IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 1.0 
 
 I.I 
 
 S IIIIM 
 
 IM 
 
 ■16 
 
 iii 
 
 !r m 
 
 2.5 
 
 12.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 
 1.25 1.4 
 
 1.6 
 
 
 M 6" — 
 
 
 ► 
 
 V} 
 
 <p 
 
 /} 
 
 7 
 
 'c^l 
 
 C>>. 0% 
 
 % ..% 
 
 
 '/ 
 
 M 
 
 Photographic 
 
 Sciences 
 
 Corporation 
 
 4 
 
 ■^ 
 
 \ 
 
 4^ 
 
 o 
 
 ev 
 
 .<? 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^ 
 
 ^\> 
 
 » 
 
 pi? 
 
 "<i.^ 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, NY. 14580 
 
 (716) 872-4503 
 
Q- 
 
 s 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions Institut Canadian de microreproductions historlques 
 
 1980 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 which may alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 □ 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de couleur 
 
 Covers damaged/ 
 Couverture endommag^e 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul6e 
 
 Cover title missi.ig/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 I — I Coloured maps/ 
 
 I — I Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 
 I 1 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue 
 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 Blank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas 6t6 fiimdes. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a 6t6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la mdthode normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 □ 
 
 □ 
 
 □ 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 D 
 
 Coloured pages/ 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages endommagdes 
 
 Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restaurdes et/ou pelliculdes 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages ddcolordes, tachetdes ou piqu6es 
 
 Pages detached/ 
 Pages ddtachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of print varies/ 
 Quality in6gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary material/ 
 Comprend du material supplementaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont 6t6 film6es d nouveau de fai;on d 
 obtenir la meilleure image possible. 
 
 □ This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 
 10X 
 
 
 
 
 14X 
 
 
 
 
 18X 
 
 
 
 
 22X 
 
 
 
 
 26X 
 
 
 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 
 
 
 16X 
 
 
 'It 
 
 
 20X 
 
 
 
 
 24X 
 
 
 
 
 28X 
 
 
 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 National Library of Canada 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 gdndrositd de: 
 
 Bibliothdque nationale du Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in keeping with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6X6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 Les exemplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant 
 par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont filmds en commenpant par la 
 premidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration et en terminant par 
 la dernid'^ page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symboie — ► signifie "A SUIVRE", le 
 symbole V signifie "FIN". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds 6 des taux de reduction diffdrents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clichd, il est filmd 6 partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche 6 droite, 
 et de haut v^n bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 

 
 
 !4 
 
 
 
 ■MMMIii 
 
 ^^^^oi^/ja 
 
 <\RMINIANISM 
 
 AND 
 
 GRACE. 
 
 BY 
 
 DR. HODJGE. 
 
 PRICE 10 CENTS. 
 
 
 TORONTO: 
 
 
 JAMES BAIN & SON, 46 KING STREET EAST 
 
 t '' 
 
 1881. 
 
 - - 
 
 WP'^WKt 
 
 t 
 
 
 • H 
 
 ■v^ 
 
 r 
 
 ■ t»,t>'iJ •<-. , -ja' 
 
 uMil'^ 
 
H*" <' 
 
 v%; 
 
 y 
 
 ^ '^t.^*fr' 
 
 ■f? 
 
 «wy*« T » > »w 
 
 "^**-' *y- 
 
 t I -t 
 
 ;rji~ 
 
 
 -•ft ' 
 
 %> -^^h 
 
 >nS. 
 
 V„ 
 
 J>-_ 
 
 * I^H «., , 
 
 *^-> 
 
 
 N 
 
 iir ^ t 
 
 .'-:-u 
 
 'W 
 
 ^i^. 
 
 
 r.fci- 
 
 S»'^ ' * 
 
. ^m 
 
 
 
 < 
 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
t 
 
 r 
 
 V . V ,»* -> ■ I, 
 
 ; ': . i''\- 1 ^; 
 
 .. 
 
ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 ■^ 
 
 BY 
 
 1 
 
 DR. HODGE. 
 
 TORONTO: 
 JAMES BAIN & SON, 46 KING STREET EAST. 
 
 1881. 
 
.33 A HO (H'^A 
 
 S^G-^ 
 
 C. Blackktt Robinson, Printer, 
 S Jordan Stk«et. Toronto. 
 

 PREFACE. 
 
 The doctrine of Justification by Faith in Christ Jesus alone has been called 
 the distinguishing feature of a living Church. The importance of sound 
 views on the plau of salvation is, consequently, the greatest of all questions 
 for the Christian Church to consider, and yet there are not a few who (in 
 many cases unconsciously) ignore the Biljle doctrines of Divine grace in the 
 salvation of the soul, and, while calling the Lord Jesus their Saviour, 
 seem to imagine somehow they can do something toward securing their 
 salvation. 
 
 The following tractate on this subject, which originally appeared in the 
 Princeton Review (Jan., 1856) is now reprinted, from the belief that its re- 
 publication is fitted to be of service to the interests of religion in Canada. 
 
 The Rev. Dr. Hodge, presumed to be the author, was distinguished for 
 the clearness of his views of Scripture truth, and acknowledged to have been 
 the ablest writer on Systematic Theology in the present day — it is therefore 
 with confidence we re-issue this tractate as a help to the promotion of 
 scriptural views on the subject of which it treats. 
 
 Toronto, February, i88i. 
 
■i ,(: 
 
ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 ^ 
 
 It is not our desire to wound the feelings of our Arminian brethren. Nor 
 have we any pleasure, except as it may subserve the cause of righteousness, 
 in pointing out what we regard as a most serious conclusion, drawn legiti- 
 mately from their principles. Both for their own sake, and to avoid dis- 
 tracting the attention of men by the differences of Christian denominations, 
 we would gladly omit the observations now to be made. Such, however, 
 is the prominence given in the Scriptures to the doctrine of grace, and such 
 is its admitted importance to the whole scheme of redemption, that where 
 it is impugned or misrepresented, eithet directly or by fair implication, si- 
 lence is criminal. This is che necessity Idd upon us at present. We believe 
 that Arminianism is essentially wrong on this subject. 
 
