of the world. And when He +did appear at a particular epoch in time, ‘the fulness of the +time,’ it was absolutely necessary that He should live and work +miracles, <i>not everywhere</i>, but in some <i>one limited area +or locality</i>” (<i>Com. on Mat., ad loc.</i>)</p> +<hr> +<p class="pch"><a name="P3C7">CHAPTER VII.</a></p> +<p class="pc f11">THE SCRIPTURAL VIEW OF EVANGELICAL +ELECTION.</p> +<p>A<span class="sc">lthough</span> there is much confusion of +thought regarding election viewing it from a Calvinistic +standpoint, the word itself is simple enough, as is the doctrine +when viewed in the light of Scripture.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="ElectWord">T<span class= +"sc">he</span> W<span class="sc">ord</span></a>.—According to +Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon, the verb to elect (eklego) +means, “To pick or single out,” especially as soldiers, rowers, +&c. In the middle voice, “to pick out for one’s self, choose +out.” Robinson says it means “to lay out together, to choose out, +to select.” In N. T. Mid., “to choose out for one’s self.” +Parkhurst gives as its signification, “to choose, choose out.” It +has a variety of applications in the Scriptures, just as it has +in our common everyday life. It was applied to the Jewish nation, +regarding which it was said, “The Lord thy God hath chosen thee +to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that +are upon the earth” (Deut. xiv. 2). The term comprehended the +whole nation, and no one will contend that the choice spoken of +indicated that every Jew was safe for eternity. It was applied to +the apostles, but this did not thereby secure infallibly their +salvation. Judas fell away, and hanged himself. Paul declared +that he had constantly to watch himself, lest he should become “a +castaway.” It is applied to David, “But I chose David to be over +my people Israel” (1 Kings viii. 16). It is used also in +reference to “place:” “As the place which the Lord your God shall +choose” (Deut. xii. 5). The prophets of Baal were asked to +“choose” a bullock, “and call on the name of their gods” (1 Kings +xviii. 23). These and other applications of the word are quite +sufficient to show that the term is not necessarily connected +with the choosing of a few men to eternal salvation, and implying +a faith-necessitating work of the Holy Spirit. And something is +gained when we have gained this. Were we therefore asked whether +we denied election? we should be quite entitled to ask, to what +kind of election did our questioner refer? since there are +several kinds referred to in the Holy Scriptures, and a special +kind outside of Scripture, entertained by the followers of John +Calvin.</p> +<p class="pn"><a name="ElectionObjects" id= +"ElectionObjects">E<span class="sc">vangelical</span> +E<span class="sc">lection. a</span> P<span class= +"sc">rocess</span></a>.—Seeing that the word “elect” means to +“pick out,” “to choose, to lay aside for one’s self,” it may +denote either an act or a process, according to the object +elected. If I select a book from the library, or choose an apple +from the tree, the election thus exercised is simply an act, The +book elected and the apple were entirely passive, having no will +in the matter. But suppose I want two servants: I go into the +market where a number are standing waiting to be employed. I find +two, and explain the nature of the service, and state the wages +and the rules of the house. One of the two accepts, the other +refuses. I go forward on my mission, and find another. I state to +him what I stated to the two already mentioned. He agrees, and is +engaged. I have chosen—“elected”—the servants; but it was a +process, not a simple act. Other wills came into play which +differentiated the election in the one case from the other, and +the concurrence of the two wills completed the matter. It is +written in the word: “Wherefore, come out from among them, and be +ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and +I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall +be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Cor. vi. +17, 18). This brings the matter plainly before us. There is the +Divine exhortation, human concurrence, and the result—adoption. +It is an absurd and unreasonable supposition to imagine that God +deals with rational and responsible creatures as He does with +vegetable and irrational brutes, which He does if the theory of +irresistible grace is maintained.</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> A<span class="sc">uthor +of</span> E<span class="sc">vangelical</span> E<span class= +"sc">lection</span>.—There would not be need for any remark on +this subject, were it not that objection may be urged against the +view just stated, that it makes man the author of his election. +In a secondary, yet important sense, he has to do with his +election. But God is the Prime Mover and Author of evangelical +election. The scheme of redemption originated with Him. He tells +men that He earnestly desires their return, and upon what terms +He will graciously receive them. If they consent He will take +them out from amongst the condemned, “select them,” “elect them,” +and place them among His children. The Bible confirms this view: +“God hath from the beginning chosen you” (2 Thes. ii. 13.) “God +our Father has chosen us in Him” (Eph. i. 3, 4.)