Chapter III: Part 3

I cannot approve of the reviewer's censures upon my manner of treating the doctrine of predestination. He accuses me of confounding the _doctrine_ itself, with _modes_ of explanation. He says they are perfectly distinct; and though some may have been unfortunate in their modes of explanation, and though he acknowledges my arguments bear against such, yet the _fact_ of the doctrine itself is not thereby affected. His mode of explanation, for example, he thinks untouched by the arguments of the sermon. But his mode of explanation, as we have seen, turns the doctrine into _Arminianism_. And it would, perhaps, be no difficult matter to show, that any explanation of the doctrine, short of doing it away, would be exposed to all the weight of the arguments urged in the sermon. But the sermon was never written to oppose those who hold to the decrees of God in an Arminian sense. Why then does the reviewer complain of the sermon? Why does he so "deeply regret" that the author of the sermon "should come before the public with an attack on the faith of a _large part_ of the Christian community, conducted in a way so obviously erroneous and unjust?" The sermon was against Calvinism, not Arminianism. It is true, the reviewer may say, the sermon alludes, in some parts, to the Calvinism of New-England, and therefore he felt himself implicated. But he certainly was not unless he is a New-England _Calvinist_--unless he believes that "God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass," in the proper sense of those terms. Indeed, it seems that Calvinism, in its proper character, is as obnoxious to the reviewer, as to the author of the sermon; and the former seems to have taken this opportunity to show the _nakedness_ of the system, and bring into notice a better doctrine. If so, is it safe that the reviewer should still accord to them their old symbols of faith? And is it just, that the author of the sermon should be held the defendant on the record, when the execution is issued against Calvinism itself? In answer to the former question, I would say, it is utterly _unsafe_, and never will be approved of, I believe, by Arminians. With respect to the latter question, if it is _safer_ to attack Calvinism in this indirect way, I will not object, though it may seem at present to my disadvantage. But I cannot see that it would be safer--an open bold front always ends best. What if it should subject the reviewer, and the theological doctors in New-Haven generally, to the charge of heresy? Still they ought not to shrink from their responsibilities--they occupy a commanding influence among the Churches and over the candidates of their theological school, and that influence should be openly and decidedly directed to discountenance error. They should remove it, root and branch. Especially should they discard those old symbols of faith, which are not only in themselves, in _their true and proper meaning_, a reflection upon the clerical character, and a _black spot_ upon an otherwise orthodox creed, but are also especially obnoxious, because they are the very articles which the great body of the Calvinists have maintained, in a sense widely different from that of the reviewer. At the head of these stands Calvin, the author of the system, in the Protestant Church. Calvin, who says, "I will not scruple to own that the will of God lays a necessity on all things, and that every thing he wills necessarily comes to pass." "Adam fell, not only by the _permission_, but also by the _appointment_ of God. He not only _foresaw_ that Adam would fall, but also _ordained_ that he should." "The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side, with the hand of God, that they cannot conceive or contrive or execute any mischief, any farther than God himself doth not _permit_ only, but _command_--nor are they held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a bridle, to perform obedience to those commands." Calvin, it seems, was far from thinking that _appointment_ only meant _permission_, or that to _ordain_ only meant certainty _foreseen_. In this he was correct: in this he has been followed by a host of writers down to the present day, and copied in numerous ecclesiastical symbols, in different parts of Christendom; and does not the reviewer know that these terms are understood by Hopkins and Emmons, and all the Calvinists of that school, in a sense widely different from his explanation, and in a sense, too, much more in accordance with the _proper meaning_ of the terms? Does he not know that a great majority of the Calvinists of the United States, and perhaps in New-England, even understand these terms, as indeed they ought to be understood, when used in reference to sin, as expressing a preference of sin, in that part of the Divine plan where sin occurs, to holiness in its stead? Indeed, as I understand the reviewer, from the days of John Calvin down to the present hour, there is, on this point, between the great body of Calvinists and himself, almost no likeness, except in the use of words. Theirs is one doctrine--his another. Why, then, does he oppose the opposers of Calvinism, and thus keep error in countenance? Especially, why does he hail from that party, and hoist their signals, and then, alter _seeming_ to get the victory, by espousing the very cause of the assailed, encourage the _Calvinists_ to triumph, as if _their_ cause had been successful? Is this justice to the author of the sermon? Is it the best way to promote truth? But I forbear. The reviewer's subsequent explanations may remove these difficulties. At any rate, the cause of truth will doubtless advance. The appearance of this review has given additional strength to the sentiment, Calvinism "is waxing old, and is ready to vanish away." The dogma that "God has predetermined all events, and elected (in a Calvinistic sense) out of our guilty world all who shall be heirs of salvation," withers at the touch of advancing truth, and is fast losing credit in the Christian Church.

Since writing the above, I have seen an inquiry of a correspondent in one of the Calvinistic papers, in these words, "Why do our Calvinistic writers retain the words which seem so sadly to perplex our Arminian brethren, when it is certain that we do not attach the signification to them which they always pretend?" and then instances in the word "foreordain." The editor, in reply, gives as a reason for using these words, that they are Scriptural; and seems to deem it necessary that they should _persist_ in this use until we submit. This reply of the editor reminded me of a remark of Mr. Tyler, in his sermon already alluded to: "The Calvinist contends that God resolved, from eternity, to permit all the sins and miseries which were to take place; and this he calls, in the language of the Bible, _foreordination_." Now, not to stop here, to show that no true Calvinist would ever call _foreordination_ and _permission_ the same thing, for Calvin has, as we have seen, clearly distinguished the two words from each other, I beg the privilege of adding a thought or two on this idea of Scripture authority for the use or these terms. For if it is only because the Scriptures use these words in this sense, that they _persist_ in using them, I think we may easily settle this question. Let it be shown that the Scriptures use "foreordination," or "predestination," in the sense of mere _permission--not absolutely hindering_. Again: let _one passage_ be shown in which it is said, God "predestinates" all things, or "foreordains" whatsoever comes to pass. If this cannot be done, how futile, how more than absurd is it, to talk about using these words, because the Scriptures use them! To use Scripture words out of the Scripture sense, and then appeal to Scripture to sanction this use, is as sad a perversion of the Scriptures as it is of logic. Indeed, to give such a meaning to the word predestinate, is at once to take away the principal scriptures quoted by the reviewer, and others, to prove Calvinistic election. See Eph. i, 5; ii, 10; Rom. viii, 29. Does predestination in these passages mean merely _to permit_, or not _to hinder?_ and do these passages teach a personal election to eternal life? Is this all the Calvinists mean by the _election_ of _sovereign grace_, not of man, nor of the will of mans but of God? Alas! for the elect! If man does not elect himself, and God _only predestinates_, that is, _permits--does not hinder_ his election; who, we ask, will elect him? How does error destroy itself! These gentlemen may take which ground they please; they may either acknowledge that Bible predestination means an _efficient purpose of God_ to accomplish an object, and then meet the sermon on the issue there proposed; or they may interpret these words as the reviewer has, and then give up those passages which they consider their strong hold, in favour of Calvinian election. In either case their system must suffer serious loss. Nothing could be more unfortunate, I think, than this appeal to the Bible to sanction such an abuse of terms. As to the word foreordain, I do not recollect that it occurs in our translation. Jude 4, has "before of old ordained," &c, but it is in the original very different from the word rendered predestinate. The allusion is to characters that were proscribed for their sins, and designated for deserved punishment. The original for predestinate, proorizo, is used in only one place, so far as I can find, with any direct reference to a sinful act, Acts iv, 28. This passage is quoted by the reviewer. But the determination here spoken of, he himself informs us, relates to "the purpose of God to make an atonement for the sin of the world, by means of the death of Jesus Christ." Hence the predetermination of God, in this instance, probably refers to the _work_ of atonement, without including therein any special decree in respect to the means of the suffering. Christ _could_ have suffered, even unto death, in the garden without any human means. But inasmuch as these men had the murderous purpose, God "chose to leave Christ to their power," &c, therefore _decreed_ the atonement, but _permitted_ the means. This seems to be the most rational construction. But whatever Calvinists may think of this passage, the Scriptural use of the word is clearly on the side of its _proper_ meaning--an _authoritative ordinance_ that the thing predestinated _shall be_.

I will avail myself of this opportunity to correct one or two errors of the reviewer, respecting the sentiment of the sermon, which had escaped my notice. He says, my "view of predestination is a determination of God to produce a given result by his _own immediate_ and _efficient_ energy." This is a mistake. I said nothing about _immediate energy;_ this is an essential misrepresentation of the sermon. Again: "On Dr. Fisk's principle, it is impossible for God to use the voluntary agency of any creature, to accomplish any valuable end in his kingdom, and yet leave that creature accountable for his conduct." This is so manifestly incorrect and unjust, that I am sure I need only call the attention of the reviewer to it a second time, to secure a correction from himself.

NUMBER II.

A PROPOSITION TO CALVINISTS.

The communication below contains a proposition from Dr. W. Fisk, which, however much we dislike theological controversies, we believe is appropriate and interesting at this time. Such a discussion, under such arrangements, will give the merits of the controversy to both sides; and will, at least, convince all of one truth--that the Methodist Episcopal Church seeks not concealment from the world or her members, as charged by her adversaries. But it will develop a still more important truth, and that is, what are the settled and definite opinions of the old or the new school in the Calvinistic Churches. It is known to all the world, that there is great difficulty in ascertaining what are the theological opinions of those ancient Churches of the land. They seem to be as far apart from each other as they are from Arminianism; and their replies and rejoinders to each other are as severe as if directed against us. The discussion must be interesting and profitable, carried on by two such persons as Dr. Fisk and his opponent, and under the steady supervision, as to temper and manner, of third parties as proposed.--Eds.

I have just received a pamphlet of about forty-eight pages, containing a series of letters, in answer to my sermon on predestination and election. These letters are written by the Rev. David Metcalf, of Lebanon, Connecticut, and purport to be an answer, not only to the doctrinal part of the sermon, but to the "charges," as the writer is pleased to call them, contained in the sermon, and published afterward in a specific form, first in the Connecticut Observer, and then in the Christian Advocate and Journal.

It will be recollected by your readers, that I pledged myself to vindicate my statements against any responsible person, who, with his own proper signature, would come forward and deny them: or if I failed to support them, I would retract what I had written. This pledge Mr. Metcalf calls upon me to redeem; not indeed by bringing forward my proofs, or by making a reply; but, having thrown in his plea, he supposes that the cause is decided, and has himself made up the judgment, and issued the execution, and forthwith comes forward, and claims his damage. His words are--"Of the author of the sermon we claim a public acknowledgment of his errors, and make justice and equity the ground of our claim." Again, "If Dr. F. makes no public retraction from the ground taken in his sermon--if after he shall receive these letters, [!!] remembering also what is said in the Christian Spectator's review of his sermon, he shall allow another copy of it to be printed, I think he will find it difficult to convince any intelligent candid man, that he is not guilty of breaking the ninth commandment," &c. The intelligent reader, who has studied human nature, will know how to make suitable allowances for the dogmatical and premature decisions, and high claims contained in the foregoing extracts. It is not an uncommon thing, that a zealous advocate succeeds in _convincing himself_ of the truth of his cause; but utterly fails with respect to all others. I do not say, that this writer will not gain his argument; but it requires more "foreknowledge" than I am disposed to accord to him, to affirm this as a "certainty." I demur against this hasty manner of making up the judgment. I wish to be heard in defence of my statements, and have objections also to bring against his statements, and supposed proofs and arguments.

In the first place, I object to him, that he has not come out and joined issue specifically and directly on any one of my "charges," but talks for most part in general terms, about the unfairness, injustice, and misrepresentations of the sermon. This circumstance would, of itself, free me from any obligation to notice these letters, on the ground of my pledge in the Observer. But yet, as I feel the most perfect readiness to discuss this subject, and as I hope the cause of righteousness may be served thereby, I will willingly proceed in this controversy, both as to doctrine and policy, provided we can secure some suitable public medium, through which to prosecute the discussion. And on this point Mr. M. complains bitterly of the former editors of the Advocate and Journal--for he had applied, it seems, for the privilege of having his letters inserted in that paper, and was refused, on the ground that "the sermon was not published in the Advocate, and therefore justice did not require that its answer should be." Now, since these letters are professedly an answer to the _whole sermon_, the editors, I think, were perfectly consistent with their former statements, in refusing to publish them. If Mr. M. had confined himself to the charges in the Observer, the editors would undoubtedly have given the subject a place in the columns of the Advocate: as it was, however, I think the charge of injustice and unfairness made against the editors by Mr. M. is entirely gratuitous and _unjustifiable_. If it was expected to produce an _effect_ on the public, by such a complaint, I think such an expectation will be disappointed in all places where the subject is understood. And that this was the expectation appears evident from another charge against Methodist preachers, in the following words:--"It is supposed to be the common sentiment, if not 'the common talk in our land,' that the Methodist preachers have a strong aversion against their hearers reading our writings. The reason of this, in part, is supposed to be, that they choose to have their people receive all their knowledge of our creed from their statements of it, instead of ours; lest they should be convinced, by our arguments, of the truth of our belief." Now this charge we wholly and positively deny, and challenge the writer for the proofs of what we know to be, not only an ungenerous, but an unjust allegation. Nothing can be farther from the whole genius of Methodism than this. Does not the reverend gentleman know, that a great portion of our members in New England are those who were once members of Calvinistic congregations? Does he not know that they were trained up in these doctrines from their infancy, and have heard them explained and defended from their earliest recollections? Does he not know that Methodism has made its way against the impressions of the nursery, the catechetical instruction of the priest and the school master--the influence of the pulpit and the press, and in maturer age against the still stronger influence of academies and colleges? Does he not know, also, that all this has been done in this generation? And shall we now be told that Methodists examine but one side of the question? How astonishing such a charge, from a man who can make any pretension to a knowledge of ecclesiastical matters in our country! Does not this writer know, also, that the editors of the Advocate, and others, have called loudly, and almost continually, for information upon this subject, that we might know what the Calvinistic standards are, and ascertain what Calvinism is? and shall we now be told, that Methodists are ignorant of the Calvinistic faith, and, what is worse, the preachers strive to keep them in ignorance, and that with the base purpose of keeping them from a conviction of the truth! We say, if Calvinism is essentially what it was from five to thirty years ago, we know its character as well as we ever can know it. If we do not understand it now, it is either because we have not _natural ability_ to understand it, (and therefore. Calvinism itself being judge, we are not criminal,) or it is because the teachers of Calvinism have not had _natural ability_ to make it plain. But if Calvinism is not essentially what it was, we ask what it now is? If it is changed in the hands of its supporters, how much has it changed? Is it Calvinism still, or has it lost its identity? In what does the identity of Calvinism consist? Shall we take the Rev. Mr. Metcalf's answer to these questions? Shall we take the Christian Spectator's answers? Mr. M. appears fully to agree with the Spectator, for he makes frequent reference to it, with great apparent approbation. And yet two numbers of this periodical have been issued since my reply to the review of my sermon in that work, in which reply I stated my understanding of the reviewer's doctrine of predestination, and requested to be informed if I was incorrect; and neither my reply nor my request has been noticed. And yet, let it be understood, that in the last number there is a very laboured article, to show that Dr. Taylor does not differ essentially from the orthodox Calvinistic faith heretofore received.

It is also known, that though Drs. Woods, Griffin, Tyler, Green, and various others, come out and charge a portion of their brethren with a serious and dangerous dereliction from the Calvinistic faith, yet the accused, in their turn, strenuously maintain that they preserve the old landmarks unremoved, and the essential principles of Calvinism unimpaired; and that it is a calumnious charge to say they have departed from the faith of the party.

How shall we judge in this matter? If we think, from our understanding of their writings, that some of them have changed their views, and we ask them if they have, they are silent. If their brethren charge them with changing, they deny it; and, standing up before the world and before the Churches, and before their God, pronounce _deliberately_ and _emphatically_, the old symbols of faith, as a test oath to prove their orthodoxy. Should we doubt their repeated asseverations? Mr. M., or somebody else, might write another pamphlet to screw us into repentance and confession, for bearing false witness against our neighbour. But if we hold them to the old doctrine, which we have had a good opportunity of learning, from our youth up, we are accused of misrepresentation, and of bearing false witness. None but the advocates of the New-Haven divinity have, to my knowledge, taken a public stand against my sermon; and _they_ oppose it because _they_ say it is a misrepresentation of their doctrine.

This, therefore, seems to us to be the state of the case with respect to these gentlemen--We make a representation of Calvinism as we have found it, and have heretofore understood it--they object, because this is not their belief, and therefore we break the ninth commandment! Their own brethren charge _them_ with a departure from the old doctrines, and they deny it! and charge them in turn with bearing false witness! In the midst of our perplexity on this subject, while we are looking every way for light, up comes Mr. M. and tells us, we are unwilling our people should know what Calvinists believe!! Is this generous, or just? We repel the charge, and demand proof. And in the mean time, as a farther proof that the charge is unfounded, I will, Messrs. Editors, with your consent and approbation, make a proposition to Mr. Metcalf. It is certainly desirable, that both Calvinists and Methodists should hear _both sides_. Mr. M. seems very desirous to enlighten the Methodists. This is very well. But we also wish to enlighten the Calvinists. To accomplish this, the discussion on both sides should be put into the hands of the people on both sides. If, then, some reputable and extensively circulated Calvinistic periodical will publish my sermon, and the discussion which _has_ arisen, or _may_ arise out of it, on both sides, the Christian Advocate and Journal will publish Mr. M.'s letters and the discussions which shall follow; provided always, that it shall be submitted to the respective editors, whether the pieces are written in respectful and becoming style and language; and provided also, that the Calvinistic editor shall, by consenting to this arrangement, he considered as thereby acknowledging, that Mr. Metcalf is a suitable man to manage the controversy in behalf of the Calvinists, and that you, Messrs. Editors, by consenting to the arrangement, will thereby consent that you are willing to trust the controversy in my hands, to be managed in behalf of the Methodists. To give an opportunity for the Calvinistic periodical to be prepared, I shall wait a reasonable time, when, if the offer is not complied with, I shall want the privilege, perhaps, of occupying the columns of the Advocate, by the insertion of a few numbers touching the present Calvinistic controversy, both as relates to their own differences, and also as relates to the general question between them and us.

NUMBER III.

INDEFINITENESS OF CALVINISM.

THE readers of the Christian Advocate and Journal will recollect the proposition, made to the Rev. David Metcalf, in the 8th No. of the present volume, on the subject of his review of my sermon. This proposition has not been complied with on the part of Mr. M., and according to the following extract from the New-York Evangelist, no compliance can be expected:--

"We have seen," says the editor of the Evangelist, "in the Advocate, since Mr. Metcalf's work was published, a letter from Dr. F., in which he shows his desire that the discussion shall still go forward. There is one condition he exacts, however, which we think impracticable. It is, that some person should be designated, by a sort of common suffrage, as the champion of Calvinism. Now the truth is, Calvinists, as a class, are rather remarkable for thinking for themselves; and of course, while there are great principles on which, as a class, they all agree, there are many things which will be held or stated differently, by different minds. Consequently, we can, each of us, defend ourselves, and defend Calvinists as a class; notwithstanding, each one may think his fellow holds some errors, and therefore, in his contest with Calvinism, Dr. F. must assume to himself the responsibility of selecting those doctrinal points and modes of statement which distinguish _Calvinists as a class_. And when he has found these principles, we hope he will either confute or embrace them."

I have copied the above for the farther notice of the public, not only as a remarkable paragraph in itself, but also as having an important bearing on the present controversy. There are several things in it worthy of special notice.

In the first place we see, if other editors think with this one, and that they do, we are left to infer from their not offering their periodicals for the controversy, there is no hope that my proposition will be accepted. We then have the reason--because there is one impracticable condition. But why impracticable? The editor tells us, "Dr. F. exacts that some person should be designated by a sort of common suffrage to be the champion of Calvinism." I cannot believe the editor means to misrepresent me; and yet he has done it. My words are, "Provided that the Calvinistic _editor_ shall, by consenting to this arrangement, be considered as thereby acknowledging that Mr. Metcalf is a suitable man to manage the controversy on the part of the Calvinists." Here is nothing said about a "sort of common suffrage." In case of compliance by Mr. Leavitt, or any other editor, the only vote to be polled and counted would be his own. Not a very extensive suffrage this! And if Mr. L. thinks the condition impracticable, it must be owing to _moral inability_ existing in his own mind, growing out of the belief that Mr. Metcalf _is not a suitable person_ to manage this controversy. Hence it is well I took the precaution I did; for Mr. M. is a stranger to me; and I do not wish to engage in a controversy on this subject with any man who is not, by his class, considered responsible. Perhaps Mr. Leavitt knows of some one, who would be suitable, in his judgment, and who would accept of the offer; or perhaps he himself would be willing to engage in the discussion. I do not wish to confine it to Mr. M.; nor do I wish to be considered in the light of a general challenger who is seeking an adventure. The subject is an important one, and I am willing to discuss it with any candid responsible man. We were most unjustly, as I believed, accused of keeping our people in ignorance of Calvinism, and of preventing them from reading on the other side, for the base purpose of preventing them from being convinced of the truth. To render the subject fair and equal, therefore, and to wipe off this aspersion, I made the proposal; and if Mr. M. is not a suitable man, let some other be found.

But we are informed farther in this paragraph, that one great difficulty in complying with my condition is, that "Calvinists, as a class, are remarkable for thinking for themselves," &c. If the editor designs to say, as the natural construction would imply, that the whole class are remarkable, in their character as Calvinists, for thinking and believing differently and independently of each other, then his proposition is a contradiction. They, _as a class_, are remarkable _for not being a class at all_, having no properties or qualities in common! His argument also would require this construction, because he is showing why no one could be the proper champion of the class, for the reason that, as a class, they did not think alike. If _Calvinism_ be a general term, it includes, in its extension, all those individuals or sub-classes of individuals, and only those, that hold certain doctrines in common, and it embraces all those doctrines, and only those that are held in common by the class. If, therefore, there is any such class, then most certainly they think alike in all those things that constitute them a class; and by consequence, any one of the number, otherwise competent, would be qualified to represent and defend the class as such, however much he might differ from many of "his fellows," in other things. If, therefore, there is any force in the argument, that it is impracticable for any one of the number bearing the name, to become the champion of _the class as such_, because they differ so among themselves, it must arise from the fact, that there are no "great principles" held in common among them, and, of course, there is _no class_. All the writer says afterward, therefore, about "great principles in which they all agree," is mere verbiage, signifying nothing. For if we give it any meaning, it would be a contradiction of what he had stated before, and a complete nullification of the only argument adduced as a reason for not complying with my proposal. There is another reason why I think the above a fair view of this subject. In the same paragraph it is said, "Therefore, in his contest with Calvinism, Dr. F. must assume to himself the responsibility of selecting those doctrinal facts and modes of statement which distinguish _Calvinists as a class_." This is more unreasonable than the requisition of Nebuchadnezzar, when he commanded the wise men to _make known the dream_, as well as the interpretation. Would an intelligent and ingenuous man, such as we have a right to expect a religious editor to be, give such an answer, under such circumstances, if he could have told us what Calvinism is? We have been accused, not by Mr. Metcalf only, but by Calvinists of the old school, and the new school, and _all the schools_, that we misrepresent them, that our preachers make it their business to misrepresent them,--that my sermon was a most scandalous misrepresentation, and that we studied to keep our people ignorant of what Calvinism is. When this is replied to, by entreating and conjuring those who bear the name of Calvinism, to tell us what it is; and when we offer to discuss the subject, in their own periodicals, and give them an opportunity to discuss it in ours, and to inform our people, in their own way, on this doctrine--a death-like silence on the subject reigns throughout the whole _corps editorial;_ until at length the Evangelist speaks,--We cannot comply; we each and all, as a class, are so remarkable for thinking for ourselves, it is impracticable for any one to state and defend those doctrinal facts which _distinguish us as a class_, and therefore Dr. F. must assume to himself the responsibility of selecting them!! If Calvinists cannot agree in their own system, and cannot trust any of their fraternity to state and defend it in behalf of the class, why do they accuse us of willful misrepresentations, in stating their system? Why, in short, do they not begin to doubt whether, _as a class_, they have any system? It is time for those who bear the name to know, and for the public to be distinctly informed, whether there is any thing _real_ represented by the term Calvinism? If there is, then, whether the term is a common or a proper noun? If it is a common noun, or a general name, then, what are the qualities, the properties, or doctrines designated by it? If no one can tell,--if those who "write about it, and about it," week after week, think it _impracticable_ to define or describe those doctrines for the class, because they think so differently, of course it follows, if the name is retained, it is not a general, but a _proper name_, and belongs only to individuals. And though it has been assumed by many individuals, yet it has in each case an individual definition, which by no means enters into the definition of the term, as assumed by any other individual. And therefore it is as inconsistent to talk about the _class of Calvinists_, as it is to talk about the class of Johns or Joshuas, and as absurd to infer that two men are in any of their real characteristics alike, because each is called _Calvinist_, as to argue that the editor of the Evangelist and Joshua, the son of Nun, belonged to the same class, because both are called Joshua. And this appears to me to be very nearly the true state of the case. Calvinism, as designating a class, has always been rather vague and unsettled in its definition, from the days of John Calvin himself. And this was one of the offensive objections brought against it in my sermon--an objection, however, that has been abundantly confirmed by recent events. As I wrote and published of another doctrine some years since, so I may say of Calvinism now. It is a proteus that changes its shape before one can describe it--an _ignis fatuus_, that changes its place before one can get his hand on it. And here I will stop to say, It will avail nothing for any one to take offence at this statement. It is not because I dislike men who are called Calvinists, that I thus speak. I know many of them personally, and esteem them highly, but of their doctrine, and their system, and their name, I must speak freely. And the best refutation they can give, is to come out if they can, and define and explain their system. I care not what shape it is presented in; I am willing to meet it. If it puts on an Arminian character and dress, like the review in the Christian Spectator, I will only ask the privilege of baptizing it anew, and giving it a legitimate name. But as there seems now little hope of being permitted to meet it in the manner proposed, it only remains that I proceed, according to promise, to "occupy the columns of the Advocate with a few numbers, touching the present Calvinistic controversy, both as relates to their own differences, and as relates to the general question between them and us."

I cannot but think this an important moment to look into this subject. The signs of the times indicate that the spirit of inquiry is abroad, and the old platforms are shaken. In this breaking up of erroneous systems, there is danger of extremes and extravagancies, more to be dreaded, perhaps, than the old errors themselves. Hence, the necessity for every man who _has_ the truth to be on his guard against the currents, new and unprovided for, that may otherwise drive him from his safe moorings: and hence the necessity also, that he who has weighed anchor, and is afloat upon the unexplored sea of philosophic speculation should be aware of the rocks and the quicksands on the opposite shore. An abler hand than mine is certainly needed on this occasion; such a one I hope may be found. But in the mean time I will, as I am able, say a _few things_, with the sincere prayer that I and my readers may be led into all truth.

NUMBER IV.

SKETCH OF THE PAST CHANGES AND PRESENT STATE OF CALVINISM IN THIS COUNTRY.

In the former No. it was seen that the indefiniteness and mutability of the Calvinistic system had thrown a kind of irresponsibility around it; which renders this controversy, in many respects, extremely unsatisfactory. This might, at first, lead to the conclusion, that farther discussion would be useless. On farther thought, however, it _may_ appear, that this very circumstance will render the controversy both easier and more promising. This diversity of opinions has produced serious discussion among the predestinarians themselves, and has thrown the system open to public view, and driven its advocates to a clearer statement of their respective opinions. The effervescence, in short, growing out of this excitement, has led to a more distinct analysis of the system, and of course to a clearer discovery of its constituent parts. Their arguments against each other, and the logical consequences which they urge against each other's views, are, in many cases, precisely the same that we should advance, and have often urged, in opposition to predestination. Much of the work, therefore, is prepared for us, and brought forward in a way to produce an effect among Calvinists themselves, where we could not be heard.

To understand this subject however fully, and to follow out this discussion advantageously, it will be necessary to glance at the different changes and modifications of the Calvinistic system; and to take a brief survey of the present state of the parties.

The religious faith of our puritanical fathers is too well known to need a delineation here. This faith was at an early day defined and formally recognized, in the Cambridge and Saybrook platforms. The first refinement (improvement it can hardly be called) upon this ancient faith, was the metaphysical theory of Dr. Hopkins. The leading dogmas of this theory were, that God was the _efficient cause_ of all moral action, holy and unholy; and that holiness consisted in disinterested benevolence. Insomuch, that the answer to the question, "Are you willing to be damned?" was deemed a very good criterion by which to judge of a religious experience. While the doctrine of predestination was in this manner _going to seed_, and bearing its legitimate fruits, in one direction, it received a remarkably plausible modification in another. The atonement, which was formerly limited to the elect, was now extended to all; and the invitations of the Gospel, instead of being restrained, as before, to the world of the elect, were extended to the world of mankind. But as it would be useless to hold out invitations to those who could not accept of them, another refinement was introduced, and man was found to possess a natural ability to receive salvation, although he laboured under an invincible moral _inability_, which would for ever keep him from Christ, until drawn by irresistible grace. This discovery led to other refinements in language, so that a kind of technical nomenclature was formed, out of words in popular use, which words, by an accompanying glossary, were so defined as to correspond with the Calvinistic system. Thus, "You can repent if you will," meaning, according to the technical definition, "You can repent when God _makes_ you willing," and so of the rest.

This theory, sustained as it was by Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Emmons, and others, gained many proselytes, and seemed likely, at one time, to become the universal creed. Its metaphysical abstrusities and distinctions gave it an interest for the student; and its plausible and commonsense terms gave it popularity with the people. In the mean time, however, several causes conspired to introduce a great revolution in the religious sentiments of many, which, as it has had a very important influence in modifying Calvinism itself; I must here stop to notice; I allude to the introduction of Unitarianism and Universalism. The proximate causes of the introduction of these sentiments were, among others, probably the following. The Antinomian features of old Calvinism had introduced into the Churches a heartless Christianity and a very lax discipline. It was natural, therefore, when religion had come, in point of fact, to consist chiefly in external performances, for its votaries to seek a theory that would accord with their practice. Unitarianism was precisely such a theory. It is also to be noticed, that the state of formality and spiritual death that prevailed, was greatly increased by the withering alliance which then existed between the Church and civil government. This revolution was undoubtedly hastened also by the ultraism, on the one part, and the technical inconsistencies on the other, of the Hopkinsian theory. The elements had been long in motion, and at length they united in an array of numbers and influence that wrested the fairest portions of their ecclesiastical domain from the orthodox Churches of Mass., and turned them over, together with the richly endowed university of the state, into the hands of the Unitarians.

In Connecticut, Unitarianism, as that term is commonly understood among us, has not prevailed. There is, I believe, but one Unitarian pastor, properly so called, in the state. This sentiment, however, prevails very extensively in this and all the other New-England states, as well as in many other parts of the union, under the name of Universalism; a sentiment which differs but little from Socinianism, and had its origin doubtless from the same source. About half a century since, a Calvinistic clergyman, as he was supposed to be to the day of his death, left a posthumous work, which was published, entitled, "Calvinism Improved." It was merely an extension of the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace to all instead of a part. From the premises, the reasoning seemed fair, and the conclusions legitimate. This made many converts. And this idea of universal salvation, when once it is embraced, can easily be moulded into any shape, provided its _main feature_ is retained.--It has finally pretty generally run into the semi infidel sentiments, of _no atonement--no Divine Saviour--no Holy Ghost_, and _no supernatural change of heart;_ as well as "no hell--no devil--no angry God." It may be a matter of some surprise, perhaps, to a superficial observer, or to one not personally acquainted with the circumstances of the case, why, in leaving Calvinism, these men should go so far beyond the line of truth. But in this we see the known tendency of the human mind to run into extremes. The repulsive features of the old system drove them far the other way. It ought to be remembered, also, that there were few, if any, who were stationed on the medium line, to arrest and delay the public mind in its fearful recoil from the "horrible decree." Had Methodism been as well known in New-England fifty years ago, as it now is, it is doubtful whether Universalism or Unitarianism would have gained much influence in this country. Late as it was introduced, and much as it was opposed, it is believed to have done much toward checking the progress of those sentiments. And perhaps it is in part owing to the earlier introduction, and more extensive spread of Methodism, in Connecticut, that Unitarianism has not gained more influence in the state. This is undoubtedly the fact in the states of Vermont, New-Hampshire, and Maine, where Methodism was introduced nearly as early as those other sentiments. The result has shown that the foregoing supposition is corroborated by facts in those cases where the experiment has been tried. These remarks may not now be credited, but the time will come, when the prejudices of the day are worn out, that the candid historian will do the subject justice. But to return--though Unitarianism and Universalism are believed to be dangerous errors, yet, as is often the case, they have contributed much, doubtless, to detect the errors and modify the features of the opposite system. Simultaneously with them, the Methodists have engaged in opposing the Calvinistic dogmas. This close examination and thorough opposition, with such other causes as may have cooperated in the work, have driven some of the peculiarities of the Hopkinsian theory into disrepute, more suddenly even than they rose into credit. The sublimated doctrine of disinterested benevolence was so like "an airy nothing," that even the speculative minds of the shrewdest metaphysicians could not find for it "a local habitation," in heaven or on earth; and the almost blasphemous dogma, that God was the efficient cause of sin, was more abhorrent, if possible, than even the horrible decree of reprobation. Both, therefore, with the exceptions hereafter mentioned, disappeared. The former, being of an ethereal character, silently evaporated into "thin air;" but the other, being of a grosser nature, and withal more essential to the system itself, _settled to the bottom_, and is now rarely visible, except when the hand of controversy shakes up the sediment. The doctrine of universal atonement, however, was retained, and the theological vocabulary was not only retained, but enlarged and improved. So that from that day to this, we hear but little of the doctrine of reprobation, or of the decrees of God, but much is said of God's "electing love," his "Divine sovereignty," and "gracious purposes." By which is meant, according to the glossary, the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, and of absolute predestination. The scriptures, also, which used to be quoted to prove the direct efficiency of God, in producing sin and securing the condemnation of the reprobate, receive a different explanation, varying but little, if any, from the Arminian interpretation of those passages. It cannot be doubted, I think, but there has been quite a change in the views of the great body of the Calvinists--and yet not so great and so thorough a change as appearances and terms might at first view seem to indicate. It is not easy to _eradicate_ old prejudices. And it is often found that the mind will cling to the first principles of a favourite system, even after the other parts are so modified as that the new principles would supplant the old, if suffered to be carried out into a consistent whole. In every such case, much labour and argument will be spent in trying to unite the old with the new; but in every instance the rent becomes worse. This leads to a kind of vacillating policy, and an ambiguous course of argument, accompanied with reiterated complaints, that the opposers of the system misunderstand and misrepresent it. And it would be no wonder if the constant friction in the incongruous machinery should chafe the mind, and lead to a dogmatic and an impatient spirit. How far this corresponds with the existing facts, in the Calvinistic controversy, others can judge. In my own view, the peculiar circumstances of the case, connected with the known character of the human mind, fully account for the _apparent_ tergiversation and changing of argument, in this controversy, without criminating the _motives_ of our predestinarian brethren, as some have unjustly accused me of doing. The different parts of the system have lost, in a measure, their original affinities, and yet they have some partial and irregular attractions, which lead them to unite in unnatural and grotesque forms. And as there is no common consent and settled mode of operating among the many who are experimenting upon the materials, there are various sectional and individual formations, which are inconsistent with each other. And their incongruity is the more apparent from the unanimous effort (which I believe is the only work of union in "the class") to amalgamate each and every variety with the old substratum of the system,--"God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass."