 It has long been our settled conviction that the principles on which 
 Armi .!;\ns object to Calvinism are utterly subversive of the true doctrine of 
 grace ; but it is only recently that our attention has been called to certain 
 authoritative statements on their part, which fully confirm this impression. 
 Looking a little more than usual into the publications of the "Methodist 
 Episcopal Church," the palladium of Arminianism in this country,* we have 
 been surprised and grieved at the bold and unscriptural assertions with 
 which they abound on this subject. And with the hope of opening their 
 eyes to the consequences of their principles ; of making them ?. little more 
 moderate and modest in their assaults on Calvinism, if perchance any of 
 them should read these lines ; and especially with the hope of defending the 
 truth and guarding the people from deception, we propose to notice a few 
 of these statements, and the conclusions which to our mind naturally follow* 
 We shall cheerfully submit it to the judgment of the reader, whether we do 
 them injustice. 
 
 The sum of our charge is that Arminianism, in its essential and avowed 
 principles, is subversive of grace. This is certainly a grave charge, which 
 ought not lightly to be made. We should shrink from preferring it, but for 
 the conviction — first, that it is true, and then that the error charged is in- 
 
 * The United States. 
 
'^f^mm'^fmm 
 
 8 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 calculably injurious. Before proceeding further, it is proper to state the 
 sense in which we use the vioxd s^race. It means favour — that to which the 
 receiver has no claim, and the performer is not bound. There can be no 
 claim to an act of grace on the one hand, nor can there be any obligation 
 to perform it on the other. It enters necessarily and essentially into the 
 idea that it might be withheld and no wrong done. Otherwise it is not 
 grace. When we say, therefore, that salvation is "by grace," we mean 
 that man has no claim to divine favour ; that God is under no obligation to 
 bestow it, and that without this favour he could not obtain eternal life. If 
 the former has a claim, or if the latter is bound, then grace is out of the 
 question. That which we may demand, and He must give, is not grace, 
 but justice. 
 
 The correctness of this statement will hardly be denied. And yet we 
 affirm that the avowed principles of Arminianism entirely subvert this idea 
 of grace. According to this system, man in his fallen state had a claim to 
 divine favour ; God was bound to provide salvation for him, and give him 
 a measure of grace, (if we can conceive of the term as applying to what God 
 was bound to give) or He could not hold him responsible as an accountable 
 being. Let us look at the proofs. 
 
 The first is taken from a volume of "Doctrinal Tracts" issued in their 
 present form " By order of the General Conference." To show the estimate 
 in which these tracts are held, it may be stated that most of them were 
 formerly bound with the "Form of Discipline" under one cover, but for 
 convenience sake have been separated from it. They still bear the impri- 
 matur of the Methodist Episcopal Church. 
 
 On page 25 of this volume, a Calvinist is represented as saying "God 
 might justly have passed by all men ;" i.e. might justly have lefi the whole 
 race to perish, withoi t providing salvation for any. To this the writer, 
 John Wesley himself, replies : "Are you sure He might? Where is it 
 written? I cannot find it in the Word of God. Therefore I reje:t it as a 
 bold, precarious assertion, utterly unsupported by holy Scripture." But, 
 says the Calvinist, "You know in your own conscience, that God might 
 justly have passed by you." " I deny it," says Wesley. "That God might 
 justly, for my unfaithfulness to his grace, have given me up long ago, I 
 grant ; but this concession supposes me to have had grace." This is plain 
 and unmistakable language. "I deny that God might justly have passed 
 by me and all men. I reject it as a bold, precarious assertion, utterly un- 
 supported by holy Scripture." The opposite affirmation necessarily follows. 
 There is no middle ground between them. God could not justly have left 
 
 \ 
 
ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 ll 
 
 me and all men to perish in our fallen state. He was bound in justice to 
 provide salvation ; and of course, to make it known and give grace to accept 
 it, inasmuch as the provision, without these, would avail nothing ! It would 
 have been unjust to have left us without them ! But where then is the 
 grace in doing what He could not justly have omitted to do? Is it an act 
 of grace for the Most High to do justice ? Certainly not. Therfe is no grace 
 in such a transaction. The Gospel provision is only what He was bound to 
 make ; and to call that a dispensation of grace which justice required at his 
 hand, is but to stultify ourselves and deceive mankind. This is our first 
 proof that Arminianism subverts grace. It is sufficient and unanswerable 
 were there no other. We have nevei seen a more bold or dangerous error 
 couched in so few words by any writer who pretended to be evangelical. 
 " It is another gospel, which indeed is not another," — it overthrows all. 
 And yet we shall see that this error, here so boldly set forth, runs through 
 Arminianism. r 
 
 The next proof is from the same volume of Tracts, p 154. " We believe 
 that in the moment Adam fell, he had no freedom of will left." If this be 
 true, Adam was no longer a free agent. A free agent without freedom of 
 will is of course an absurdity which no one will maintain. Into the same 
 state also was his posterity bi ought. We have, by natnre, no more freedom 
 of will than he had after the fall. Then either we are unaccountable beings, 
 or, in order that we might be held responsible, God was bound to restore 
 our freedom through the dispensation of Christ. He certainly could not 
 have held us accountable without freedom of will. He must then, on Ar- 
 minian principles, either treat us as irrational beings, or restore our liberty ; 
 i.e., He must provide a Saviour, through whom this freedom of will comes, 
 or he could not hold any man responsible for his conduct. The Methodist 
 Church holds that He has done the latter ; i.e., restored this liberty. But 
 where, we ask again, is the grace — the unmerited favour o' God in this 
 transaction — in doing what He was bound to do before we could be held 
 accountable? This principle of Methodism, published "by order of the 
 General Conference," aside from some monstrous absurdities connected wtth 
 it, which will be noticed hereafter, either subverts all true notions of grace, 
 or leaves man an unaccountable being. If God was bound to give us a 
 Saviour, and through Him our liberty of will, there was no room for grace 
 in his fulfilling that obligation. ' ' ,, ' - ; ' *. ,■ v^ 
 
 A third proof that Arminianism subverts grace, is taken from Watson's 
 Theo'.Oijical Institutes. He teaches very distinctly (and correctly we may 
 add) that in the fall of Adam, all men became liable to bodily, spiritual and 
 
 I' j 
 I 
 
10 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 eternal death. But mark the ground on which he defends this transaction 
 against the charge of injustice. " In all this it is impossible to impeach the 
 equity of the divine procedure, since no man suffers any loss or injury ulti- 
 mately by the sin of Adam, but by his own wilful obstinacy — the abounding 
 of grace having placed before all men, upon their believing, not merely 
 compensation for the loss and injury sustained by Adam, but infinitely 
 higher blessings both in kind and degree, than were forfeited in him. . . 
 As to adults then, the objection from divine justice is unsupport- 
 ed."* But why is it unsupported ? Because there is a chance to escape 
 these dreadful consequences. It would have been unjust if there were not 
 this chance, but since they have it, therefore it was just in God to visit them 
 with death temporal and spiritual, and with exposure to death eternal for 
 the sin of Adam ! 
 