</p> +<p class="pn">T<span class="sc">he</span> O<span class= +"sc">bjects of</span> E<span class="sc">vangelical</span> +E<span class="sc">lection</span>,—The people of this country are +frequently engaged in elections. We elect men for the School +Board, the Town Council, and for Parliament. When we record our +vote we do so for a definite object. What, then, are the objects +which God has in view in evangelical election? The apostle Peter +states them in his first epistle. He says, “Elect unto obedience +and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus.” (1 Peter i. 2.) In other +words, they were chosen, having become believers, to the +blessings of justification and sanctification,—the one having +reference to their state, the other to their character.</p> +<p class="pns"><a name="ElectHow">H<span class= +"sc">ow to</span> E<span class="sc">nter among the</span> +E<span class="sc">lect</span></a>.—This has been the great puzzle +to those educated under the teaching of Calvinistic divines. They +read in the Bible that God wishes all men to be saved, but they +are told that this means all the elect. At times they are +“offered” a Saviour, but they are told that in order to believe +in Him they need the irresistible influence of the Holy Ghost. If +they are amongst the favoured ones, it will come to them in due +time; but if they are not, then no prayers, no cries, no tears +can alter the Divine decree. How long will men stand by a system +unknown to the Christian church for 400 years, and alike +repugnant to the reason and the whole spirit of the Gospel, and +fitted to plunge the honest inquirer into endless perplexity?</p> +<p class="p1 f11">“Oh! how unlike the complex works of man</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Heaven’s easy, artless, unencumber’d plan,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">No meretricious graces to beguile,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">No clustering ornaments to clog the pile;</p> +<p class="p1 f11">From ostentation as from weakness free,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">It stands like the cerulean arch we see,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Majestic in its own simplicity.</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Inscribed above the portal from afar,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Conspicuous as the brightness of a star,</p> +<p class="p1 f11">Legible only by the light they give,</p> +<p class="p1s f11">Stand the soul-quickening words—‘B<span class= +"sc">elieve and</span> L<span class="sc">ive</span>.’ ”</p> +<p class="pn">Paul in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians +tells us how they entered among the elect. His words are: “But we +are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved +of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to +salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the +truth” (2 Thes. ii. 13.) They were thus among the elect, and we +are told how it came about. The Spirit had brought the Gospel +message to Thessalonica by his accredited agent, the apostle +Paul. In that message the people were told of God’s infinite +love—that He loved them, and that the Saviour had died for their +sins. He testified to Jesus as mighty to save, to save any—to +save all—to save to the very uttermost. He convinced them that +they stood in need of a Saviour, and that Christ was the very +Saviour they required. These were two great phases of the +Spirit’s work—viz., to produce conviction in the mind of the +sinner, and to point out Jesus as the Lamb of God which hath +taken away the sin of the world. The Thessalonians, under His +gracious testimony, believed the record, or, as it is said, “the +truth,” and became the chosen of God—His elected ones.</p> +<p class="pn">That this is true may be seen from the way in which +sinners enter into God’s adopted family. It will be admitted that +all who are in God’s adopted family are in a saved condition—in +the same state, in short, as are the elected ones. But how do men +enter into this adopted family? It is stated in John i. 12, “But +as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons +of God, even to them that believe on His name.” To believe on His +name is just to depend upon Him alone for salvation. The apostle +Paul in writing to the Galatians says, “For ye are all the +children of God by faith in Christ Jesus” (Gal. iii. 26.) Each +one had personally to believe in Christ, or to say as Paul said, +He “loved me, and gave himself for me” (<a name="Gal2:20" id= +"Gal2:20">Gal. ii. 20</a>.)</p> +<p class="pn">It may be said that this makes the way too easy, +too simple. It is simple to us indeed, but it cost the Divine +Father the sacrifice of His only-begotten Son; it cost the Divine +Son His sore agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, and His offering +up of himself upon the cross. But the simplicity of the way of +salvation is implied in such passages as, “Look unto me and be ye +saved, all the ends of the earth;” and, “Hear and your soul shall +live.” The reason why it is easy is this,—the meritorious work of +salvation, the work upon the ground of which we get into heaven, +is not our feelings, nor our own works, but the work, the +finished work of Christ.