The completion of this historical sketch, together with a view of the present state of the Calvinistic parties, may be expected in the next number. After which it is proposed to proceed to an examination of the doctrines in dispute.

NUMBER V.

SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

One modification of Calvinism remains to be mentioned. It is known by the name of the "New Divinity." The theological doctors connected with Yale college are the reputed authors of this system. It is evident, however, that the tendency of the Calvinistic theory has been in this direction for a number of years. The "New Divinity," so alarming to some of the Calvinists, is only the ripe fruits of the very plants which they have long cultivated with assiduous care. And why should they start back at results which they have long laboured to produce? This theory, in the first place, is an attempt to make the doctrine, and the technical terms alluded to, coincide. In the second place, it is designed, by a new philosophy of predestination, to get rid of the "logical consequences" that have always pressed heavily upon the old system. Finally, it is a device to reconcile the doctrine of depravity with the former current sentiment, that man has _natural ability_ to convert himself and get to heaven without grace. The two pillars of the new system are, 1. "Sin is not a propagated property of the human soul, but consists wholly in _moral exercise_." 2. "Sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good;" or, in other words, "Sin is not preferable to holiness in its stead." The Calvinistic opposers of this theory tell us that these sentiments have been held and taught to some extent for the last ten years. They were more fully and more openly announced, however, by Dr. Taylor, of the theological school belonging to Yale College, in a concio ad clerum preached Sept. 10th, 1828. From the time of the publication of this sermon the alarm has been sounded, and the controversy has been carried on. The opposers of the new doctrine call it heresy; and in a late publication they seem to intimate that Dr. T. and his associates are nearly if not quite as heretical as the author of the sermon on predestination and election. The doctor and his friends, on the other hand, strenuously maintain that they are orthodox; and to prove it, they repeat, again and again, "We believe that God did, for his own glory, foreordain whatsoever comes to pass." The Christian Spectator, an ably conducted quarterly journal, is devoted chiefly to the defence of this theory, aided by the New-York Evangelist, and several other minor periodicals, and by a very respectable body of the clergy. What proportion, however, have embraced this system is not known; but many, both in and out of Connecticut, have espoused the cause with great zeal. The contest waxes warmer each year. Against the theory, Dr. Woods, of the Andover theological seminary, Dr. Griffin, of Williams college, Dr. Tyler, of Portland, the Rev. Mr. Hervey, of Connecticut, and several others have entered the lists of controversy; and last of all, a pamphlet, supposed to be the joint labour of a number of clergymen, has been published, in which the New Divinity is denounced as heresy, a formal separation of the Churches is predicted, and a withdrawal of patronage from Yale college is threatened on the ground that "Yale will become in Connecticut what Harvard is in Massachusetts." It is uncertain, however, whether those ultra measures will be responded to by the great body of the clergy in New-England. There is a party which still adheres to the old--I may say, perhaps, to the _oldest_ modification of Calvinism in this country. This party are for maintaining the old landmarks at all hazards, rightly judging that these palliations and explanations of the system will ultimate in its destruction. They are not numerous, but still respectable as to numbers and talents. They are sustained in Boston by the Boston Telegraph, so called, a weekly periodical, which does not hesitate to go the whole length--_logical consequences and all_. Witness the following quotation from a review of my sermon, in the number for Jan. 23d. Speaking of the charge in the sermon, that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, the writer says:--"The word author is sometimes used to mean _efficient cause_. Now I am willing to admit that those scriptures which teach that God has decreed the sinful conduct of men, do imply that he is the efficient cause of moral evil. For his own glory and the greatest good he said, _Let there be sin, and there was sin!!!_" The following is another specimen of Calvinism from the same periodical. If any man "affirms that man really chooses, and that his acts of will are caused by his own free, voluntary, and efficient mind, then he is _no Calvinist_." In this last quotation, as well as in the preceding, there is the most direct opposition to Dr. Taylor, since he maintains, if I understand him, that man's is an independent agency--that the human mind is the originator of thought and volition. Thus are these two branches of the Calvinistic family directly at variance with each other. And, in fact, the Telegraph and its supporters are not only at variance with the newest divinity, but with all the different degrees of _new, newer, newest_, and denounce them all as heresy.