■^ *^*>. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 l^|28 |25 m ■ 2.2 2.0 I 6" ^ '/ r Hiotographic Sciences Corporation ^1^\ 4^^^ 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. MSSO (716)872-4503 '^ ^ifS" CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. -^ fe 1 CIHIVI/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical IMicroreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques :<^ Tachnical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquas at bibliographiquaa Tha Instituta has attamptad to obtain tha baat original copy availabia for filming. Paaturaa of thia copy which may ba bibiiographieally uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction. or which may significantly chap^ja tha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaelcad balow. Fyl Colourad covara/ bLi Couvortura da coulaur r~l Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagia □ Covara raatorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raatauria at/ou palllculAa r~n Covar titia miaaing/ D D D n D La titra da couvartura manqua Colourad mapa/ Cartaa gAographiquaa it coulaur □ Colourad ink (i.a. othar than blua or black)/ Encra da coulaur (i.a. autra qua blaua ou noira) I — I Colourad plataa and/or illuatrationa/ Planchaa at/ou illuatrationa an coulaur Bound with othar matarial/ Rail* avae d'autraa documanta iWT*.' Tight binding may cauaa shadowa or diatortion along intarior margin/ La re liura «arr*a paut cauaar da I'ombra ou da la diatoraion la long da la margo intiriaura Blank laavita addad during raatoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar poaaibia, thaaa hava baan omittad from filming/ II aa paut qua cartainaa pagaa blanchaa ajoutiaa iora d'una raatauration apparalaaant dana la taxta. malt, loraqua cala itait poaaibia, caa pagaa n'ont paa *t* filmAaa. Additional commanta:/ Commantairaa suppiimantairaa: L'Inatitut a microfilm* la maillaur axamplaira qu'il lui a 4ti poaaibia da aa procurer. Las details da cat axamplaira qui sont paut-Atra uniquas du point da vua bibliographiqua, qui pauvant modifier una imaga raproduita, ou qui pauvant axiger ui a modification dana la mithoda normala de filmaga sont indiquia ci-daasous. nn Colourad pagea/ D D This itam is filmed at tha reduction ratio chacked below/ Ce document est film* au taux de reduction indiquA ci-dessous. '-'^ib''!' Pagaa da coulaur Pagaa damaged/ Pagaa andommagAaa Pagaa raatorad and/oi Pagaa reataurtea at/ou pailiculies Pagaa discoloured, stained or foxei Pages dicoiories. tachat^es ou piquies Pagaa detached/ Pagaa ditachias ry\ Pagaa damaged/ r~~| Pagaa raatorad and/or laminated/ r~p\ Pagaa discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pagaa detached/ [~~| Showthrough/ Tranaparancc Quality of prir Quality inigala de I'impreaaion Includas supplam'intary matarii Comprand du material suppl^mantaira rn Quality of print variaa/ [~~1 Includas supplam'intary matarial/ Th( t0 1 Th« po< of filn Ori ba( tha aio oth firs aio or Only adition availabia/ Saula Mition disponibia Pagaa wholly or partially obscured by errata aiipa. tissuaa, ate. have been refilmed to enaura the best possible Image/ Lea pagea totalement ou partieliement obacarcias par un fauillet d'errata, una pelure, etc., ont At* fllmies A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la mailleure imaga poasibia. Th( ahi Tl^ wh Ma difl ant ba( rigl raq ma 10X 14X 18X 22X 26X 30X y 12X ■■V"''V '"'. .'f* 16X aox 1 ».'.--.'i'i.' ' rt! . . 24X 28X •■, V ■'/ 32X The copy fllmad h«r« haa baan raproduead thanka to tha ganaroaity of: HaroM Campbell Vaiighan Mamorlal Ubrary Acadia Univanity L'axamplaira film* fut raprodult grica A la ginAroait* da: Harold Campball Vaughan Mamorlal Library Acadia U/iivarait/ Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality poaaibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibiiity of tha original copy and in Icaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Laa imagaa auivantaa ont 4t4 raproduitaa avac la plua grand aoin, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattatA da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformity avac laa conditiona du contrat da filmaga. Original copiaa in printad papar covara ara filmad baginning with tha front covar and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, or tha bacit covar whan appropriata. All othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha firat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraa- aion, and anding on tha laat paga with a printad or illuatratad impraaaion. Laa axamplairaa originaux dont la couvartura an papiar aat imprimte aont filmia an commandant par la pramiar plat at an tarminant aoit par la darniAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration, aoit par la aacond plat, aalon la caa. Toua