favorable to civil and religious liberty, is a _sheer_ pretence.
I will just state a few facts. When the Presbyterians obtained
the ascendency in England, they proceeded to establish themselves
by law. The _Westminster Confession of Faith_ was intended for
the English Establishment. Presbyterianism is the established
religion of Scotland at this day, and also of Holland, Geneva,
and some parts of Germany. Presbyterian ministers in Ireland are
supported, in part, by the British Government. They thus consent
that Methodists, Baptists, and others, shall be taxed for their
support. That Presbyterianism is not the Established Church in
this country may be owing altogether to the fact that it has
always been too weak to place itself in that position. When the
Independents, in Cromwell's time, obtained the ascendency, they
followed the example of the Presbyterians. The Congregationalists
of New England, who are Calvinists, established their system, by
law, in several of the colonies, and continued to be the
Established Church after the Revolution, and until the other
sects, combining with unbelievers, became strong enough to put
them down and change the State constitutions in favor of equal
rights. And, within five or six years of the present time, a
Presbyterian Church, in one of the States of this Republic,
applied to the legislature, and obtained a grant of one thousand
five hundred dollars to be expended upon a Presbyterian church
edifice. Many Calvinists have held, and many do yet hold
doctrines highly intolerant; and the history of Calvinism is
crimsoned by records of blood spilled in support of its tenets.
It would be great wisdom on the part of our Calvinistic brethren
to allow the question of the bearing of Calvinism upon civil and
religious liberty to sleep, undisturbed.
A very strong presumption of the unsoundness of the Calvinistic
doctrine of decrees arises from the fact that its advocates are
compelled, in answering objections to it, not only to disguise,
but also flatly contradict it, and to substitute for it Arminian
positions; thus virtually conceding that it is indefensible. Dr.
Musgrave, as we have seen, asserts explicitly that God has
foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. He argues that to deny
this, would be in effect to deny that God is infinitely wise,
benevolent, and powerful. He says: "We have proved, both by
reason and revelation, that all things that come to pass are
foreordained." He applies this doctrine to sinful actions in the
following manner: "Now, that the whole of Pharaoh's conduct had
not only been foreknown but foreordained is indisputable." Again,
he says: "In connection with the foregoing statements concerning
the crucifixion of the Saviour, let us single out the case of one
of the individual actors in that awful tragedy, one whose part
was the most perfidious and execrable, and see whether his crime
was not before ordained, and he the individual predesignated as
its perpetrator." He proceeds to the proof of this proposition.
But, when it becomes necessary to meet the palpable and
irrefutable objections that this doctrine makes God the author of
sin, and takes away the responsibility of the creature, he is
compelled to change entirely his ground. He substitutes
_permission_ for _foreordination_, and defines permission to mean
simply not preventing. "And is there no difference," says he,
"between God's making, or exciting men to sin, by his power or
influence, and his _permitting_, or _not preventing_ them from
sinning? Between his determining to produce the evil himself, or
to cause others by his power to do it, and his predetermining to
_permit_ men to abuse their liberty and to commit the evil by the
_unprevented_ exercise of their own voluntary efficiency?"
I reply--there is a very great difference. It is nothing less
than the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. He is led
to deny his own doctrine, and take refuge in the one he has tried
so hard to refute.
The Rev. Dr. Baker, of Texas, in a tract published by the
Presbyterian Board of Publication, and entitled _The Standards of
the Presbyterian Church a Faithful Mirror of the Bible_, attempts
to establish by Scripture the proposition--"God from all eternity
did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely
and unchangeably foreordain whatsoever comes to pass." But in
another, published by the same institution, and entitled _The
Sovereignty of God Explained and Vindicated_, the design of which
is to present the doctrine of Divine decrees in such a light as
will obviate the usual objections to the Calvinistic view, he
says: "Certain things God _brings to pass_ by a positive agency.
Others he _simply permits_ to come to pass. And let it be
remarked, permission and approbation do not, by any means, mean
the same thing." Again: "Does any one ask what is the difference
between _bringing_ to pass, and _permitting_ to come to pass? I
answer: God brought to pass the incarnation of his Son. He
permitted to come to pass his crucifixion. The difference is as
wide as the east is from the west."
But if God simply permits some things, why do the creed and the
catechism of the Presbyterian Church assert, so unequivocally,
that he has from all eternity foreordained whatsoever comes to
pass, and that he executes, or brings to pass all his decrees?
The contradiction is manifest.
The Rev. Dr. Fairchild, in his famous _Great Supper_, says:
"Calvinists do not regard the decrees of God as extending to all
events in the same manner. Some things God has determined to
_effect_ by his own agency, and other things he has decreed to
_permit_ or _suffer_ to be."
But, if the Calvinistic doctrine be that his decrees merely
"extend to all events" (a very different thing from his decreeing
all events), and that while he "decrees" and "effects" some he
merely "permits" or "suffers" other events, what must we
understand to be the Arminian doctrine, against which they are
called to contend so earnestly? Are they prepared to acknowledge
that they have abandoned Calvinism and run into Arminianism? Do
they mean to say that there is no difference between these
systems on the point in question? Not at all. How then do they
preserve the antagonism of the two creeds? What is the Arminianism
against which they are arrayed? Dr. Musgrave thus attempts the
solution of this question.
"Now, I submit, whether the difficulty, thus confessedly pressing
against both systems, is not capable on our principles, of a much
more full and satisfactory conclusion. For we not only say, as
Wesley does, that 'God knew that it was best, on the whole, not
to prevent the first sin of Adam,' but we add, that, knowing
this, he determined not only to permit that, but all the sins
that he knew would follow from it, and to limit and overrule the
whole for his most excellent glory."
It seems, then, that the difference between Calvinism and
Arminianism respecting the Divine decrees is that Calvinism
affirms that God knew it was best, on the whole, not to prevent
the sins which he has not prevented, but to permit, and limit and
overrule them, while Arminianism affirms that God knew it would
be best, on the whole, not to prevent the _first_ sin, but
determined to prevent all the sins that he foresaw would flow
from it. What a strange statement! To what shifts are these men
driven by their unfortunate creed! Where does Mr. Wesley, or any
other Arminian writer, say this directly or indirectly? Our
author very wisely declines any references at this point. Mr.
Wesley does, indeed, deny that God permitted sin, even the "first
sin of Adam," in the sense of approving or tolerating it; but
whoever denied that God permits, in the sense of suffering--not
forcibly preventing, the sins which actually occur? He appropriates
to himself, unfairly, Mr. Wesley's doctrine, and then imputes to Mr.
Wesley a tenet so perfectly foolish that it may be doubted whether
any man ever advanced it, whether sane or insane, drunk or sober.
No! these are not the doctrines of Calvinism and Arminianism
respectively. The reader will see the importance of the pains
taken, in the first discourse, to identify Calvinism. I proved
beyond dispute, that Calvinistic creeds, Catechisms, and other
theological treatises, teach explicitly, that God has purposed,
decreed, foreordained, whatsoever comes to pass; that in some way
or other he brings to pass all events; that nothing will, or can,
come to pass but what he has ordained; that none of his purposes
can be defeated; that it cannot, with truth, be said of any
event--it may or may not occur; and that all actual results, by
whatever means obtained, are expressions of the design, or decree
of God. Arminianism teaches on the contrary, that God has not
ordained whatsoever comes to pass--that some things he has
preordained; that other things he has not, but has, nevertheless,
approved and commanded them, leaving it to the free agency of the
creature to fulfil his requisitions; that other things, he not
only has not foreordained, but, has condemned and prohibited
them, and yet permits or suffers them to be, in preference to
that violent interference with free agency which would be
necessary to their forcible prevention.
Dr. Fairchild tells us that "this distinction between a decree to
_effect_ and a decree to _permit_ has been adopted by Predestinarian
divines in all ages."
Yes, in all ages Predestinarian divines have been compelled to
abandon and contradict their creed in the progress, and for the
purpose, of its defence. But Calvin himself formally discards and
protests against this distinction. He says respecting it: "A
question of greater difficulty arises from other passages, where
God is said to incline or draw according to his own pleasure,
Satan himself and all the reprobate. For the carnal understanding
scarcely comprehends how he, acting by their means, contracts no
defilement from their criminality, and even in operations common
to himself and them, is free from every fault, and yet righteously
condemns those whose ministry he uses. Hence was invented the
distinction between _doing_ and _permitting_; because to many
persons this has appeared an inexplicable difficulty, that Satan
and all the impious are subject to the power and government of God,
so that he directs their malice to whatever end he pleases, and uses
their crimes for the execution of his judgments. The modesty of
those who are alarmed at the appearance of absurdity, might perhaps
be excusable, if they did not attempt to vindicate the Divine
justice by a pretence utterly destitute of any foundation in truth.
They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will
and command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness.
They therefore evade the difficulty, by alleging that it happens
only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but God
himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this
subterfuge."
But Calvin protests in vain against resorting to this "evasion"
and "subterfuge." It is the only way in which the advocates of
his doctrine can make a plausible show of argument when pressed
with certain objections. Hence we find the Westminster divines
employing it. They tell us in their Confession of Faith, that God
was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel, to _permit_
the sin of our first parents. Lest, however, the faithful should
fall into a serious mistake, another part assures them that the
providence of God "extendeth itself to the first fall, and all
other sins of angels and men, and that not by a _bare permission_,
but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding,
and otherwise ordering and governing of them, &c." The nature of
that "ordering and governing" is explained in the declaration that
"God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his
own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."
But how learned men can talk of God's permitting what he has
eternally and unchangeably ordained, is a mystery to some of the
unlearned. Is it necessary to tell us, gravely, that God permits
to come to pass that which from all eternity he freely ordained
shall come to pass? He permits men and angels to do what he has
predetermined they shall do, and what they cannot avoid doing!
Wonderful!!
The apology for this gross misapplication of language, on the
part of men whose learning is sometimes magnified almost into
infallibility, is found in their distressing emergency. In no
other way can they, with any plausibility, meet their opponents.
The usefulness of this term "permit" is admirably indicated by
the account which a Presbyterian colporteur gives of an interview
with some who objected to the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees. He
says:--
"I felt myself, however, sometimes compelled to combat with the
opponents of our Calvinistic creed. On one occasion entering a
house, the members of which all attended the Presbyterian Church,
but were not members, I sold a Confession of Faith to the
gentleman; his lady inquired what the name of the book was and on
being told, after turning over its pages in a hasty manner,
exclaimed: 'I could never allow that book to be under my roof--it
should not be read, and it never ought to have been printed.'
"What was I to do? The doctrine of our Church, so far as election
is concerned, was attacked. After some little conversation on the
subject, I found that she and her son charged our Confession with
teaching that God passed a decree which put the fall of Adam
beyond the possibility of escape."
Here was an exigency. Let us see how he meets it. That the
Confession does teach the doctrine which the lady and her son
ascribed to it, is as plain as anything can be. He _decreed
whatsoever comes to pass_, and _executes_ his decrees. Does he
ask her what objections she has to this doctrine and offer to
refute them? Does he directly and promptly deny that Calvinism
teaches this doctrine? No! Such a course would be rather
hazardous, considering the character of the books he was seeking
to distribute, and did actually leave with them. What course,
then, does he take? "I told her," says he, "if the chapter on the
fall of man said so, I was as loath to believe it as she was; and
if she could find it so, I would condemn the doctrine." Mark! He
does not say, unconditionally and unequivocally that he condemned
the doctrine, and was as loath to believe it as she was, but _if
the chapter which treated on the fall of man said so_. Well, what
follows: "On turning to the 6th chapter, how surprised was she to
read--This their sin God was pleased according to his wise and
holy counsel to _permit_.'" This word _permit_ helped him out of
his difficulty. "Here was a fact," says he, "of which they had
never heard before, and which gave them no little satisfaction."
He doubtless left them under the impression that the Confession
of Faith does not teach that God decreed and brought to pass the
sin of Adam. However, he did not leave them until they willingly
purchased the _Confession of Faith, the Great Supper_, and
_Fisher's Catechism_, which asserts, as I have already shown,
that "the very reason why anything comes to pass in time is,
because God has decreed it," that "none of the decrees of God can
be defeated, or fail of execution;" and that God "predetermines
the creature to such or such an action, and not to another,
shutting up all other ways of acting, and leaving that only open
which he had determined to be done."
Another presumption in favor of Arminianism results from the
readiness with which Methodist preachers are installed as pastors
of Calvinistic churches, both old and new school, with the
understanding, if their own statements be reliable, that they are
not required to renounce or contradict the Arminian creed.
Arminian ministers are coming into great demand by Calvinists.
They are admitted into the Methodist ministry with the understanding
that they are sound Arminians. They remain for years without
exciting the least suspicion of their orthodoxy. When, all at once,
without any prior change of ecclesiastical relations, or intimation
of a change of theological views, they walk into Calvinistic pulpits.
I make no remarks at present upon the morality of this course, but
deduce that Arminianism preaching, to some extent, is necessary to
keep up Calvinistic congregations.
Methodists, you may well prize your creed. Your ministers can
preach it without reserve. You can defend it. The water of life
comes to you through no corrupting medium. You are in no danger
of inhaling poisonous sediment. It will bear analysis. It comes
to you fresh and abundant. Drink it, and dig channels wide and
long for its diffusion, that others may be blest as you are.