Question: What'is  the  Scriptture  ground  for  this  doctrhie?

Answer: What Ave remarked above (Question 53), concerning the common theological definition of the eternal generation of the Son, holds true also with reference to the common definition of the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost, viz., that in order to make the method of the divine unity in Trinity more appar- ent, theologians have pressed the idea of derivation and sub- ordination in the order of personal subsistence too far. This groinid is at once sacred and mysterious. The points given by Scripture are not to be pressed nor speculated upon, but received and confessed nakedly. The data of inspiration are simply as follows: Ist. Father, THE ETERNAL PROCESSION OF THE HOLY GHOST. 191 Son, and Hol}^ Ghost, three divine persons, possess from eter- nity the one whole identical, indivisible, nnchangeable essence. 2d. The Father from his characteristic personal name, and the order in which his name uniformly occurs in Scripture, and from the fact that the Son is called his and his only begotten, and that the Spirit is called his, the one proceeding from him, and from the order of his manifestation and operation ad extra, is evidently in some icay first in order of personal subsistence relatively to the Son and Spirit. 3d. For the same reason (see below. Question 89) the Son, in the order of personal subsist- ence, is before the Spirit. 4th. What the real natvu'e of these distinctions in the order of personal subsistence may be is made known to us only so far — (1.) That it involves no distinction as to time, since all are alike eternal. (2.) It does not depend upon any voluntary action, for that would make the second person dependent upon the first, and the third upon the first and second, while tiiey are all "equal in power and glory." (3.) It is such a relation that the second person is eternally only begotten Son of the first, and the third is eternally the Spirit of the first and second. 88. What ivas the difference betiveen the Greek and Latin churches on this doctrine ? The famous Council of Nice, a. d. 325, while so accurately defining the doctrine of the Godhead of the Son, left the testi- mony concerning the Holy Ghost in the vague form in which it stood in the ancient creed, "in the Holy Ghost." But the heresy of JMacedonius, M^ho denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, having sprung up in the meantime, the Council of Con- stantinople, A. D. 381, completed the testimony of the Nicene Creed thus, "I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord, the Author of Life, who proceedeth from the Father." Tliere subsequently arose a controversy upon the question, whether the Scriptures do or do not represent the Holy Spirit as sustaining precisely the same relation to the Son that he does to the Father. This the Latins generally affirmed, and at the third ecclesiastical assembly at Toledo, a, d. 589, they added the word filioque (and the Son) to the Latin version of the Constantinopolitan Creed, making the clause read " Credimus in Spiritum Sanctum qui a Patre Filioque procedit." The Greek Church violently opposed this, and to this day reject it. For a short time they were satisfied Avith the compromise, "The Spirit proceeding from the Father through the Son," which was finally rejected by both parties. The Constantinopolitan Creed, as amended at the Council of Toledo, is the one now adopted 192 THE HOLY TRINITY. by the Catholic Church, and recognized by all Protestants, currently bearing the title of "Nicene Creed." 89. How may it he proved that., as far as revealed, the Spirit sustains precisely the same relation to the Son which Jie does to the Father? The epithet " Spirit " is the characteristic personal designa- tion of the third Person. Whatever is revealed of his eternal and necessary personal relation to either the Father or the Son is indicated by this word. Yet he is called the Spirit of the Son, as well as the Spirit of the Father. He possesses the same identical essence of the Son as of the Father. The Son sends and operates through the Spirit as the Father does. Wherever their Spirit is there both Father and Son are revealed, and there they exercise their power. — John xiv. 16, 26; xv. 26; xvi. 7. With the single exception of the phrase, " which pro- ceedeth from the Father" (John xv. 26), the Scriptures apply precisely the same predicates to the relation of the Spirit to the Son that they do to his relation to the Father. 90. What office does the S2yirit discharge in the economy of redemption ? In the economy of redemption, as imiversally in all the act- ings of the Godhead upon the creature, God the Son is the revealed God, God as known, and God the Spirit is that divine person who exerts his energy immediately upon and in the creature. He is styled in this relation in tlie creed to Kvpiov, xdi TO ZoooTCoiov. The Lord, and the Giver of life. For a more detailed answer see Chapter XXIV., on "The Mediatorial Office of Christ," Question 9. (III.) The Personal Properties peculiar to each of the Three Persons of the Godhead, and their Order of Operation ad extra. 91. What is the theological meaning of the word property «.s applied to the doctrine of the Trinity ? and what are severally the personal properties of each Person of the Godhead. The attrihutes of God are the perfections of the divine es- sence, and therefore common to each of the three persons, who are " the same in substance," and therefore " equal in power and glory." These have been discussed under Chapter VIII. The properties of each divine person, on the other hand, are those peculiar modes of personal subsistence whereby each divine person is constituted as such, and that peculiar order of o})eration whereby each person is distinguished from the others. The peculiar distinguishing properties which belong THE CITA RATER HYPOSTATICUS. 193 to eacli Person severally is called technically his clmrater hy- posMicus — personal character. As far as these are revealed to ns the personal properties of the Father are as follows: He is "begotten by none, and pro- ceeds from none; he is the Father of the Son, having begotten him from eternity; the Spirit proceeds from him and is his Spirit. Thus he is the first in order and in operation, sending and operating through the Son and Spirit. The personal properties of the Son are as follows: He is the Son, from eternity the only begotten of the Father. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son even as he is the Spirit of the Father, he is sent by the Father, whom he reveals: he, even as the Father, sends and operates through the Spirit. The personal properties of the Spirit are as follows: He is the Spirit of the Father and the Son, from eternity proceeding from them: he is sent by the Father and the Son, they operat- ing through him; he operates immediately upon the creature. 92. What kind of suhordination did the early un-iters attrihute to the second and third persons in relation to the first ? They held, as above shown, that the eternal generation of the Son by the Father, aiid the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son involved in both instances the derivation of essence. They illustrated their idea of this eternal and necessary act of communication by the example of a luminous body, which necessarily radiates light the whole period of its existence. Thus the Son is deiined in the words of the Nicene Creed, "God of God, Light of Light." Thus as the radiance of the sun is coeval with its existence, and of the same essence as its source, by this illustration they designed to signify their belief in the identity and consequent equality of the divine persons as to essence, and the relative subordina- tion of the second to the first, and of the third to the first and second, as to personal subsistence and consequent order of operation. 93. What is expressed by the use of the terms first, second, and third in reference to the persons of the Trinity. These terras are severally applied to the persons of the Trinity because — 1st. The Scriptures uniformly state their names in this order. 2d. The personal designations. Father and Son, and Spirit of the Father and of the Son, indicate this order of personal subsistence, od. Their respective modes of operation ad extra is always in this order. The Father sends and oper- ates through the Son, and the Father and Son send and operate 13 194 THE HOLY TRINITY. through the Spirit. The Scriptures never either directly or indirectly indicate the reverse order. As to the outward bearing of the Godhead upon the crea- ture it would appear, that the Father is revealed onl_y as he is seen in the Son, who is the eternal Logos, or divine Word, the express image of the Father's person. "No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." — John i. 18. And the Father and Son act immediately upon the creature only through the Spirit. "The Father is all the fulness of the Godhead invisible, without form, whom no man hath seen or can see." "The Son is all the fulness of the Godhead manifested." "The Spirit is all the fulness of the Godhead acting im- mediately upon the creature, and thus making manifest the Father in the image of the Son, and through the power of the Spirit." — "Higher Christian Life," by Rev. W. E. Boardman, p. 105. 94. How can the assumption of personal distinctions in the God- head he reconciled uith the divine unity ? Although this tripersonal constitution of the Godhead is altogether beyond the capacity of reason, and is ascertained to us only through a supernatural revelation, there is evidently no contradiction in the twofold proposition, that God is one, and yet Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are that one God. They are one in one sense, and threefold in an entirely different sense. The eternal, self-existent, divine essence, constituting all those divine perfections called attributes of God is, in the same sense and degree, common to all the persons. In this sense they are one. But this divine essence exists eternally as Father, and as Son, and as Holy Ghost, distinguished by personal properties. Li this sense tliey are three. We believe this, not because we understand it, but because thus God has revealed himself 95. How can the separate incarnation of the So7i he reconciled with the divine unity ? The Son is identical with the Father and Spirit as to essence, but distinct from them as to personal subsistence. In the incar- nation, the divine essence of the Son was not made man, but as a divine person he entered into a personal relation with the human nature of the man Christ Jesus. This did not consti- tute a new person, but merely introduced a new element into his eternal person. It was the personal union of the Son with HERETICAL OPLYIONS. 195 a human soul and bod}-, and not any change either in the divine essence, or in the personal relation of the Son to the Father or the Spirit. Heretical Opinions. 96. What are the three great points lohich together embrace the mystery of the Trinity as revealed in Scripture, and the apparent irreconcilability of tchich, uith each other, occasions the great objec- tion to this doctrine in the minds of heretics of cdl classes ? The three great points are as follows. Ist. There is abso- lutely but one God, but one self-existent, eternal, immutable, spiritual substance. 2d. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each ecLually this one God — are each in common constituted of the whole of this inalienable indivisible essence, having the same identical numerical essence, and the same identical attributes. od. Nevertheless Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three distinct persons, distinguished each by his several personal properties. The difficulty is, that in the case of the only created spirits of which we know any thing, every person is a separate spiritual essence, and distinct personality is definitely discriminated by numerical difference of attribute. We can not conceive how three persons can have among them but one intelligence and one will. Hence all heresies on this subject have sprung from one or other of three distinct tendencies, or efforts to disembarrass this doctrine of its apparent inconsistencies by the denial or abatement of one or other of its three constituent elements. Thus — 1st. One tendency is to cut the knot of the difficulty by denying the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the person- ality of the Holy Ghost. This makes God the Father the onlj^ divine Person and the possessor of the only divine substance. 2d. A second heretical tendency is to deny the divine unity and to maintain the co-existence of three distinct Gods, distinct in essence as well as in person. 3d. The third heretical ten- dency is to press the divine unity so far as to make Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one and the same identical Person as well as the same divine essence, admitting them only to be differ- ent names, or different aspects or functions of the one divine Person. 97. What different opinions have been held by those who deny the divinity of Christ, and either the divinity or p)ersoncdity of the Holy Ghost? 1st. That of the Humanitarians, or those who maintain that Christ is a mere Man. These in the early Church were known 196 THE HOLY TRINITY. b}^ the name of Ebionites, and Alogi — the deniers of the Logos, wliile in the IModern Church they are known as Socinians. For a statement of the History and Doctrine of the Socinians, see above, Chapter VI., Ques. 11 and 13. Those who have held that Christ is a mere man have diifered among themselves as to whether he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin or not, and as to the question of his supernatural en- dowments as a prophet, and as to the degree of honor and obedience owed from us to him. Some admit that he possessed a supernatural divine commission and qualification beyond that vouchsafed to any other prophet. Others deny the supernat- ural element altogether, and regard him as a mere man natu- rally endowed with a very superior moral and religious genius. All of this class, of course, hold that God is one Person as well as one essence, and for tlie most part they regard the term Holy Ghost as only a designation of the divine energy exer- cised in human affairs. Some of the German Rationalists, who for the most part agree with the Socinians, hold that the phrase Holy Ghost properly designates the one divine person working in the world of nature — Creation and Providence. Others hold it designates God in the church. 2d. The Gnostics, as a general class, held that the supreme God is one alike in essence and in Person, and that from him emanates different orders of spiritual beings, none of them in any proper sense God, yet all divine, since they all proceeded by way of emanation from him. These are called ^Eons. The Old Testament Jehovah, or Creator, was one of these JKons, of which class Christ was one of the greatest. The entire sura of these ^Eons constituted, in the view of the Gnostics, the Tiav TO nX7jpoo/.ta rtjs 0EuT7/rui, the entire sum of all the actual or possible self-revelations, or self-communications, of the un- approachable Godhead, which the Apostle Paul declared to be alone and fully realized in Christ. — Col. ii. 9. 3d. The earlier Nominal Trinitarians. " In tlieir construc- tion of the doctrine of the trinity, the Son is not a subsistence (^vTtooradis) in the Essence, but only an effluence {Sui'ajiui) or en- ergy issuing from it, iience they could not logically assert tlie union of the divine nature, or the very substance of the God- head with the humanity of Jesus. A merely effluent energy proceeding from the deity, and entering the humanity of Christ, would be nothing more than an indwelling inspiration kindred to that of the prophets." — Shedd's "Hist. Christ. Doc," Book III., Ch. 5, § 1. 4th. The Avians, so called from Arius, a presbyter of Alex- andria during the first part' of the fourth century, the great opponent of Athanasius. He maintained that the Godhead HERETICAL OPINIONS. 197 consists of one eternal person, who in the beginning, before all worlds, created in his own image a super-angelic being (^£Tepoov(3Lov — of a different essence), his only begotten Son, the beginning of the creation of God, by whom also he made the worlds. The first and greatest creature thus created, through the Son of God, was the Holy Ghost. In the full- ness of time this Sou became incarnate in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. 4th. The doctrine of the Semiarians. This party was so called as occupying middle ground between the Arians and the Orthodox. They held that the absolute, self-existent God was one person, but that the Son was a divine person of a glorious essence, like to (^ojnoiovdiuv'^ but not identical with (^djiioovdiov) that of the Father, and from eternity begotten by the Father by a free exercise of will and power, and therefore subordinate to and dependent upon him. This was the view first disseminated by Origen, and advocated with great power at the council of Nice by Eusebius bishop of Ceesarea, and Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia. It appears that some of the Semiarians agreed with the Arians in regarding the Holy Spirit as the first and most glo- rious creature of the Son, but that the majority regarded the words "Holy Spirit," as significant of a divine energy, or as a synonym of the word God. — See Neander's "Ch. Hist.," Tor- rey's translation. Vol. II., pp. 419, 420. 98. WJiat was tJie position of those luho sought to relieve the dif- ficulty of the doctrine by denying tJie divine unity ? These were the Tritheists, who admitted that there were three 6v6iai numerically considered, as well as three vTcodradEi? in the Godhead. They held the idea of 6v6ia (essence) by which the essence was expressed, should be understood as the mere concept of a genus, and the I'Ttodradii as an individual (a species) falling under this generic conception. "That is there are three Gods, generically one, individually distinct." John Ascusnages of Constantinople, and John Philoponus of Alexandria (of the latter part of sixth centurj^) were leaders of the Tritheists. — Smith's edition of Hagenbach's "Hist, of Doc," Vol. I., pp. 267, 268. 99. What was the position of those luho pressed the divine unity in opposition to the Tritheists so far as to make Father, Son, and Holy Ghost one Person as icell as one essence? The Monarchians, so called because they rejected the Triad and maintained the ]\Ionad, or absolute unity as to person as well as to essence in the Godhead, were of several kinds ; 198 THE HOLY TRINITY. some, as the Alogi, were very nuich the same as the modern Unitarian, which term is intended to express the same idea. Others, as Praxeas of Asia Minor, circum. a. d. 200; Noetus of Smyrna, circmn. a. d. 230, and Beryl of Bostra in Arabia, cir- cum. A. D. 250, held that this one single divine Person became incarnate in the man Christ, and hence they were called Patri- passians. "Sabellius, a presbyter of Ptolemais, who lived about the middle of the third century, adopted the notions of the ear- lier ]\Ionarchians, and maintained in opposition to the doctrine propounded by Origen and his followers, that the appellations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only so many different man- ifestations and names of one and the same divine being. He thus converted the objective and real distinction of persons (a Trinity of essence) into a merely subjective and modalistic view (the Trinity of manifestation)." — Smith's edition of Ha- genbach's "Hist, of Doctrine," Vol. I., p. 246. "They affirmed that there is only one divine Person. This one only Person conceived of in his abstract simplicity and eternity was de- nominated God the Father; but in his incarnation, he was denominated God the Son. Sometimes a somewhat different mode of apprehension and statement was employed. God in his concealed, unrevealed nature and being was denominated God the Father, and when he comes forth from the depths of his essence, creating a universe, and revealing and communi- cating himself to it, he therein takes on a different relation, and assumes another denomination; namely, God the Son, or the Logos." — Shedd's "History of Christian Doctrine," Book in., Ch. 2, § 2. 100. By what considerations may it he shown that the doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental element of the Gospel? It is not claimed that the refinements of theological spec- ulations upon this subject are essential points of faith, but simply that it is essential to salvation to believe in the three persons in one Godhead, as they are revealed to us in the Scriptures. 1st. The only true God is that God who has re- vealed himself to us in the Scriptures, and the very end of the gospel is to bring us to the knowledge of that God precisely in the aspect in which he has revealed himself. Fvery other conception of God presents a false god to the mind and con- science. There can be no mutual toleration without treason. Socinians, Arians, and Trinitarians Avorship different Gods. 2d. The Scriptures explicitly assert that the knowledge of this true God and of Jesus Christ whom he hath sent is eternal life, and that it is necessar}^ to honor the Son even as we honor the Father. — John v. 23 ; xiv. 1 ; xvii. 3 ; 1 John ii. 23 ; v. 20. THE DOCTRINE ESSENTIAL. 199 3d. In the initiatory rite of the Christian church we are baptized into the name of every several person of the Trinity. Matt, xxviii. 19. 4th. The whole plan of redemption in all its parts is founded upon it. Justification, sanctification, adoption, and all else that makes the gospel the wisdom and power of God unto salvation, can be understood only in the light of this fundamental truth. 5th. As an historical fact it is beyond dispute that in what- ever church the doctrine of the Trinity has been abandoned or obscured, every other characteristic doctrine of the gospel has gone with it.


Question: What  are  the  decrees  of  God  ?

Answer: See " Con. of Faith," chap. iii. " Larger Cat.," Q. 12, and " Shorter Cat.," Q. 7. The decree of God is his eternal, unchangeable, holy, wise, and sovereign purpose, comprehending at once all things that ever were or will be in their causes, conditions, successions, and relations, and determining their certain futurition. The several contents of this one eternal purpose are, because of the limitation of our faculties, necessarily conceived of by us in partial aspects, and in logical relations, and are therefore styled Decrees. 2. How are the acts of God classified, and to tuhich class do theologians refer the decrees ? All conceivable divine actions may be classified as follows: 1st. Those actions which are immanent and intrinsic, belong- ing essentially to the perfection of the divine nature, and which bear no reference whatever to any existence witliout the God- head. These are the acts of eternal and necessary generation, whereby the Son springs from the Father, and of eternal and necessary procession, whereby the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and all those actions whatsoever involved in the mutual society of the divine persons. 2d. Those actions which are extrinsic and transient, i. e., those free actions proceeding from God and terminating upon the creature, occurring successively in time, as God's acts in crea- tion, providence, and grace. 3d. The third class are like the first, inasmuch as they are intrinsic and immanent, essential to the perfection of the divine natm'e and permanent states of the divine mind, but they differ, on the other hand, from the first class, inasmuch as they have respect to the whole dependent creation exterior to the God- head. These are the eternal and immutable decrees of God re- Bpecting all beings and events whatsoever exterior to himself THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE SUBJECT. 201 3. Wliat is the essential nature and source of the difficulties which oppress the human reason ivhen speculating on this subject? These difficulties all have their ground in the perfectly in- ■Bcrutable relations of the eternal to the temporal, of the infi- nite to the finite, of God's absolute sovereignty to man's free agency, and of the unquestionable fact of the origination of sin to the holiness, goodness, wisdom, and power of God. They are peculiar to no system of theology, but press equally upon any s^'stem which acknowledges the existence and moral gov- ernment of God, and the moral agency of 7nan. They have perplexed heathen philosophers of old, and deists in modern times, and Socinians, Pelagians, and Arminians just as sorely as Calvinists. 4. From what fixed point of view are we to start in the study of this subject ? A self-existent, independent, all-perfect, and unchangeable God, existing alone from eternity, began to create the universe physical and moral in an absolute vacuum, moved to do so from motives and with reference to ends, and according to ideas and plans, Avholely interior and self-prompted. Also, if God governs the universe, he must, as an intelligent being, govern it according to a plan ; and this plan must be perfect in its comprehension, reaching to all details. If he has a plan now, he must have had the same plan unchanged from the be- ginning. The decree of God therefore is the act of an infinite, absolute, eternal, unchangeable, and sovereign person, com- prehending a plan including all his works of all kinds, great and small, from the beginning of creation to an unending eter- nity. It must therefore be incomprehensible, and it can not be conditioned by any thing exterior to God himself — since it was matured before any thing exterior to him existed, and hence it- self embraces and determines all these supposed exterior things and all the conditions of them forever. 5. What is the distinction between forehioidedrie and foreordi- nation, and what is tJie general position of the Socinians on this point ? Foreknowledge is an act of the infinite intelligence of God, knowing from all eternity, without change, the certain futuri- tion of all events of every class whatsoever that ever will come to pass. Foreordination is an act of the infinitely intelligent, fore- knowing, righteous, and benevolent will of God from all eter- nity determining the certain futurition of all events of every class 202 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. whatsoever that come to pass. Foreknowledge recognizes the certain futurition of events, while foreordination makes them certainly future. Socinians admit that the foreknowledge and the foreordi- nation of God are co-extensive, but they limit both to such ev^ents in creation and providence as God has determined to do by his own immediate agency, or to bring about through the agency of such second causes as act under the law of necessity. They deny that God has either foreordained or foreknown the voluntary actions of free agents, which from their verj^ nature are contingent, and not objects of knowledge until alter their occurrence.


Question: What  is  the  position  of  the  Arminians  on  tlm  subject  ?

Answer: The Arminiaus agree with the Socinians in denying that God foreordains the voluntary acts of free agents, or in any way whatever determines them beforehand to be certainly future. But they difier from the Socinians and agree with us in holding that the certain foreknowledge of God extends equally to all events, as well to those in their nature con- tingent, as to those produced by second causes acting under the law of necessity. They hold that he foresees with absolute certainty from all eternity the futurition of the free actions of moral agents, and that he embraces and adjusts them in his eternal plan — which plan embraces all things, the free actions of moral agents as simply foreseen, and the actions of neces- sary agents as absolutely foreordained. 7. State under several heads the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject. 1st. God foreknows all events as certainly future because he has decreed them and thus made them certainly future. 2d. God's decree relates equally to all future events of every kind, to the free actions of moral agents, as Avell as to action of necessary agents, to sinful as well as morally right actions. 3d. Some things God has eternally decreed to do himself im- mediately, e. r/., creation; other things to bring to pass through the action of second causes acting under a law of necessity, and again other things he has decreed to prompt or to permit free agents to do in the exercise of their free agency; yet the one class of events is rendered by the decree as certainly future as the other. 4th. God has decreed ends as well as means, causes as well as effects, conditions and instrumentalities as well as the events which depend upon tliem. 5th. God's decree determines only the certain futurition of STATEMENT OF DOCTRINE. 203 events, it directly effects or causes no event. But the decree itself provides in every case that the event shall be effected by causes acting in a manner perfectly consistent with the nature of the event in question. Thus in the case of every free act of a moral agent the decree itself provides at the same time — (a.) That the agent shall be a free agent. (6.) That his antecedents and all the antecedents of the act in question shall be what they are. (c.) That all the present condifions of the act shall be what they are. (cl ) That the act shall be perfectly spontaneous and free on the part of the agent, (e.) That it shall be certainly future. 6th. God's purposes relating to all events of every kind constitute one single, all-comprehensive intention comprehend- ing all events, the free as free, the necessary as necessary, together with all their causes, conditions, and relations, as one indiv'isible system of things, every link of which is essential to the integrity of the whole. 8. Show that as respects the eternal plan of an omniscient and omnipotent Creator, foreknowledge is eqidvalent to foreordination. God possessing infinite foreknoAvledge and power, existed alone from eternity ; and in time, self-prompted, began to create in an absolute vacuum. Whatever limiting causes or condi- tions afterwards exist were first intentionally brought into being by himself, with perfect foreknowledge of their nature, relations, and results. If God then foreseeing that if he cre- ated a certain free agent and placed him in certain relations he would freely act in a certain way, and yet with that knowledge proceeded to create that very free agent and put him in precisely those positions, God would, in so doing, obviously predetermine the certain futurition of tlie act foreseen. God can never in his w^ork be rediiced to a choice of evils, because the entire system, and each particular end and cause, and condition, was clearly foreseen and by deliberate choice admitted by himself 9. What reasons may he assigned for contemplating the decrees of God as one all-comprehensive intention ? 1st. Because as shown below it is an eternal act, and ceternitas est nna, individua et tota simid. 2d. Because every event that actually occurs in the system of things is interlaced with all other events in endless involu- tion. ISFo event is isolated. The color of the flower and the nest of the bird are related to the whole material universe. Even in our ignorance we can trace a chemical fact as related to myriad other facts, classified under the heads of mechanics, electricity, and light and life. 204 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. 