laa autraa axamplairaa originaux aont filmAa an comman9ant i>ar la pramlAra paga qui comporta una amprainta d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration at an tarminant par la darnlAra paga qui comporta una talla amprainta. Tha liat racordad frama on aach microficha ahall contain tha aymboi --^> (moaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha aymboi y (moaning "END"), whichavar appliaa. Un daa aymbolaa auivanta apparattra aur la darnlAra imaga da chaqua microficha, aalon la caa: la aymbola — »> aignifia "A SUIVRE". la aymbola ▼ aignifia "FIN". Mapa. plataa. charta. ate. may ba filmad at diffarant raduction ratioa. Thoaa too larga to ba antir*;ly includad in ona axpoaura ara filmad baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar. laft to right and top to bottom, as many framaa aa raquirad. Tha following diagrama iiiustrata tha mathod: V«fe: Laa cartaa, planchaa, tablaaux, ate, pauvant Atra filmte A daa taux da reduction diff Aranta. Loraqua la documant aat trop grand pour Atra raprodult an un aaul clichA. il aat filmA A partir da I'angla aupAriaur gaucha, da gaucha A droita, at da haut an baa, an pranant la nombra d'imagaa nAcaaaaira. Laa diagrammaa auivanta illuatrant la mAthoda. ■-« :*" 1 2 3 4 5 6 ^Hi, i¥'11 .,,r ?-yu v;: i<'.< A' ; I 1 "•• ■ ie. ' ^;;:r.^ , %, • J ■'I #^' • ' 'h' I - > rr -fv' ' *i« «'.-!< .t^. §* >^i': : \ "'^ u I 1 tj-* j; , " » *^j y (f- ". -f^ •,"vW > -' .« ''^^\*< "m'M ' '' '•~'^^''*- # i> A ,t ,■ <, > %^'-^ /i ,.r. ^t >T /' "■-r^^.r I ^*** »,•■ i^* THE DIYINE SOVEREIGNTY. ^ SERMOIN" ON Jbr. xviii, 6. — " O hoase of Israel, cannot I do with you as thif potter ? saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay is in the potter's luuid, so are ye in my hand, O house of Israel." PREACHED AT ELMSDALE, APRIL 14th, 1861. BT REV. Vf^Q. M'KINNON, WKSLBYAN MINISTEB. r HALIFAX, N. S. CONFERENCE JOB PRINTING OFFICE, 1861. J7 yy ^ v.. t :;.. - ■.■ «'■ If -■.i, '^ •4'':"' (,r .. • . ;;|.; .^■.■.5 ■J .. -ft. I- "#!' i«' ^S'''. *.-'ii ■■■: , x#.:i! 'm ty- : i% i ':* /. -V'^. ', r ?':>'.« .■! PV,! ,,t # :5*' .«";v"V!: #• r&:.^- '**' ' >'- ***' ,-r '??'*' \V;-ir!,' f -it'*!)- : <,•: p- *"*:?, \'tSSV' ■'W "y(\ 5*f*- i- . ' ^ .:^il v-.- 1 . SERMOIT. s*=- JsBBitiAn XYiii. e.— " 0, house of Israel, egnnot I do with i^k as this potter! saith the Lord. Behold, as the clay in the potter's hand, so are ye in my hand, Oh, house of Israel." n ■-. '::>■- Constituted as man is, perhaps to avoid oontroyersy on religions topics is impossible. So long as man's heart ki contrary to the tmth, so long will the publication of tmUi bft offensive to the natural heart. Ghbist, Paul, Luthbb, Wbslet, were all teachers of the truth; and they were involved in endless controversies, as the consequence. But did they withhold the truth for fear of these consequences? No. They hesitated not in choosing between the evils of the stagnation of spiritual death and the evils attached to contro- versy. I would not, however, have selected this text with the purpose of discussing it controversially had not two ser> mens been preached in this community, successively attacking our principles, and containing the most distorted and felse representations of the Arminian theology. For peace sake we have refrained hitherto from replying ; but now that oui^ silence is construed into defeat, it would be recreancy to my solemn trust, were I any longer to hold my peace. If OaU vinists think that because wo do not answer, therefore we cannot answer them, they will discover themselves deeply mistaken. We can answer them, and with withering effects. i You will observe in reference to tbe figure to whicli jronr attention has been directed, the assumption of Sovereignty on the part of the Deity, who therein compares Himself with the potter, who moulds the clay to various uses. Now it is to that Sovereignty I wish to invite your prayerful, humble, but most earnest consideration. In a sermon recently preached here it was assumed that God could do as He pleased, and yiolate all rules of human justice according to the dictates of an arbitrary but absolutely Sovereign will. To-day, then, let us consider the nature and extent of the Divine Sovereignty. In so doing I have no doubt that we shall perceive the utter inconsistency and anti-Scriptural character of the Calvinian theory. God sends the Prophet to the potter's house whilst the latter is engaged in his work ; the Prophet observes some vessels ** marred '' in the workman's hand. God then asks him, " Have I not power over the house of Israel as this potter over the clay?" Now I might tell you from this pulpit that the Almighty taught the Prophet by this question His absolute right to do what He would with all the souls which He had made. To use tbe language of Calvin, ** that