</p> +<p class="pn">The system advocated in this treatise may be +objected to on the ground that it makes man the arbiter of his +own destiny. There is no doubt that it really does so. But is +this a good ground for rejecting it? We think not. Let it be +remembered that all through life man has to exercise the power of +election—choice. He has to do so in regard to a profession or +trade, in regard to securities, and in respect of marriage, and +it would only be in harmony with what he is constantly doing, +were he called upon to “choose,” or decide, upon matters +affecting his spiritual condition. Is he not, moreover, the maker +of his own character? This is his most precious heritage, more +valuable than thousands of gold and silver. But how is it made? +By single volitions on the side of the right, the true, and the +good. And is not the life that is to come a continuance of the +life that <i>now is</i>? And if we exercise choice in the making +of our characters, this is the same as being the arbiters of our +destination in eternity. And what is thus plain to the +intelligence is confirmed by the Scriptures. Their language is, +“Choose ye this day whom ye will serve;” “Wilt thou not from this +day say unto me, My father?” They thus clearly make the matter to +turn on the “<i>will</i>.”</p> +<p class="pn">It may be said that the view for which we have been +contending, does not give the Christian the comfort of heart +which the system opposed does. But the primary question with an +honest inquirer should not be, which view of a subject is the +most agreeable? but, what is the truth upon the point? It is +possible in religious life, as in social, to live in a fool’s +paradise. But what more comfort could a man desiderate than is +given by the Holy Spirit? The Christian may be poor and deformed, +but God loves him all the same as if he were rich as Crœsus, and +in form had the symmetry of the Apollo Belvidere. He may be tried +as silver is tried in the fire, but the Lord will sit as the +refiner, and not suffer him to be tried above what he is able to +bear.</p> +<p class="pn">But what about the <a name="Believers" id= +"Believers"><i>security</i></a> of the believer? The covenant +being made between Christ and the Father is well ordered in all +things and sure, according to the system of Predestination. “Once +a saint, a saint for ever,” it has been said. The Christian, it +is argued, may make slips, even as David did, but he cannot fall +finally away, for every one that Christ died for will be +ultimately saved. Now if all this were true, then doubtless a +sense, or feeling if you will, of security would be gained. When +Cromwell was dying he is said to have asked his chaplain whether +those who once knew the truth could be lost, and being answered +in the negative, he replied, “Then I am safe.” Now, it is not +agreeable to be constantly on the watch-tower looking out for the +foe, or to have to tread cautiously among the grass lest you +should be bitten by a rattlesnake. But a man may imagine himself +to be secure when he is not. Many of the shareholders and +trustees involved in the late Bank catastrophy thought they were +secure; but they slept upon a slumbering volcano, and many lost +their all. They thought that they were secure, but it was a dream +from which they were awakened to a terrible reality. So in +religion. A man under the shadow of a theory may think himself +safe, whilst his gourd is only the gourd of Jonah, a thing that +withers under the heat of the sun. The feeling of security is +very agreeable; but how, if strict Calvinism is adhered to, is +any man to get intelligently amongst the elect? If Christ has +died only for a few, and the names of these are kept a profound +secret, how can I believe that I am among that few? We cannot +believe without evidence. If we do, our faith is the faith of the +fool—a dream, a conceit, and nothing more. Before a man, upon the +theory of strict Calvinism, can believe that Christ died for him, +he would require to get a list of the elect. This not being +forthcoming, many poor men are waiting for the touch of the +Almighty’s finger to work faith within them, and place them among +the happy number of the saved. But in so waiting they are under a +perfect delusion. As a matter of fact there are many excellent +Christian men who contend earnestly for the creed of Calvinism. +They read in the Bible that God is willing to take sinners back +through Christ, and they come to Him, and consecrate themselves +to His services, and then battle for limitation. But in accepting +Christ as their Saviour they shut their eyes to the doctrine of +their creed, and acted on the declarations of the word of God. We +rejoice that they are Christians, but maintain, nevertheless, +that in believing they acted illogically.</p> +<p class="pns">But to return to security. What more security +could any one desire than the word of Christ?—“My sheep hear my +voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them +eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man +pluck them out of my hand. My Father which gave them me is +greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my +Father’s hand” (John x. 27, 29). Our Lord is here speaking of +external foes, and declares that no enemy is strong enough to +take His sheep from Him. But men enter His service freely, and +freely they remain. He has no slaves in His household. His people +are attached to Him because they see in Him a concentration of +all that is noble and good. His self-sacrifice for them has won +their hearts, and inspired them with devotedness to His person. +That it is possible to fall away we admit, from the fact that man +is a free being surrounded with temptations; and also because we +find throughout the Bible earnest exhortations to watchfulness, +which would be quite useless except upon the possibility of +letting the truth slip from the mind. Hymenæus and Alexander made +shipwreck of their faith (1 Tim. i.); and Paul had to keep his +body under, lest he himself should become a castaway. But the +<i>possibility</i> of falling away should not disturb the +equanimity of any Christian for a moment. As free creatures we +have the power of throwing ourselves into the river, or the fire, +or in many other ways taking our own life; yet the possession of +this power in nowise disturbs our tranquillity of soul, or mars +our peace of mind. It were, no doubt, more pleasing to the flesh +to have no fighting, no struggle, no watching; but we must accept +the logic of facts, and they clearly indicate that the Christian +life is a battle all the way to the gates of the New Jerusalem. +But in this spiritual contest, the thews and sinews of the soul +are made strong. By failing to realise the ideal of what a +Christian should be, believers feel the need of Christ’s +presence, and the help of the Holy Ghost, and sympathise with the +sentiments of the hymn.