 But if this be the ground on which the justice of that transaction is to be 
 defended, where, we ask, is the grace of salvation ? Is it an act of grace in 
 God to do what jnstice demanded ? Can there be any favour in providing 
 salvation, if the provision of it was necessary to vindicate (and according to 
 this writer is the only thing which does vindicate) divine justice ? Surely 
 it is not grace for God to vindicate His own honour. Here again is evidence 
 that Arminianism subverts grace. God was bound to make the provision, 
 or He would have been liable to the charge of injustice in permitting us to 
 be ruined by the fall. 
 
 Aside too from its bearing on the doctrine of grace, the course of reason- 
 ing adopted by Mr. Watson involves the dangerous Jesuit dogma that the 
 end justifies the means. God's design to provide salvation, made it right 
 to permit the fall and to visit all mankind with death. It would have been 
 wrong if this had not been his intention. But as He had a merciful end in 
 view, and as He has actually offered compensation, therefore it was lust ! 
 How much iniquity Rome has perpetrated and attempted to justify on this 
 false principle, we need not stop here to mention. It has been the common 
 defence of their vilest outrages on truth, decency and honesty. And that 
 an acute Protestant theologian should rest his whole defence of the divine 
 justice in our fall on this fallacious ground, is a matter of profound aston- 
 ishment 1 
 
 It is not our business here to in'^^ima*^ the ground on which our connec- 
 tion with Adam might be vindic itefi. We can only say in passing, that 
 unless the thing itself was right, oi c;.n be justified by other considerations, 
 
 * Vol. II, Pa^e 57, American Eoltion. 
 
 
 . 
 
ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. |X 
 
 the mere offer of compensation (which in fact has never been odeied to the 
 heathen — the largest part of mankind) cannot make it right. Should a 
 ruler offer a pension of a million of dollars to one of his maimed subjects, 
 this would not justify his barbarous act in cutting off the limbs or putting 
 out the eyes of that subject, that he might become a cripple and so receive a 
 pension. The very fact that a compensation was due, shows that the thing 
 was wrong in itself considered. Mr. Watson's reasoning then amounts to 
 this, that God did a great wrong to the human family in their connection 
 ■^ with Adam, for which He now offers to compersate them through Christ. 
 
 And this compensation is of grace, according to Methodism ! 
 
 A fourth proof that Arminianism subverts grace is now to be mentioned. 
 The Methodist Church holds that " the condition of man after the fall of 
 I Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, bv his own natural 
 
 strength and works, to faith and calling upon God ; wherefore we have no 
 power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace 
 of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working 
 with us when we have that good will."* To this st^'ement there would be 
 no serious objection if it stood alone. It is certainly as strong as any Cal- 
 vinist would desire. But observe what follows. They hold that this in- 
 ability would excuse men from the guilt of sin, if they had not a Gospel 
 provision by which to escape from their sad condition. Thus Mr. Watson, 
 Vol. II., p. 341, says ** If all men everywhere would condemn it as most 
 contrary to justice and right, that a Sovereign should condemn to death one 
 or more of his subjects for not obeying laws which it is absolutely impossible 
 for them under any circumstances which they can possibly avail themselves 
 of, to obey, . . . it implies a charge as awfully and obviously unjust 
 against God, to suppose him to act precisely in the same manner." 
 
 Now put these declarations together, and what do they teach ? The first 
 affirms, "he cannot turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God. 
 . . we have no power to do good works." It would be utterly impos- 
 sible for us then to perform them, " under any circumstances that we could 
 possibly avail ourselves of," without the Gospel. But the second says, " it 
 would be most contrary to justice and righ-t " to punish men for deeds com- 
 mitted in such circumstances. Then it follows, that without the provision 
 and help of the Gospel we would have been unaccountable beings — it would 
 have been most contrary to justice and right for the Almighty to have pun- 
 ished us for our improper conduct — in order to hold us accountable justly, 
 
 * Book of Discipline. Article 8. 
 
12 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 He must provide and offer salvation, and give strength to accept it. This 
 is the position of the Methodist Church, and of Arminians generally ; where 
 then, we ask again, is the grace of the Gospel? According to these state- 
 ments it would have been unju-*t in God to have held men responsible with- 
 out it. It is, therefore, simply an arrangement of jus'ice and neceisity 
 without which the Lord could have exercised no moral government over 
 men. Thus again is grace overthrown, just as certainly as by Wesley's bold 
 as-ertion, that God could not justly have passed by all men. 
 ■ The grand error of Arminians here, is in supposing that man's inability, 
 whatever it is, would have destroyed his free agency and accountability, un- 
 less the Gospel dispensation had supervened. This they c nstantly as-;u.ne 
 in their tirades against Calvinism. But the fact is, that the sinner's in- 
 ability is no excuse for his sin — is no bar to his being held accountable for 
 his conduct, even if there had been no Gospel dispensation. Adam was as 
 truly and as justly accountable after his fall as before it ; so are his posterity. 
 It required no Gospel provision or partial restoration (as Methodism sup- 
 poses) throuj^h Gospel grace to make them so. To suppose that it did, is to 
 overthrow the grace of the Gospel, and to teach the absurdity that sin de- 
 stroyed free agency and accountability. If it were true that inability destroys 
 accountability, then those who are given up of God to hardness of heart 
 could not sin after that abandonment. Can our Arminian friends under- 
 stand and remember this point? Calvinists hold to no such inability as is 
 inconsistent with strict and just accountability. Arminians do, and thus 
 subvert the grace of the Gospel. This is the difference between us on this 
 point. 
 