He had decided the destiny of every man before man was created, and that if He ehoose to decree one man to eternal happiness and another to eternal and hopeless perdition He had a right to do so as Sovereign Proprietor of the human family. I might tell you that ; it is supralapsarianism, or high Calvinism, and it has been proclaimed to you as the Gospel many a time in this community. But were I to tell you that such is the meaning of tbe passage I should foully misrepresent the Seriptures, and be found a false witness of God. r Give me your attention then for a few moments, as we consider the figure which the Prophet employs. The pot- ter's intention is to make, not to mar the clay. He designs to make it a vosscl for honor ; tlio clay Itoconies marred in hii« hancl« and does he then destroy it — does he dash it down and trample it under his feet us fit for nothing ? Not at all. Ho only alters his purpose in consequence of the unyielding eliarncter of the clay, and makes it a vessel less honorable than originally he intended. The vessel is marred in hiii liand against the potter's will, and not certainly became of his will. When marred he docs not actually cast it away, but does the best he can under the circumstances. But these facts are fatal ]to the Calvinistic theory. A more unfavor- able figure than this the opposers of Arminianism could not select. For if there be any meaning in it jOS applicable to the Divine Sovereignty, it proves just the opposite. Cal- vinism mointains that God designed soipe vessels to destruc- tion. High Calvinism asserts that he created them to that end. But the figure teaches us tha]t the potter had no such intention as to make a vessel purely for destruction — the clay merely remitting His purpose and becoQiing marred. Calvinism asserts that the end in view in the creation of the reprobate is worthy of the Creator. The figure proves to us that the potter would have been guilty of the greatest folly had he had no higher end than the destruction of the vessels, and afterwards assignin"; as a reason that he had a ri;;ht to will it, and that his will was the highest reason. Calvinism assumes that the souls of the reprobates are ruined. The figure only shows that some vessels were dishonored^ not rfe- stroyed. Hence Calvinism has no support from this passage to prove the absolute right of God to decree one man's salva- tion and another man's perditiop, apart &om all conditions and contingencies. But you will ask, "What theij, is the Prophet's meaning? A glance at the condition of the Jews will afiford us the fullest answer. God had designed that people for peculiar honor. He had promised Abraham to distinguish his descendants by exalted priviloges. Tlio clay was marrnJ in tlio i)olter'8 liancl. The nation designed for honor was unyielding and rebellious to the Divine will, and what then? Was it de« stroyed? Not at all. It was marred — the Divine purpose was not aooouiplished. Still then it was not wholly repro- bated. The Jews return from the captivity of Babylon, and a still further opportunity is given them of complying with the will of God, who requires them to embrace the Mes- siah. St. Paul comments on this passage in his Epistle to the Romans, and applies it to the setting aside of the Jews as a people— cert&m\y not to the election of individuals to unconditional happiness and misery ! This event — the set- ting aside of the Jews as God's people — had been threat- ened during many ages. In Paul's age it was executed. A great revolution then occurred in the Jewish condition. What had been threatened came to pass. Their Church state was abolished. As Jews they were rejected and re- probated ; but, mark you well, as individuals the Gospel is still offered them by St. Paul ; consequently their reprobation is not more than the abrogation of certain ecclesiastical and political privileges, and certainly not a reprobation involving the inevitable loss of the soul of the individual. Than the latter idea, nothing can be more foreign to the Apostle's meaning. But admitting it to be even so, and that the writer means the salvation and perdition of indivi- duals — ^not the setting aside of nations from Church privi- leges; still the admission makes nothing in favor of the Calvinistio scheme ; for these Jews were set aside not because of Divine Sovereignty having brought the event to pass, but because the Jew "sought not salvation by faith, but by the works of the law/' as the Apostle tells us plainly in Romans ix. 30-32. But we cannot make the admission, seeing that the Apostle is assuredly speaking of the election of bodies of men to Church state privileges, and not of Individuals to heaven or hell Having tluis ezplnlned the ilgure employed liy tbe inHpIretl Pt-opliet, I loave it to any enlightened