</p> +<p class="p2 f11">“I could not do without Thee,</p> +<p class="p3 f11">O Saviour of the lost,</p> +<p class="p2 f11">Whose precious blood redeemed me</p> +<p class="p3 f11">At such tremendous cost;</p> +<p class="p2 f11">Thy righteousness, Thy pardon,</p> +<p class="p3 f11">Thy precious blood must be</p> +<p class="p2 f11">My only hope and comfort,</p> +<p class="p3s f11">My glory and my plea.</p> +<p class="p2 f11">“I could not do without Thee;</p> +<p class="p3 f11">I cannot stand alone,</p> +<p class="p2 f11">I have no strength or goodness,</p> +<p class="p3 f11">No wisdom of my own;</p> +<p class="p2 f11">But Thou, beloved Saviour,</p> +<p class="p3 f11">Art all in all to me,</p> +<p class="p2 f11">And weakness will be power</p> +<p class="p3s f11">If leaning hard on Thee.</p> +<p class="p2 f11">“I could not do without Thee</p> +<p class="p3 f11">No other friend can read</p> +<p class="p2 f11">The spirit’s strange deep longings,</p> +<p class="p3 f11">Interpreting its need;</p> +<p class="p2 f11">No human heart could enter</p> +<p class="p3 f11">Each dim recess of mine,</p> +<p class="p2 f11">And soothe, and hush, and calm it,</p> +<p class="p3s f11">O blessed Lord, but Thine.</p> +<p class="pn">Having entered by faith into the family of God, or +in other words, amongst the elect, it becomes the sacred duty of +the believer to be careful to maintain good works. He must +remember that the way to heaven is not strewn with roses. He is +Christ’s freeman; but it is with spiritual freedom as with civil, +“eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Neither is it an +artillery duel, or firing at long range; it is ofttimes a grapple +in the fosse for victory or death.</p> +<p class="pn">But the Christian—the elected one—has not to fight +life’s battle alone. The Holy Spirit having led him to Jesus +carries on the good work in his heart. He tells him that he is +dear to God; that he is His son, “His jewel;” His “portion;” that +God will never leave him nor forsake him; that his strength shall +be equal to his day; that his foot shall never be moved; and that +God, who hath given up for him His son, will with that Son freely +give him all things. By being faithful unto death he shall at +last receive the crown of life, which shall never fade away.</p> +<p style="text-align:center;margin-top:8em; margin-bottom:10em"> +<span class="sc">the end</span>.</p> +<p style= +"text-align:center;letter-spacing:0.3em;font-size:16pt;margin-top:2em;margin-bottom:2em"> +<a name="Index">INDEX.</a></p> +<hr> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Act2:23">Acts ii. 23</a>, <a href= +"#Act4:22_28">iv. 27, 28</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Adrumetum">Adrumetum, Monks of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Amos3:6">Amos iii. 6</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Arles">Arles, Synod of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Believers">Believers, Security of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Blinding">Blinding of men</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Byron">Byron’s mother</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#CalvinReprobation">Calvin on +Reprobation</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Cassian">Cassian, John</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#CharlesV">Charles V.</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Chosen">Chosen, The, few</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Christ">Christ, Marvelling of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Chrysostom">Chrysostom</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#ChurchEngland">Church of England</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Clark">Clark, Dr. A.</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Clement">Clement of Rome</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#IICo13:5">2 Corinthians xiii. 5</a>, +<a href="#IICo13:6">2 Corinthians xiii. 6</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Cunningham">Cunningham, his +Admission</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Dort">Dort, Synod of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Eadie">Eadie, Dr., View of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#ElectForeknown">Elect, The +foreknown</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#ElectWord">Elect, The word</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#ElectHow">Elect, the, How to enter +amongst</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#ElectionObjects">Election, Objects +in</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Eli">Eli, Sons of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Eph1:4">Ephesians i. 4</a>, <a href= +"#Eph1:11">i. 11</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Evil">Evil in the city</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Faber">Faber, Statement