 Our next proof that Arminianism subverts grace is taken from the prin- 
 cipal objection which its advocates urge against the doctrine of election. 
 According to that doctrine, all men are by nature in a lost condition, and 
 might justly have been left to perish for ever. They have no claim what- 
 ever to the divine favour ; and even when pardon and eternal life are offer- 
 ed, such is their depravity that none would accept it without the constrain- 
 ing grace of God. Viewing all in this miserable condition He "elected 
 some to everlasting life," whom He would make willing in the day of his 
 power, while the remainder He suffers to puisue their own wicked choice, 
 and will punish them at the last for iheirsins. • <n, 
 
 The universal outcry of Arminianism against this doctrine is that it makes 
 God unjust ; and that for two reasons : 1st. That it represents Him as with- 
 holding from some, influences which he bestows on others ; and 2nd, that 
 those from whom these influences are withheld, are unable to deliver them- 
 
 J 
 
 ^ 
 
t 
 
 i 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. %$ 
 
 selve-;, and therefore cannot be justly condemned. We cannot now turn 
 aside to present the proper answer to this oWjeciion. Whai we affirm here 
 is, that if it be well founded, it overthrows the whole doctrine of grace. It 
 rests on the assui.iption that men have some claim on God for Gospel grace. 
 One may claim what another has, and all may claim a certain amount, or 
 they are unjustly treated by their Creator, if He hold them accountable for 
 their conduct. If tliey have no claim, where is or can be the injustice ? 
 The very term unjust implies a claim disregarded. It excludes necessarily 
 the idea of grace. It re>ts upon merit or obligation. If, therefore, God 
 cannot give what He chooses to some without wrong to others, or if he 
 cannot properly withhold from some what He bestows on others, it must be 
 because they have some claim to his favour. But if they have a claim, 
 where is the grace of that influence to which they are ertitled? Its bestow- 
 ment is not grace but justice. When, therefore, Arminians assert that 
 election makes God unjust, they do therein deny and subvert the doctrine 
 of grace. 
 
 We have still another proof that Arminianism subverts grace. Its abet- 
 tors affirm, as we have seen, that God could not justly have passed by all 
 men, leaving them to peiish in their sins. He was bound in justice to pro- 
 vide and offer salvation, and give the strength to receive it. But mark what 
 follows. After GoJ ha'? done all this, they hold that notwithstanding all 
 the influence he can exert on the sinner's mind, he has power to resist it, — 
 that even those who have been renewed by grace in the divine likeness, 
 may undo the work of God in their hearts, in spite of all he can do to pre- 
 serve them. Thus, Dr. Fisk, in his tract on Predestination and Election, 
 (p. i6,) says, " Man's obedience or disobedience, if it has any just relation 
 to rewards and punishments, must rest in its responsible character, upon the 
 self-determining principle of the will.* And if this view of the will be cor- 
 rect, there is an utter impossibility of an unconditional election ; for the very 
 act of God, imparting this self-determining principle to man, renders it im- 
 possible in the nature of things, for the Almighty himself to elect a moral 
 agent unconditionally. . . . This would imply irresistible grace, and 
 that would destroy man's accountability." t.f. Man has a power of deciding 
 his own will, "independent of any cause without himself;" or he is not ac- 
 
 * President Edwards defines this self-determining power or principle to be "a ceitain 
 Sovereignty the will has over itself and its own acts, whereby it detern.ines its own 
 volitions ; so as not to be dependent in its determinations on any cause without itself 
 nor determined by any thing prior to its own acts." Dr. Alexander calls it a power of 
 deciding "independent of all motives and uninfluenced by any inclination." 
 
H 
 
 ARM INI AN ISM AND GRACE. 
 
 countable. He is, therefore, of course, able to decide independent of God, 
 or of grace. "The very act of God imparting this self-determining prin- 
 ciple renders it impossible in the nature of things for the Almighty himself 
 to elect him unconditionally." — He can do so only upon the condition that 
 man does not choose to resist all possible divine influences ! 
 
 Now if all this be true — if man has any such power — if its existence 
 and exercise are essential to his accountability, where is the room for grace 
 in his salvation? He has a just claim, according to Wesley, to the provi- 
 sion and offer of salvation, and to the strength necessary to receive it. 
 There is no grace, therefore, in bestowing these upon him. God could not 
 justly do less. And having these, he has, in his •'self-determining prin- 
 ciple," power to resist all the grace that God can bestow on him afterwards ! 
 Nay, more " his self-determining principle," which is said to be essential 
 to free agency, forbids that there should be any influence whatever exerted 
 upon him in his decision. If there is, how is it the act of *' his self-deter- 
 mining principle?" The very phrase, "a self-determining principle," decided 
 by grace, i.e., by something independent of itself, is an absurdity as gross 
 and palpable as it would be to speak of a self-moving machine propelled 
 by something else. In the face of this mighty principle, there is neither 
 room nor occasion for grace, in the sinner's self-determination, to submit to 
 God. He can do it himself, otherwise his "self-determining principle" 
 cannot determine itself after all. And he must do it himself, otherwise his 
 "self determining" principle is not self-determined, and his accountability 
 is gone. It amounts to this, then, that he can resist all influences — he can 
 keep God out of his heart, or he can, without any influence, magnanimous- 
 ly open the door, and permit the Almighty to enter. Thus again does Ar- 
 minianism subvert grace by making man able either to dispense with it 
 altogether, or superior to its most potent influences. 
 
 There is, connected with this dogma of a self-determining principle, a 
 rich display of theologico-metaphysical acuteness, which is worthy of notice. 
 Where does man get this wonderful principle ? It does not belong to him 
 by nature ; nor is it a necessary or inherent power of the mind (although 
 Dr. Fisk says there can be no accountability without it !), fo-^ 'he General 
 Conference says, "that in the moment Adam fell, he had no frt dom of will 
 left," — of course his "self-determining principle" was destroyed with his 
 freedom of will, though his mind still existed. The same is true of his 
 posterity. Whence then do ihey obtain it ? We are not left to guess. In 
 immediate connection with the above declaration as to Adam, and as a part 
 indeed of the same sentence, the Conference proceeds, " but that God, when 
 
 ^K 
 
ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 H 
 
 of his own free grace He gave the promise of a Saviour to him and his pos- 
 terity, graciously restored to mankind a liberty and power to accept of 
 proffered salvation," i,<f., graciou4y restored this self-determining principle. 
 Grace then, in its first impartation, and without any voluntary reception of 
 it by the sinner, restores his self-determining principle, and thus puts him 
 in a position to reust all that grace can dc* afterwards ! In the exercise of 
 his self-determining principle even the renewed man can undo all that may 
 have been accomplished ! Verily, the theology and metaphysics of this 
 school are alike wonderful and baseless. 
 
 Such are some of tl:e proofs that Arminianism is subversive of grace. 
 The first is taken from their declaration that God could not justly have pass- 
 ed by all men in their fallen state. If He could not, then there was no 
 grace in providing salvation — it was simply a matter of justice. The second 
 is based on their assertion that man in his fallen state has no freedom of 
 will — is not a free agent. If this be true, God must either treat him as an 
 unaccountable being, or restore his freedom of will through the Gospel, 
 which then becomes a necessary condition of accountability, and is not of 
 grace. The third rests on the principle that men are impotent by nature to 
 all good, and that they are not culpable or liable to punishment in that state 
 ofimpotency, unJ'^ss they have the power and opportunity of recovering 
 from it ; ie., unlesi the Gospel dispensation had been introduced. If this 
 be true, then iis promulgation is not of grace, but a condition without which 
 they could not be held accountable. The fourth is taken from their com- 
 mon objection to Calvinism — that it makes God unjust. If this be true, it 
 must be because the claim of some is disregarded. There can be no injustice 
 where there is no claim. And if any have a claim, then grace is out of the 
 question. The fifth is drawn from the ground on which they defend the 
 fall of man in Adam. It was just because there is compensation for it in 
 Chiist. If that be so, then there is no grace in the provision of a Saviour. 
 It is not grace in God to do justice. And the sixth is taken from the absurd 
 dogma of a self-determining principle, which first forbids, and then can 
 resist, all foreign i.fluences. If this be true, it cannot be_^race, but the sin- 
 ner's own self-determining principle that leads him to God. Thus it is by 
 arguments drawn from six distinct points in the great circle of truth, that 
 our charge is established — Arminianism is subsersive of grace. And when 
 grace is overthrown, where is the Gospel ? 
 
 We are fully aware that this conclusion will strike many, and among 
 them, perhaps even our Arminian friends themselves, with surprise. Far 
 be it from us to charge them with an intentional denial of grace. They 
 
z6 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 glory in "free grace," if we may use their own tautological expression. 
 They seem to imaf;ine that they are the only people in the world who hold 
 or preach it in iis fullness and purity. Their n )tit n of grace, however, is a 
 very erroneous dne, It has relation mainl) to ♦he profusion with which 
 Gospel blessings are offered — not to the ground on which they are given. 
 When they look at the former, they sing of grace, and imagine that they 
 hold the scriptural doctrine on this subject. But when they combat Cal- 
 vinism, which they misunderst ind, or misrepresent most egregiously, they 
 avow principles, as seen above, which are utterly at war with gratuitous 
 salvation. They undermine this great truth by representing God as bound 
 to provide it, and yet, overlooking the tendency of their false principles, 
 profess to hold the doctrine in all its completeness — a remarkable instance 
 of persons self-deceived and full of self-complacency in their delusion. We 
 may say of them as Dr. Fisk charitably says of us, " If the supporters of 
 this system must adhere to it, I rejoice that they can close their eyes to its 
 logical consequences, otherwise it would make them wretched in the ex- 
 treme, or drive them into other dangerous theoretical and practical errors ; 
 which indeed in many instances it has done." We recriprocate the kind- 
 ness. Nay, we do more. For while he plainly insinuates that Calvinists 
 are dishonest in concealing their opinions, or in refusing to look at what he 
 considers the legitimate consequences of their doctrines, we give him and 
 his brethren full credit for sincerity in their belief and honesty in advocat- 
 ing it ; we have charity enough to believe that in the fury of their denomi- 
 national zeal, and in the blindness of their bitter denunciation of sound 
 doctrine, they have not seen the destructive bearing of their own principles. 
 We claim the victory in charity at least, if not in logic. Here our charity 
 has not been put to a severe test ; for we never supposed them to be men 
 whose logical perceptions were remarkably clear. And if we I'ad, these 
 Doctrinal Tracts would have shown us our mistake. We must say that of 
 all theological discussions which we have ever read, they are the most 
 incoherent, illogical and vague. The one on Christian Perfection is a 
 rarity. 
 
 But to return. The reader will perceive that the proofs of our position 
 are not founded on mere incautious, unpremeditated admissions or asser- 
 tions, but on the mature, deliberate, argumentative averments of Armin- 
 ianism. These tracts were prepared with care (most of them by John 
 Wesley, the father of Methodism) have been in existence a long time, were 
 bound with the " Book of Disciplinie " in one cover, and still have the sanc- 
 tion of the General Conference. Watson's Theological Institutes is a 
 
ARMINIANISM ANH JRACK. 
 
 17 
 
 
 standard work, designed to "exhibit the Evidences, Doctrines, Morals 
 and Institutions of Christianity." Dr. Fisic's tract on Predestination and 
 Flection is one which they delight to place in the hands of uninformed 
 or hesitating Presbyterians. These are books of authority, prepared ex- 
 pressly for the exhibition of principles — prepared for offensive and defen- 
 sive war. 
 
 Upon the authority of these books we charge the Methodist Episcopal 
 Church with holding and teaching : [i] that God could not justly have 
 passed by all men without providing a Saviour ; [2] that Adam by his fall 
 lost all freedom of will, and therefore ceased to be a free agent ; [3] that his 
 posterity being in the same state would be excusable for their conduct if 
 this alleged loss were not graciously (?) restored to them ; [4] that electing 
 love to some, would make God unjust to those not elected ; [5J that our 
 fall in Adam would be unjust but for the remedial scheme of redemption, 
 and [«. , 9 self-determining principle by which a man can resist or dis- 
 
 pense with xi\ grace, is a necessary condition of free agency. 
 
 More than this. These principles we believe to be essential to the Ar- 
 minian scheme. Unless they be maintained, or at least assumed, its advo- 
 cates have no ground on which to defend their peculiar tenets, or to plant 
 their batteries against the fortress of Calvinism. Let them admit the fol- 
 lowing propositions — the opposite of those we have charged upon them : 
 [i] that God might justly have passed by all men without providing or 
 offering salvation through Christ ; [2] that Adam after his* fall was still a 
 free moral agent, and as such accountable for his conduct ; [3] that his 
 posterity, though like him fallen, are still by nature, free and accountable ; 
 [4] that in bestowing grace on some, God does no injustice to others, as 
 none have a claim to his favour; [5] that the permission of our fall in Adam 
 was just and righteous, so far as our Creator is concerned, without any 
 compensation for it in the scheme of redemption ; and [6] that there is no 
 such thing as a " self determining principle " in the human mind, by which 
 a man can resist all possible moral and spiritual influences brought to bear 
 upon him. Let them admit these propositions, and what have they to say 
 against Calvinism, or in favour of the crudities of Arminianism ? We should 
 like to see an Arminian treatise, setting out with the admission of these 
 principles. They are the foundatioi; stones of Calvinism. Admitting them 
 to be true, an Arminian could no more write on theology than David could 
 fight in the armour of Saul. Let them try it. 
 
 On the other hand, let them deny these propositions, and grace is over- 
 thrown inevitably. It is as clear as noon-day, that if God could not justly 
 
i8 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 have passed by all men, then there is no grace in providing a Saviour. If 
 Adam was not still a free, moral, and accountable being after his fall, and 
 if his posterity are not so by nature, there is no grace in making them so by 
 the Gospel, It was simply an arrangement of necessity, without which they 
 could not have been held accountable. If God cannot justly withhohl or 
 give his favour in Christ Jesus as He pleases, there is no grace in bestowing 
 it. If the permission of our fall in Adam was not just and righteous in it- 
 self, there is no grace in the Gospel, which, Mr. Watson says, makes it just. 
 Where can be the grace in doing that which it would have been unjust not 
 to do? Arminians then are shut up to the necessity of overthrowing the 
 (iospel, or of admitting the essential principles of Calvinism. The fact is 
 that they do both by turns. When they preach the Gospel, so far as it is 
 ever preached by them in its purity, they do the latter. When they oppose 
 Calvinism, they do the former. Are such inconsistent errorists safe guides 
 for immortal beings ? 
 
 The subject might here be left to the candid consideration of the reader. 
 There are, however, in addition to the subversion of grace, several other 
 strange and unscriptural conclusions which follow necessarily from some or 
 all the Arminian statements on which we have dwelt. A few of these may 
 now be mentioned. 
 
 (i) "I deny that God might justly have passed by me and all men. I reject 
 it as a bolv' and precarious assertion, utterly unsupported by Holy Scrip- 
 ture." Then the atonement itself was not necessary. For if justice re- 
 quired that men should have the offer of pardon, why should Christ suffer 
 to make it consistent for God to do a just thing ? If justice were on the 
 sinner's side, the law which is just and good would justify without any atone- 
 ment. According to this dogma, therefore, Christ died in vain. Surely, 
 the Father of mercies did not require to be lured to do justice by the un- 
 . utterable agony of his beloved Son. What a picture of his character and 
 of the glorious doctrine of the cross is thus afforded ! 
 
 (2) " I deny that God might justly have passed by me and all men." 
 Then He has treated the heathen very unjustly. For if He was bound to 
 provide, He must certainly have been equally bound to offer salvation. 
 Simply providing a remedy, and leaving them without the knowledge of it, 
 would not satisfy justice. What avails it to them that there is balm in 
 Gilead, or a Physician there ? *' How can they believe in Him of whom 
 they have not heard ?" To be ignorant of it is to them as if no such pro- 
 vision had been made. And since, in fact, the Gospel has not been made 
 known to the great mass of mankind, ic follows that they have been treated 
 
 4> 
 
 I 
 
•1 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 tf 
 
 
 unjustly by their Creator. He has withheld from them what he was bound 
 to give ! * 
 
 (3) **We believe that in the moment Adam fell, he had no freedom of 
 will left." Of course he could not sin in that state. Transgression without 
 freedom of will is no sin. Then the first effect of Adam's sin was to put 
 himself beyond the possibility of ever sinning any more, unless God would 
 graciously restore to him the power of so doing; ».t'., make him a free 
 moral agent again ! Fallen angels, too, according to this dogma, are no 
 longer free agents or capable of sinning. They have no more freedom of 
 will than Adam had. No guilt, therefore, can pertain to any of their 
 devices ! We mistake when we think and speak of them as awfully wicked 
 beings, waxing worse and worse ! 
 
 (4) *' We believe that God, when of his own free grace He gave the 
 promise of a Saviour, graciously restored to mankind liberty and freedom." 
 Then the first effect of grace (for we were graciously restored, notwith- 
 standing it would have been unjust to hold us accountable if we had not 
 been) was to put us in a position in which we might sin ! Left in our 
 fallen state we could not have sinned, but now, by grace, we have the power 
 to do so ! Yea, and we have the power, too, to resist all future grace ! 
 
 (5) "We believe that in the moment Adam fell he had no freedom of 
 will left." If the race had been left in that state, o: ly Adam and Eve 
 could have been punished ; and they, but for one offence, unless they had 
 been punished for things done after their freedom of will was destroyed. 
 All the rest must have been saved. At least they could not have been lost, 
 as they could have committed no crime without freedom of will. Then it 
 follows that the introduction of the Gospel was a great ca amity to the 
 human race : for without it, all except the first pair, would have escaped the 
 miseries of hell ; but now, multitudes will endure it for ever ! 
 
 (6) "Man's 'self-determining principle' renders it impossible in the 
 very nature of things that the Almighty himself should bring him in and 
 keep him by irresistibls grace." 
 
 Then[i] God is dependent on the sinner, not the sinner on God ! [2] 
 When Christians pray that God would keep them by his grace— when they 
 believe that He will keep them, they ask and believe what is, in the very 
 
 ♦ Vith reference to this argument of the Princeton Reviewer, it is proper to state 
 
 that Arminians hold that the knowledge of the Saviour, is not essential to salvation, and 
 
 that all the sons and daughters of Adam— be they Heathens, Mahometans, Papists or 
 
 Protestants — are in a condition so far to believe and obey God that they may obtain 
 
 for themselves everlasting life. 
 
ao 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND fiRACE. 
 
 nature of things, impossible ! To be constrained by irresistible grace (just 
 what common poor Christians in their weakness desire and pray for) would 
 Isave no room for their self-determining principle, would destroy their 
 accountability, and is contrary to the nature of the divine government ! They 
 must therefore cease to pray and long for this divine guardianship, and rely 
 on their '• self-determining principle !" Is it in this view of the matter that 
 our Arminian friends believe in falling from grace ? Well they may, for 
 this self-determining principle, which is superior to and independent of all 
 motives or external influences, and which absolutely knows no law, must be 
 a very uncertain dependence. We should undoubtedly believe in fallino; 
 from grace ourselves, if we held to any such principle. 
 
 But this is not all. For [3] according to it, the moment the redt 
 soul arrives in heaven it ceases to be an accountable spirit, being kepi uy 
 irresistible grace ; or [4] if not, for aught the grace of God can do for its 
 preservation, it may, like fallen angels, sink down to the blackness of dark- 
 ness for ever ! We are not sure then of eternal life even after we get to 
 heaven, much less can we be in this world ! Who can tell what turn this 
 lawless, self-determining principle may take, and how soon it may plunge 
 the redeemed down to hell ? 
 
 But the mind tires and the heart grows sick in tracing the sad conclusions 
 which flow legitimately from these distinct averments of Arminianism. 
 Enough has been said to show the tendency of their principles. We submit 
 it to the judgment of every candid reader, whether we have done them injus- 
 tice. As said before, it affords us no pleasure to make these exposures. It is 
 a painful duty, made imperative by our love of the truth, and by the course 
 of those who hold such principles. They are not content to propagate error, 
 but seem to consider themselves called of heaven to overthrow Calvinism. 
 These so-called " Doctrinal Tracts,'' which the General Conference ordered 
 to be published that they might be ** within the reach of every reader," and 
 which they are so fond of putting into the hands of Presbyterian readers, are 
 mainly intended to refute that system. They contain but little of the pecu- 
 liar or positive teachings of Arminianism. Only here and there a cloven foot 
 — an egregious blunder — appears, as in the extracts we have given. The full 
 phials of their vituperation are poured out on Calvinism through more than 
 two hundred pages of the volume. The following specimens of the contro- 
 versial style are worthy of preservation. Calvinism *' represents the most 
 holy God as worse than the devil, more false, more cruel, and more unjust. 
 On these principles, one might say to our adversary, ' Thou fool, why dost 
 thou roar about any longer? Thy lying in wait for souls, is as needless 
 
 •>' 
 
 t 
 
ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 21 
 
 r.nd useless as our p'-'-^ching. Hearest thou not that God hath taken thy 
 work out of thy hands ? And that He doth it much more effectually ? Thou 
 temptest ; He forceth us to be damned, for we cannot resist his will !'" 
 
 Leaving the appropriate and heavenly work of disseminating truth, they 
 assail, misrepresent and denounce other denominations in such a style as 
 1 this. That this is characteristic of their pulpit performances also, as well 
 
 as their publications, is notorious. With both they come stealthily into 
 quiet and peaceful neighbourhoods, or enter heartily into divided congrega- 
 tioni! and glory in the work of making proselytes. In such circumstances 
 we feel that it is no breach of Christian charity to exhibit their own princi- 
 ples and show their tendency. They are [i] utterly subversive of all grace 
 in the Gospel of Christ ; and [2] encumbered beside with the absurd and un- 
 scriptural conclusions mentioned above. 
 
 In writing the foregoing pages we have been constantly oppressed with 
 the painful conviction that Arminianism is a delusion. We say painful, 
 because it is with sorrow tnat we have felt ourselves forced to the conclu- 
 f^pt sion. It is mournful to think of so many persons deceived and deceiving 
 
 others. But the evidence is irresistible. We have presented it in part, 
 and shall see more of it in the sequel. It pretends to be what it is not. Its 
 I advocates claim that they hold the doctrine of grace in perfection ; whereas 
 
 I there is no grace in the Gospel, as held by them in distinctionfrom Calvin- 
 
 ists. They cannot preach a sermon on grace, but on the great Calvinistic 
 principle that God might justly have left all men to perish in their sins with- 
 out giving his Son to make an atonement — that men are accountable by 
 , nature, as free, moral agents, without the grace of the Gospel to make them 
 
 so — that as such they may properly be rewarded or punished for their con- 
 duct — that God may justly give or withhold his grace as He pleases ; and 
 that in the exercise of it, He can move and keep the heart with perfect cer- 
 tainty, without destroying free agency — making his people * ' willing in the 
 * day of his power." 
 
 If they can, let them preach on their own principles; "God could not 
 justly have left me to perish without the offer of salvation. — I should have 
 been irresponsible without it. and without a measure of the grace which it 
 bestows. And now He cannot bring me into his favour and keep me by an 
 irresistible influence without destroying my freedom." Where could any 
 just idea of grace be introduced into a sermon built on such principles? 
 Yet these are the principles of Arminianism. 
 
 We feel constrained to add, here, our decided opinion, that no small part 
 of the alleged success of Arminian sentiments has arisen from a popular de- 
 
11 
 
 ARMINIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 lusion on this point. Multitudes have believed that those who, cry ** free 
 grace, free grace," so vociferously, must understand and hold the doctrine, 
 and hence have fallen into their ranks without examination. Let the people 
 see, however, that Arminianism and grace are utterly inconsistent, and the 
 wings of its progress will be clipped. The doctrine of grace is too clear 
 and too precious to be overthrown by a delusion. Even the natural heart, 
 much as it is inclined to such sentiments, cannot commonly embrace them at 
 the expense of grace. 
 
 Other questions also have pressed upon us in the preparation of these 
 pages, with painful interest. They are such as these : Can those who hold 
 the Arminian principles, presented above, preach the Gospel fully ? Can 
 they fairly present to their hiiarers the God of the Bible, or the Saviour 
 therein revealed ? Suppose them not to preach the positive errors which 
 these extracts contain (and it is mostly in their attempts at controversy that 
 these false and dangerous principles are avowed), can they ever preach the 
 truths to which these errors stand opposed ? Can they, and do they, preach 
 that God was under no obligation to provide a Saviour — that He is absolutely 
 free and sovereign in his grace, giving or withholding it as He pleases — 
 that He is able to break the most stubborn will, and to keep even the most 
 way ward of his children against the snares of the devil? We think not. 
 Then do they preach the pure Gospel ? Is it not an eviscerated gospel i 
 which God's sovereignty, his perfect freedom in the gift of his Son, in the 
 bestowment of his grace, and his ability to reach and keep the vilest sinner, 
 a. left out? Is it the Father, Son, and Spirit, revealed in the Scriptures 
 whom they set forth ? Or is it not their own mistaken idea of what that 
 God ought to be and to do, which is proclaimed ? 
 
 Having presented the doctrinal aspect of Arminian Methodism, it would 
 be fair and important to inquire into its practical working. This, however, 
 would be an invidious and a very different task, the responsibility of which 
 we do not feel called upon to assume. The recent volumes by the Rev. 
 Parsons Cooke, D.D., go at large into this part of the subject, and to then; 
 we refer our readers for many important facts and statistical details. We 
 gladly acknowledge that the Methodists, both in this country and in Eng- 
 land, have accomplished a great work. They have carried the Gospel to 
 thousands whom it would never have reached in any other way. They are 
 now pressing forward in the out-lying portions of society, and by their system 
 of itinerant preaching, can reach scattered and feeble communities, which 
 the more cumbrous organization of other Churches cannot so well supply. 
 We would be most unwilling to detract from their merit as a pioneer, hard- 
 
 '^^&y^^' 
 
ARMINIANISM AND CRACK. 
 
 23 
 
 working body of men and ministers. We cannot, however, shut our eyes 
 to some crying evils connected with their system and their spirit. They 
 are, we fear, to a degree which gives them a sad pre-eminence, denunciatory 
 and proselyting. We have hardly, in our whole life, ever heard a sermon 
 from a Presbyterian avowedly against Methodism or Arminianism, and not 
 ^ more than half-a-dozen formal discourses on any distinguishing doctrine of 
 
 Calvinism. It is the glory of Presbyterian preaching, that the distinguish- 
 ing doctrines of Augustinianism underlie and sustain all its exhibitions of 
 truth, just as the granite formations underlie the upper and fruit-bearing 
 strata of the earth, without protruding their naked rocks constantly to view. 
 Their necessity and value are not the less. What would the earth be with- 
 out its granite foundations ? On what would seas and soils rest ? These 
 doctrines are as precious to God's people as any other portions of his truth ; 
 but true men — men imbued with the true spirit of the Bible — leave them, as 
 they are left in the Scriptures, to lie at the foundation, and not to constitute 
 the whole building. 
 ■fii§fj^s!i*^' Can this be said of Arminian Methodists? Do they thus preach the 
 
 truth in its Biblical and edifying form — or in a controversial manner ? Are 
 there not a hundred or a thousand sermons preached by Methodists against 
 Calvinism, to one preached by Presbyterians against Arminianism f We 
 have no doubt that it is so ; and this preaching, as it is in general that of 
 uneducated and fanatical men, is pure rant — disgusting to men of sense, and 
 shocking to men of right feeling. This we regard as one of the great re- 
 proaches of Methodism. 
 
 Another evil with which they are charged, and we fear with too much jus- 
 tice, is that of a proselyting spirit. We know of instances within the sphere 
 of our observation, and hear of them Tom all quarters, of the surreptitious 
 creeping in of Methodists into the bounds of other Churches, and little by 
 little seducing their members, and erecting churches, where the only pos- 
 sibility of their living or growing is by proselyting. We do not mean to 
 say that is a sin peculiar to Methodists. It belongs more or less to all 
 denominations. New-school Presbyterians plant a minister by the side of a 
 feeble Old-school congregation, where the one can live only on the death of 
 the other. Old -school Presbyterians often do the same thing. Episcopa- 
 lians carry their heads so high that they do not see any other churches, and 
 therefore are never conscious of the sin of intrusion, though they are as 
 often guilty of it as others. Consistently with this confession of the common 
 sin of Churches in this matter, it may, we think, be justly said that Method- 
 ists have a very undesirable reputation for being specially offensive and 
 
.umiL^lUfj^^Hlf. ^ i9t'V<PfWMWV>'rV 
 
 KjMim wnpq^evff^v^wfvn ^ iiwiii'Ji,piiM!.ivi«nvivA. 
 
 24 
 
 ARMTNIANISM AND GRACE. 
 
 pertinacious in their proselyting temper and measures. Their system gives 
 them peculiar facilities for this work. To plant a Presbyterian or Episcopal 
 Church in any place, there must usually at least be a reliable body of Pres- 
 byterians or Episcopalians to begin with. But Methodists, getting their 
 support from a central fund, can go where there is not a single family of 
 their own denomination, and continue their work from year to year. As 
 they can do this work more easily than others, it is not wonderful they do 
 more of it than others, and that practice gives them skill. 
 
 The great practical evil of Methodism, however, as we believe, is the 
 false conversions, and the false form of religion which it fosters. We believe 
 the fact is so notorious, that the better class of Methodists themselves do 
 not deny it, that their system of revivals and periodical excitements brings 
 within their churches multitudes who profess to be the subjects of divine 
 grace, who are deluded by mere emotional excitement, and who relapse 
 into their former state, and become almost inaccessible to all subsequent 
 impressions. The facts connected with this subject are so numerous and so 
 well authenticated as to be really appalling. It cannot be otherwise. What 
 is false in their system of doctrine and theory of religion, must produce the 
 bitter fruits of evil, just in proportion as it is prominently presented and 
 acted out. We have no disposition to pursue this subject, though it is one 
 which calls loudly for the serious attention of all the friends of religion. In 
 proportion as the Methodists become educated, and enabled to understand 
 what Calvinism is, they become less bigoted and denunciatory ; and we hope 
 that many of the evils connected with their system will be lessened, if not 
 entirely removed, by their progress in professional knowledge, which need 
 not interfere either with their zeal or their hard working. 
 
 i 
 
r;-'-- 
 
 /'HI 
 
 t' 
 
 ^: 
 
 * •»«• t *-'-s 
 

 '^X^ 
 
 Vv 
 
 
 'f'\Kh 
 
 mil fii I -| I f-[ II -| ij 
 
 " ' "H I > II III I ii III mi l i^ r ii ' i *" . ^ 
 
 '^■" "J^ T 
 
 
 inf* 
 
 |!&^ 
 
 '' - 
 
 I? v. - 
 
 I-IST OF BO0|5^ 
 
 PUBLISHED AND FOR SALE BY 
 
 JAMES BAIN & SON, 
 
 KINO ST. BAST, TOBONTO. 
 
 
 V.^ 
 
 
 ^"iS'f seie^f • ^^'^«^^i*SACBAMENTii'cATECHI9M; ^ '' 
 
 [F mDUPP, by R.V. Geo. SmUh."8Vo. oloih;*. "* l^ 
 
 "»^ONGaUR0q GOVERNMENT, 12ma. doth' "*' i oo 
 -WAN AND PROCEDURE OP PREIBYrERIAN 
 
 i^O^ada. paper as o«iit8,.5l.>th " ..^ q 50 
 
 ■^igUROa, Which i8 ifc? by P,ot Wikherow. 
 
 • ..... 15 
 
 LDER, by Prof. Wikheroir, 18mo . . 15 
 
 ■ ■I null HiH mf^- Witherow» 18mo. q 15 
 
 ^ , ?liiH^^HHil£!''' ^' ^'^^^''«' ^^<»o- oloth. 75 
 
 f ?f^i '; W^^HBH^Hil^ Worship, 12(no. olofch. I 00 
 
 i. ^OMllHW* WorH by 
 
 BtBLBS IN B 
 
 '601 
 
 3 25 
 
 
 Bnim Baok9, Bymi 
 
 
 fe -i^-ifi 
 
 ^^ r TllUlilllipf J;^^ 
 
 K5^ -; -f 
 
 t^.**.- 
 
 if--'- 
 
 • *.