audioDCO, whether it dpoB not apply with more force to tlio theory of the Anninian —that is God's admitted power and right to elect and reuiovo nations to and from [tlaoes uf honor and trust — than to that iemi-pagan, semi-papal doctrine which Augustine first and Calvin afterwards exftounded, and which has been fully endorsed by tbe Synod of Dort. In the next place we will proceed to the consideration of the doctrine involved in our text, viz : The Divino Sovereignty. I. The Divine Sovereignty abstractedly regarded. • 1. No one but the infidel will deny the sclf-existenco and absolute independence of the Supreme God. It must be admitted that God is the sole and absolute proprietor of the universe ; all are His, from the mote in the sunbeam to the throne of an Archangel. So much the Scriptures reveal, beyond controversy. His right to create or not create that universe was manifestly absolute; He certainly was not coerced into that measure, however much he may have been led to it, by the balancing of motives and the " council of His will." He had the right to continue in his solitary splendor, none beholding his glory ; and He possessed the right to command a universe of matter and of mind to appear, by which His glory would be displayed and his praises pro- claimed. 2. It is manifest also that having decided on the crea- tion of a universe, He would pursue that course in its formation most adapted to display the glory of His own perfections. To deny this would be to deny the Divine intelligence ; it would be supposing a Deity neither actuated by a choice nor influenced by an aim^ but guided only by the impulse of a blind and arbitrary will. 8 n. This last cfmclnsion, howevor, is ihat one which the Calvinist is eonipelleil to adopt, or otherwise abandon h'H theory. There can be no medium ground. If High Cal- vinism be true, God was assuredly governed by something extraneous to Himself, or by something witliin Himself, in deciding the destiny of every human being that he purposed to create. If by something without Himself, then he ceases to be the supreme God, and becomes the agent or something else : not the first, but a mere secondary cause. If they say that He was actuated by something wltkin Himself, then they must either adopt the Arminian theory, viz : that God in everything was governed by choice, arising from present con- tingencies, or that He was governed by the dictates of an arbitrary and irresponsible will. And this last is the \\c^ which they have adopted. " Every man born in the world," says Calvin, " is predestined to eternal happiness or eternal woe, by the will of God — which is the onli/ reason for the salvation of the one and the perdition of the other." So also argues that profound thinker Jonathan Edwards. And this is Calvinism ! It can find no higher reason for the perdition of the finally lost than the will of God. The Deity Himself is represented as a being who acts only on the im- pulse of an arbitrar}'^ will, and who acts above the principles on which his own moral government is founded. And it is this monstrous view of the Divine Sovereignty which we utterly repudiate. God is not above the laws — for He has himself imposed them. He cannot do whatsoever He wills — for He has bound Himself to mil only in accordance with the attributes of justice, truth, mercy, and love ; attributes whicli are eternal, essential to His being, and of which, if he were denuded, He would cease to be God. Certainly then God never wills anything because he wills it, as Calvinists foolishly assert, but because of other reasons leading to a choice of fiction. Thus he does not ordain that an elect believer shall infallibly obtain faith and salvation, because He wills it ; but He wills the salvation of the elect because the elect believe. This does not render the Creator dependent on the will of the creature, as Calvinists incessantly assert (the sophism is too transparent to demand a passing notice) ; but He still acts out the great principle of His moral government — '* He that believeth shall be saved." n. Tlie second phase of this subject regards God's Sovereignty as exerted over man. 1. Man individually. God decided upon the creation of man without the exercise of any choice on the part of the latter. As his maker He possessed the right to place man under the restrictions of law. That law resolves itself into three great branches — the physical, the mental, and the moral. Bound by physical laws, man is not free. Connected by material ties to the physical universe which surrounds him, the very infidel, who ignores the existence of Deity, is unable to extricate himself from the control of those laws impressed upon matter by the personal agency of the Eternal Mind. He cannot subvert the laws of his being and plunge into the ocean as a