by</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Fathers">Fathers, their testimony</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Froude">Froude</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Gal2:20">Gal. ii. 20</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#GodForeknowledge">God, His +foreknowledge</a>, <a href="#GodOath">His oath</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Gottschalk">Gottschalk</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#GreatMen">Great men, Mothers of</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Guthrie">Guthrie, Dr. John</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Heb6:8">Heb. vi. 8</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Invitations">Invitations, Holy +Spirit’s</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Irenaeus">Irenæus</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Isa1:18">Isaiah i. 18</a>, <a href= +"#Isa45:7">xlv. 7</a>, <a href="#Isa46:10">xlvi. 10</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#JacobEsau">Jacob and Esau</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Jer6:30">Jeremiah vi. 30</a>, <a href= +"#Jer7:29">vii. 29</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Job14:5">Job xiv. 5</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Joh12:37">John xii. 37</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Jud1:4">Jude iv</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Judgement">Judgment, The day of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Keilah">Keilah, David in</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#IKi22">1 Kings xxii</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Kinloch">Kinloch, Lord</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Lambeth">Lambeth, Articles of</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Luk14:26">Luke xiv. 26</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Mar5:6">Mark v. 6</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Mat11:21">Matthew xi. 21</a>, <a href= +"#Mat20:16">xx. 16</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Martyr">Martyr, Justin</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Mental">Mental power</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Mercy">Mercy on whom He will</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Micaiah">Micaiah</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Moral">Moral distinctions +destroyed</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Mosheim">Mosheim, Testimony of</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Neander">Neander</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Origen">Origen</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Pantheism">Pantheism</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Pelagianism">Pelagianism, what?</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Persons">Persons, Respect of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#IIPe1:1">1 Peter i. 1</a>, <a href= +"#IPe2:8">ii. 8</a>, <a href="#IIPe1:10">2 Peter i. 10</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Philosophy">Philosophy ignored</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Potter">Potter, The, and the clay</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Power">Power, Divine</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Providential">Providential +blessings</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Psa76:10">Psalm lxxvi. 10</a>, <a href= +"#Psa125:6">cxxv. 6</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Reason">Reason, Appeal to</a></p> +<p class="p0">Reprobation <a href="#P2">[1]</a>, <a href= +"#Reprobation2">[2]</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Rom1:28">Romans i. 28</a>, <a href= +"#Rom8:29">viii. 29</a>, <a href="#Rom9:11">ix. 11</a>, <a href= +"#Rom9:13">ix. 13</a>, <a href="#Rom9:15">ix. 15</a>, <a href= +"#Rom11:5">xi. 5</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#ISa2:25">1 Samuel ii. 25</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#SemiPel">Semipelagianism</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#SinAuthor">Sin, Author of</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Sovereignty">Sovereignty, God’s</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Sublapsarianism">Sublapsarianism</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href= +"#Supralapsarianism">Supralapsarianism</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Tears">Tears, Christ’s</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Tertullian">Tertullian</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#IITh2:13">2 Thessalonians ii. 13</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#IITi3:8">2 Timothy iii. 8</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#Tit1:16">Titus i. 16</a></p> +<p class="p0s"><a href="#UPChurch">U. P. Church</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Wesley">Wesley, John</a></p> +<p class="p0"><a href="#Westminster">Westminster, Assembly +of</a></p> +<hr> +<p style= +"text-align:center;font-size:9pt;margin-top:0; margin-bottom:2em"> +BELL AND BAIN, PRINTERS, 41 MITCHELL STREET, GLASGOW.</p> + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of The Doctrines of Predestination, +Reprobation, and Election, by Robert Wallace + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK DOCTRINES OF PREDESTINATION *** + +***** This file should be named 28103-h.htm or 28103-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/2/8/1/0/28103/ + +Produced by Keith G. Richardson + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH F3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |