Chapter X: Part 10

Again: it is objected, that "faith is not a voluntary state of mind, and therefore cannot be considered a condition, performed by the sinner, in order to regeneration." To believe is doubtless, in many instances, perfectly involuntary. There are numerous cases in which a man is obliged to believe, both against his will and against his desires. There are other cases, again, in which the will is not only much concerned in believing, but in which its action is indispensable in order to believe. And the faith of the Gospel is pre-eminently an instance of this kind. "Faith," saith the word, "cometh by hearing." But hearing implies attention; and every deliberate act of attention implies an act of the will. A man can no more leap, by one transition, from a state of entire carelessness into the faith that justifies the soul, than he can make a world. But he can take the steps that lead to this result. To believe to the saving of the soul requires _consideration_, _self examination_, a _knowledge_ of the object of faith, or the truth to be believed, _earnest looking_, and _prayerful seeking_. But is there no act of the will in all these? It is said that "the Spirit takes of the things of Jesus Christ, and shows them unto us." And it is doubtless true, that the soul cannot get such a view of Christ as encourages him to throw himself unreservedly upon the mercy of the Saviour, until the Spirit makes, to the mind's eye, this special exhibition of the "things of Christ." But when does he do this? Does he come to the sinner when he is careless and inattentive, and show him the _things of Christ?_ No! it is only to the inquiring and self-despairing sinner, who is earnestly groaning out the sentiment in the bitterness of his heart, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" And is there no voluntary action in all this?

But it will perhaps be wearisome to the reader to pursue these objections farther. I should not have gone so fully into this part of the subject, but for the fact, that this sentiment of unconditional regeneration is considered the strong hold of Calvinism. This point moreover appears to have been but slightly handled by most of the anti-Calvinistic writers; and therefore I have felt it the more necessary to attempt an answer to all the most important arguments that are adduced in opposition to our view of this doctrine. I am far from thinking I have done the subject justice, and may have cause perhaps hereafter to acknowledge that some of my minor positions are untenable, and that some of my expressions need modifying or explaining, although I have used what care and circumspection my time and circumstances would permit in reference not only to the doctrine itself, but also in reference to the forms of expression. And as it respects the leading doctrines here inculcated, I repose upon them with entire confidence. However the theory clashes with that of many great and good men, it is believed to be the only theory that will consistently explain the practice and preaching of these very men. It is, in my view, the only theory that will satisfactorily and consistently explain those great and leading principles by which evangelical Christians expect to convert the world to Christ. And, if this be true, the sooner the Christian Church is established on this foundation, the better. We have already seen that a mixture of error in the essential doctrines leads to various mutations from extreme to extreme of dangerous heresy. How long before the Church shall be _rooted and grounded in the truth!_ May He who said, LET LIGHT BE; AND LIGHT WAS, hasten that glorious day!

THE END.

Footnotes

[1] Many objections have been made, by the reviewers, to my manner of stating the doctrine of predestination. It is objected, that the great body of Calvinists believe, no more than the Arminians, that God "efficiently controls and actuates the human will." On a careful, and I hope, candid revision of the subject, however, I cannot satisfy myself that the objection is valid. I am quite sure God must control the will, or he cannot, as Calvinists teach, secure the proposed end, by the prescribed means. It is readily granted that Calvinists deny _such a control_ as destroys the freedom of the will. But it is the object of the sermon and of the following controversy to show that Calvinistic predestination is, on any ground of consistency, utterly irreconcilable with mental freedom. How far this has been done, of course, each will judge for himself.

[2] It seems, to the author of the sermon, but little better than trifling, to object, as some have, to this argument on foreknowledge, that "God must predetermine his works before he could certainly know what would take place; and hence, in the order of cause and effect, he must decree in order to know." It is readily conceded, that, in the order of nature, the Divine Being could not foreknow that a world would certainly exist, until he had determined to create it. But was there no prescience back of this? Did he determine to create a universe, independent of a view of all the bearings in the case? If so, he created at random and in ignorance. If not, then a view of all the results preceded his determination to create; and thus we are led irresistibly to the doctrine of the sermon, that "God foreknows in order to predestinate."

[3] The review of the sermon, in the Christian Spectator, is understood to be from the pen of Doctor Fitch, professor of divinity in Yale College.

[4] See Christian Spectator, Vol. iv, No. 3.

[5] A part of this sermon has lately been published, in a tract form, and circulated with the _avowed_ purpose of counteracting the influence of the sermon "on predestination."

[6] A man was afflicted with the hydrophobia. When his paroxysms were coming on he was aware of it, and gave warning to his friends to be on their guard, that he might not injure them. Suppose, however, he knew of a sure remedy, but voluntarily neglected to avail himself of it. Would he not in that case be guilty, not only of all the evils that might result to others from his malady; but also of self murder? And yet this man's madness was entirely beyond the direct control of his will.