fish — nor repeal the law of gravitation, and soar through the heavens as an eagle. D'vcst him of these physi- cal conditions and he ceases to be man — he becomes some- thing else. Should the "thing formed say to Him that formed it. Why hast thou made me thus?" we admit the infallible propriety of the reply, ** As creator it was my right.' ^ Every enlightened Arminian willingly concedes such an exertion of power as entirely consistent with the Divine Sovereignty. Again, man is bound by intellectual laws. Were his mental constitution otherwise than it is he at once relinquishes the distinguishing features whereby he is classified as maa. 10 A Pascal cannot be more than a Pascal whilst bound by such laws. He cannot understand truth, without the medium of materialism, and a Nbwton cannot soar to a condition of being which destroys his identity as human. Even Yol- TAiRB, when writing against the nature of God, was acting under those laws which God himself had imposed upon him ; and to have conceived a blasphemy against Deity without conceiving it according to the intellectual conditions by Deity himself imposed upon the human mind would have been utterly impossible. Here, again, man is not in cbcumstances to say unto the Creator, *• Why hast thou made, me thus? " for if differently constituted he had not been man. The same right by which God binds man down by physical and intellectual laws is also exerted in the imposition of moral obligations. No man can do as he pleases; he is restricted by laws — inexorable, unyielding laws by God Him- self instituted, and binding upon mankind, from the earliest to the latest period of human life. Now the imposition of such laws may be fairly traced to the Divine Sovereignty ; but whilst admitting this, it is at the same time most evident that the free agency of man as such is in no conceivable de- gree interfered with. He is not a Prometheus chained help- lessly to the rock, the vultures eating his heart piece-meal ; and this is manifest from the fact that he is everywhere re- garded in the Sacred Scriptures as possessed of the utmost freedom of will and choice. Admit Calvinism, however, and the reprobate just occupy this Prometheus-like position. — Bound by the Zeus of Destiny, and the Kratos and Bia of inexorable will, they writhe in an anguish from which there is no escape, and which suffers no decrease from the excess and continuation of its violence. It is to be admitted that the imposition of physical and mental laws on a God would interfere with the freedom of his action, but not so in refer- ence to an angel or a man. If the latter are above these 11 laws ihej cease to be creatures, and themselves become gods. If creatures, it is self-evident that they came into existence under the control of surrounding laws, and from the control of which there is no escape. 2. A few words are necessary in reference to God's So- vereignty over nationt. In selecting the descendants of Abraham to the distinguished privileges enjoyed by the Jewish nation, we cannot doubt but that He was actuated by reasons of mercy and justice in the selection. But putting this consideration aside, as Governor of nations, no one can fairly dispute His right to exalt one nation to honor, and pass by others. Thus He elected the Jews : when they became like clay marred in the hands of the potter, he set them aside to dishonor, and called another people. He elected the people of Asia Minor and the Grecian Peninsula, first to the privileges of the Gospel; afterwards removed the ** Candle- sticks" from their midst, because of the apostacy of the primitive churches there established. So He has elected the people of England and America to distinguished church privi- leges; and by Missionary operations is daily electing the heathen nations of the earth to those benefits which accom- pany the Gospel of Christ. That the term election is more frequently employed in this sense than in any other in the Scriptures I think no man will deny ; and for the most part has a restricted meaning — perhaps a Hebrewistio-Greekism, like /'/a7rT(f:ci). But as these remarks are designed for a popu- lar audience, I shall abstain from any criticism on the Greek words translated predestination ^ election^ &c., only observing that if any person would see them well discussed, let him read Whitby on the '* Five Points," a work which may be termed the sledge-hammer of Calvinism. III. Furthermore, we may regard the Divine Sovereignty as exercised in the economy of salvation. It will be readily 12 conceded that if God had a right to create man, He had a right to his entire obedience. But obedience in a free agent could only be secured by the imposition of rewards and pun- ishments. To establish such a system of rewards and punish- ment as surrounds man was the absolute right of the Creator. When man transgressed, it became the Creator's right to demand atonement. And when the atonement had been made, it was reserved to God to impose conditions on the offending party, the sine qua non of his pardon and salvation. Thus far we regard the Sovereignty of God in the work of redemption ; yea, even further, we believe God may ^ve or withhold His spirit ; He may hear or refuse to hear prayer, but we stop short of the monstrous doctrine of Calvinistio Christians, which maintains that the Divine Sovereignty sets aside all conditions in determining the number and persons of the elect. According to Calvinism such are saved because God willed it from eternity, and not because they complied with the conditions on which salvation was offered to all! 2. To analyse the views of anti-Arminians, we shall find it necessary, first, to classify them. High Calvinism, or the suprahpsarian theory consists in the following belief: (1.) That God has infallibly decreed to save particular men by His grace, but to condemn others by His justice, and to decree this without having any regard to righteousness or sin, obedience or disobedience, which could possibly exist on the part of one class of men or the other. (2.) To carry out this decree God ordained that Adam and all men in him should be created upright ; besides which he also ordained them to commit sin, that they might thus become guilty of eternal condemnation. (3.) That those persons whom God has willed to save He has decreed, not only to salvation but also to the means which secure it— that is He irresistibly compels such persons to repent, believe, and persevere. 18 (4.) That to those whom God by His absolute will has pre-ordained to pordition, He has also decreed to deny that grace which is necessary for salvation ; He never bestows it upon them, and they are never in circumstances in which sal- vation is possible. So much for the old school of High Calvinism. It was for offering such blasphemy that Arminius was persecuted by the Synod of Dort. Calvin himself, however, whilst substantially teaching the foregoing, shrank from his own inevitable deduction, viz : that God was the author of sin. Terrified at the conclusion to • which his premises lead him, he hastily threw a veil over the subject, and asserted it is holy ground, unfit for public dis- cussion. Why then, I ask, did he venture upon it first? Or. having ventured upon it, why shrink firom the plain inferences which flow from his own avowed premises ? By what right does he or any Calvinist tell me to stand back, and not enter this veiled chamber of their system ? They say it is a horrible blasphemy to assert that God is the author of sin. So we also say, and charge the blasphemy on the Calvinist I tell him he cannot escape the force of the logical conclusion of his premises — God is the author of sin. If it be a blasphemy, and as such most assuredly we regard it, then it is one which was brought forth by the Synod of Dort, and rocked in the cradle of Calvinistic pul- pits, firom Knox to Toplabt, from Toplady to Spurgeon. But let us examine low Calvinism. Many an one, ashamed and afraid of the consequences drawn from the first theory, adopts the second, viz: sub^sariamsm. We shall find, however, upon investigation that of the two theories, low Calvinism is more absurd and illogical than the theory from which it is a modification : neither does it remove their diffi- culty. This theory assumes that God, from eternity, regard- ed the human race ns/aUen and accursed: out of this fallen •J&f-i 14 race He purposed to save of His free grace an elect number, without the least regard to repentance and faith on the part of those He selects, or of impenitence and unbelief on the part of those reprobated. The only difference between this and the former creed is — ^that the first regards God as the direct cause of Adam's sin, whilst low Calvinism merely regards Adam as having sinned, without undertaking to say that the cause existed in the Divine will. This modification, however, does not rid them of the charge of blasphemy — for it still leaves God to be regarded as the author of sin. For if He did not compel Adam to transgress, He decreed that his children should inherit his sinful nature — and thus laid the necessity of sinning upon every man who comes into the world— and so far as the non-elect or reprobated are concern- ed, without providing for them the means of salvation. So that after all their perdition is the inevitable result of the Divine purpose. The following is the language of the West- minster Confession : " By the decree of God, fi)r the mani- festation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained to everlasting death. These angels and men thus fore-ordained are particu- larly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot either be increased or diminished." And this election, says the same grave as- sembly, is purely the result of the Divine will, altogether uninfluenced by any conditions on the part of the creature. *• Neither are any others," they add, "redeemed by Chriijt, save the elect only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, for the purpose of showing His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass hy and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice ! " That is low Calvinism I Brother, I put it to you, does not that doctrine honor highly the just and ever-blessed God t 15 There is yet a third modification of Calvinism, known as Baxterianism. Briefly, I may say that it consists in an abor- tive attempt to graft on the doctrine of general redemption to the theory of the decrees and particular election. Baxter derived the scheme from Amtraldus and Cahbro, who taught that Christ atoned for the sins of all men — but did not purchase faith for every man! but by giving it to some and withholding it from others. He actually elects to uncon- ditional salvation the saved, and reprobates all the lost. The only difference between this scheme and Calvin's is, that the one refers the act of election to the Sovereignty of the Father — Baxter to that of the Son. Such is Calvinism, in its various phases — a system found- ed on Paganism, and enlarged by the scholastic sophisms of Augustine and Calvin, until it presents the most distorted and powerless Gospel (Romanism excepted) which the world has ever seen. I say this in full view of Calvin's usefulness in the Reformation, his deep piety, and immense learning ; for, fortunately for the world, neither he nor his followers believe their theory, nor pursue it practically to its logical deductions. IV. In the last place, I invite your attention to some of the logical consequences flowing from the admission of the Calvinistic theory. 1. God is the author of sin. Calvinists may deny this conclusion, but they cannot disprove it. High Calvinism ex- pressly asEerts this doctrine, whilst low Calvinism only modi- fies it in such a way as to leave the inference the same. 2. Calvinism leads to the doctrine of infant damnation. For seeing that many children die in infancy, we must sup- posiB them elect or non-elect. If elect, then the theory that all children that die in infancy belong to the elect must be invented, to keep the advocates of the decrees in countenance ; 16 and if non-eleot, there is nothing inoonsistent in the statement occasionally, it is said, heard in Calvinistic pulpits that "in- fants are in hell not a span long." 8. If the death of Christ be designed for the elect, and for theur benefit only, then they only for whom Christ died will ever experience a resurrection. No inference can be more infallibly sure than this. , ., . ,. , 4. If the non-elect are never raised, because for them no resurrection power was obtained, then there will be no gene- ral judgment, and the scripture doctrine on that point must be abandoned. This also is an inevitable inference. '■" . As low Calvinism represents God as passing by the repro- bate without providing for them a saviour or the means of salvation, it also proves that God will be guilty of the folly, at the last day, of damning them because they would not accept ofialvation^ when neither saviour nor salvation had been provided for them, f .' ^^ ^■■■m ^ i •«s /'' • 6. According to Calvinism, the non-elect aro from their very birth placed beyond the reach and possibility of salvation — ^yet God is represented as consigning them to everlasting woe, became they did not receive the Gospel! * 7. If Calvinism be true, a man may believe — ^but if Christ did not die for hun, his faith will not secure salvation. Or he may not believe, and yet if one of the elect, he must of necessity be saved. 8. Christ compels the elect to believe ; consequently man is not a free agent, but a machine. If not compelled to be- lieve, he may be saved notwithstanding, in absolute contra- diction to the revealed word of God. This is manifest, seeing that whilst Arminians maintain election Ma faith, their opponents are just as firm in asserting election iiqos faith. .^ 9. According to Calvinism, God offers the non-elect, by the Gospel, that which he cannot give them, viz., salvation. 17 10. Calvinista make the perdition of man to result from ^want of a Saviour^ the Scriptures assert, from want of faith. '• 11. According to Calvinism, Christ has done no more for .the non-elect portion of the human family than for the Devils. 12. Calvinism destroys the hell of the damned : — the eter- nal consciousness of resisting divine purposes of mercy, and of rejecting Christ— the everlasting cry— t;, - ^ ^. ■f«';^vl^t^f:;j " The tender grace of a day that is fled, f.'i 1*-.^ Will never come back to me," . » v;* v^.^s^Ss^: »..* '"fVr,^ Hijii'ii ■r»/V''>t *' .»"' Ifitv."-*. /--'■'f . arising from the self-condemned sinner, will be unknown in the future world if Calvinism be true. If that theory be true, the consciences of the lost will never upbraid their possessors with doing that for which they were created, and for which end they were ordained from eternity. » 13. Calvinism is the prolific source of univei*salism and infidelity. It is a shameful assertion to connect Arminianisra — the only true form of the Gospel of the Reformers — with Universalism. With a man who would do so I could hold no argument — he must be either shamefully ignorant of theology, or unpardonably disingenious — ^from one source or other such a statement alone must arise. « ? 14. Calvinism willfully perverts the language of St. Paul from its obvious meaning in order to deceive mankind into the supposition that this Apostle maintained the doctrine afterwards taught by the Synod of Dort — than which no assertion can be more false. And as a more favorable opportunity may not occur to offer a word on this point, I may say here that the so-called ''golden chain'' of reasoning to sustain the predestinarian theory found in Romans IX., affords no shadow of evidence from which Calvmism may obtain support. St. Paul tells us •* Whom God foreknew He predestinated, justified," &c. How did Qod foreknow them? 1. As men actually exist- 18 ing? 2. As men believing? or, 8. As men compelled to believe ? Certainly not as men actually existing ; for, seeing that He foreknew all men as actually existing, does it, there- fore, follow that he Justifies all men. Yet this is the absurd inference of the illogical and shallow Galvinist — Qod fore- knew the elect as individuals, therefore, he predestinated them to be justified. But be it observed that he foreknew all men as individuals, it should follow then by the same reasoi^ ing that all men will be justified and saved. Will the Gal- vinist say this ? Then here is the end of his " golden chain," — it lands him in Universalism. Nor yet can the Apostle's meaning be that God foreknew men as compelled to believe, for if he thnB foreknew them there is an end to free agency, rewards, punishments, and all moral government. The gos- pel, according to this last theory, would be incompichensible and absurd — an unmeaning riddle; a mockery — not good tidings, but the worst tidings ever proclaimed in the ears of the world. For if God foreknew the elect as inemtaUy be- lieving. He manifestly compels them to believe, not because of His foreknowledge, hut because of the necessity laid upon them to believe by an Almighty and absolute wiU. Conse- quently there is no Gospel for the non-elect. Therefore, to call such a system by the name of " glad tidings of great joy to all people 'Ms a manifest falsehood and absurdity. Only one other solution of the Apostle's meaning remains, viz: That QuA foreknew the elect as believers, and elects them to glory because they believed, and are thereby justified and and sanctified. And as this is the true view of St. Paul's reasoning in this Epistle, here perishes the last argument on which the predestinarian depends for his anti-scriptural creed of eternal, unconditional election. Arminianism is safe, harmonious and scriptural : the true medium between fatalism on the one hand, and Universalism on the other. Calvinism, on the contrary is absolute Univer- u (1 »aliam ; admit some of the priDciples of tbat theory, and such a oonolusion is inevitable. For if, as Galvinists say, no soul can possibly perish for whom Christ died, then none will be lost, for " Christ by the grace of Qod tasted death for every man." So that between Calvinism anu Universalism there 19 not even a step. One last word. In controversies of this kind, I observe that though frequently beginning in the pulpit, they do not remain there. Unfortunately they extend to the c(miers of streets, and other places of public resort, and are not confined to christian circlet, but the disputants are frequently men totally unacquainted with the vitality of religion. I have just one word to say to such. It is this, — let them ponder it well, and abstain from the praetice I refer to, — they are guilty of a breach of the third commandment whenever they introduce the name of Deity, and eertainly *' will not be held guiltless." And now, brethren, I close for the, present. At some future period I may resume the subject, if necessary, not otherwise. In the meantime, ponder on what has been said ; review the reasoning, and if it be loose and fallacious, reject it freely. Finally, I commit you to Him who hath said — " Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee." './;'•