and rational to say, that whatever is done by an infinitely wise Being, is done according to design, an unvarying purpose, which is commonly termed a decree. But what meaning can there be in his designing to do the contrast to his doing? The same reasoning is applicable to preterition." "The great majority of those who pass under the general denomination in modern times, regard some of Calvin's positions as mere exceptionable inferences, which he has drawn from parts of his own system, with too much haste, or too little caution. They consider these inferences (especially some deduced from the doctrine of Divine decrees) as injurious excrescences, which deform the general beauty of his theological scheme, and which do not contribute to its real strength. In brief, they considered his fundamental premises, viewed in their proper light, as neither requiring nor admitting some of his conclusions, which have given just offence to a large portion of Christians, who still retain his name, -and who are induced to retain it (as a term of distinction) because they apprehend that no other of the Reformers, of whatever country, nor even any of the Christian Fathers, have so beautifully exhibited, or so ably defended, the scripture doctrine of Sovereign Grace."† The seventeenth Article of the Church of England makes no mention whatsoever of either reprobation or preterition, though some Calvinists have supposed that the following expressions are not without some reference to something of this kind: "For curious and carnal persons, lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination, is a • Defence of Modern Calvinism, by E. Williams, D.D. p. 206. most dangerous downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into wretchlessness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation."Most of those who are members of the Church of England, and have embraced the doctrine of Particular Election, consider this as perfectly sufficient, with its necessary consequence, the final perseverance of the saints; and contending for nothing more, disencumber themselves from the other appendages of Calvin's system. From the statement of Dr. Williams, it appears that sentiments of the same kind are generally prevalent among the Independent dissenters, and indeed these are known to have been the sentiments of Dr. Watts, of Dr. Dodridge, and of many other excellent men, who were ornaments to the dissenting churches. In the Established Church of Scotland, though it is known that a considerable majority are in no respect whatever, calvinistical, and that many fall far short of the evangelical sentiments of Arminius, yet it is understood that there are a number of pious men, who, while they believe in Particular Election and final Perseverance, wish, for reasons such as those mentioned by Mr. Scott, to carry the doctrine of Predestination no further; and would, on this subject, give a decided preference to the language of the seventeenth Article of the English Church, when compared with that of the third chapter of the Westminster Confession. Comparatively few of those who assume the name, or of those upon whom the name of Calvinists is imposed, embrace any more of Calvin's system upon the subject of Predestination, than what is here stated. Even these doctrines which they acknowledge, are seldom made by the Ministers of the Gospel, the topics of public discussion, or brought into prominence, in the course of religious instruction delivered from the pulpit. Of the religious instructions they dispense, the great subjects are those which they receive, in common with all who believe in the evangelical doctrines of the Gospel. It is certain that Luther carried the doctrine of Predestination to as high a point as Calvin, and embraced those parts of the system, which most modern Calvinists consider as objectionable. Whoever reads the answer of Luther to Erasmus (who had attacked Luther on the subjects of Predestination and Grace) entitled "De Servo Arbitrio," will find a defence of High Calvinism, written with great spirit, and much eloquence, accompanied sometimes by intemperate personal reflections. 66 Those who declare themselves hostile to absolute and particular election, in the most guarded state of the doctrines, generally attack it on the side of reprobation, which they contend is, whatever modifications you please to adopt, inseparable from it, and its necessary and obvious consequence. To this argument, the reply of modern Calvinists is in substance as follows. They allow that Calvin himself thought so, and affirmed it to be so. Many," says he, "as it were to excuse God, own election, and deny reprobation. But this is silly and childish. For election cannot stand without reprobation. Whom God passes by, those he reprobates. It is one and the same thing."-Inst. Liber. 3, Cap. 23, Sect. 1. But as they consider themselves bound, not by the decisions of Calvin, but by those of scripture, they adopt his conclusions, only so far as they are founded on its declarations. They can, they say, see no connexion between the certainty of the salvation of some, and the necessary reprobation of others. Suppose, say they, that with respect to twenty men on the same journey, God has decreed that ten of them shall arrive, in safety, at the place of rest which they have in prospect; would the consequence be that the other ten must necessarily perish by the way? Certainly not. The word of God, they add, assures us that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved; and we not only believe the words of Christ, "All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me," but we receive those that follow with the same faith, "And him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out." In short, we believe, say they, that the invitations and promises of God are as firm and certain as his decrees; and, if we are unable, in every instance, to investigate the awful depths of the latter, we leave the solution of all such difficulties to that day, in which God shall vindicate his ways to all intelligent beings. To the doctrine of absolute decrees it has often been objected, that it is utterly irreconcilable with the freedom of human action, and has a tendency to introduce the principles of necessity and fatalism. Almost all Calvinists deny the consequence, and assert the freedom of human action, in language as pointed as that which is employed by those who range themselves on the opposite side of the question. They frankly acknowledge, that they are not able to show how the liberty of the human will, and the freedom of action, are consistent with decrees of God. But, as both these doctrines are taught in the word of God, they say they believe them to be perfectly consistent. When pressed on this subject, they observe that the very same difficulty attends the doctrine of Divine foreknowledge, which Mr. Locke confessed he could not reconcile with human liberty. It must be acknowledged, say they, that on these subjects, and even upon some principles of natural religion, there is a veil thrown, which human sagacity seeks, in vain, to penetrate, or to remove. But whoever acknowledges the freedom of human action, the essential difference between virtue and vice, between obedience and rebellion, allows all that is necessary to legislation and moral government. It is likewise objected, that upon the doctrine of absolute decrees, all exertions of diligence in performing our duty, and in escaping from sin, are unnecessary, because they must needs be ineffectual. To this objection, Calvinists answer, that the connexion of means with the end, is just as necessary, upon their principles, as upon those of the opposite system. That as they expect no man to be saved, but in the way of continuing in well-doing, and in showing diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end, that depending on the Divine blessing, in the use of means, they despair of no man's salvation. The most ordinary observer of what passes in society cannot, they think, but acknowledge, that with respect to all the affairs of this life, the belief of absolute decrees is never perceived to abate the diligent exertions of the man who entertains it. The farmer who believes in predestination, tills his lands, sows his seed, and uses every means to secure a crop, as diligently as he who holds no such doctrine. Or, if there be any difference, it proceeds not from the doctrines he believes, but from the habits he has formed, or from his natural indolence. He cannot consistently believe, that his success, with respect to the blessings of the eternal world, is less connected with means, than the success of his hopes in the present life. The decrees of God, whatever they are, have just as much connexion with the affairs of this life, as they have with the concerns of eternity. "If the counsels of God are absolutely fixed," says a very sensible writer on this sub |