3d. God decrees events as they actually occur, L e., events produced by causes, and depending upon conditions. The decree that determines the event can not leave out the cause or the condition upon which it depends. But the cause of one event, is the effect of another, and every event in the universe is more immediately or remotely the condition of every other, so that an eternal purpose on the part of God must be one all- comprehensive act. As our minds are finite, as it is impossible for us to embrace in one act of intelligent comprehension an infinite number of events in all their several relations and bearings, we necessarily contemplate events in partial groups, and we conceive of the purpose of God relating to them as distinct successive acts. Hence the Scriptures speak of the counsels, the purposes, and the judgments of God in the plural, and in order to indicate the intended relation of one event to another, they represent God as purposing one event, as the means or condition upon which another is suspended. This is all true because these events do have these relations to one another, but they all alike fall witliin, and none remain without, that one eternal design of God which comprehends equally all causes and all effects, all events and all conditions. All the speculative errors of men on this subject, spring from the tendency of the human mind to confine attention to one fragment of God's eternal purpose, and to regard it as isolated from the rest. The Decree of God separates no event from its causes or conditions any more than we find them separated in nature. We are as much unable to take in by one comj^rehen- sive act of intelligence all the works of God in nature as we are to take in all his decrees. We are forced to study his works part by part. But no intelligent student of nature thinks that any event is isolated. So we are forced to study his decrees part by part, but no intelligent theologian should suppose that there are any broken links or imperfect connection eitlier here or there.


Question: Hoiu  may  it  he  proved  that  the  decrees  of  God  are  eteomal  ?

Answer: 1st. As God is infinite, he is necessarily eternal and un- changeable, from eternity infinite in wisdom and knowledge, and absolutely independent in thought and pin-pose of every creature. There can never be any addition to his wisdom, nor surprise to his foreknowledge, nor resistance to his power, and therefore there never can be any occasion to reverse or modify that infinitely wise and righteous purpose which, from the per- fection of his nature, he formed from eternity. 2d. It is asserted in Scripture. — (aTr' di^voi) Acts xv. 18; PROOF OF DOCTRINE. 205 {jtfto uaraftoXrji h66/.(ov) Epli. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20; (aV dpx^ji) 2 Thes. ii. 13; ijrpo xpoToov diGoviGov^ 2 Tim. i. 9; (tt/sJ tgjv dtoovooi^^ 1 Cor. ii. 7; Eph. iii. 11, etc. 11. Prove that the decrees are immutable. 1st. This is certain from the fact that they are eternal, as just shown. 2d. From the fact that God is eternal, absolute, immutable, and all-perfect in wisdom and power. 3d. It is taught in Scripture. — Ps. xxxiii. 11; Is. xlvi. 9, etc. 12. Prove from reason that the decrees of God comprehend all events. As shown above no event is isolated. If one event is decreed absolutely all events must therefore be determined with it. If one event is left indeterminate all future events will be left in greater or less degrees indeterminate with it, 13. Prove the same from Scripture. 1st. They afHrm that the whole system in general is em- braced in the divine decrees. — Eph. i. 11; Acts xvii. 26; Dan. iv. 34, 35. 2d. They affirm the same of fortuitous events. — Prov. xvi. 33; Matt. X. 29, 30. 3d. Of the free actions of men. — Eph. ii. 10, 11; Phil. ii. 13. 4th. Even of the wicked actions of men. " Him, being de- livered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and with wicked hands have crucified and slain." — Acts ii. 23. " For of a truth against thy Holy Child whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before- hand to be done." — Acts iv. 27, 28; Acts xiii. 29; 1 Peter ii. 8; Jude 4; Rev. xvii. 17. As to the history of Joseph, compare Gen. xxxvii. 28 with Gen. xlv. 7, 8, and 1. 20 : " So now it was not you that sent me hither but God." " But as for you, ye thought evil against me, but God meant it unto good." — See also Ps. xvii. 13, 14, and Is. x. 5 and 15, etc. 14. Prove the universality of God's decrees from lorovidence. It follows from the eternity, immutability, and infinite wis- dom, foreknowledge, and power of God, that his temporal work- ing in providence must in all things proceed according to his eternal piu'pose. — Eph. i. 11, and Acts xv. 18. But both Script- ure and reason alike teach us that the providential government of God comprehends all things in heaven and on earth as a 206 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. ivliole.1 and every event in detail. — Prov. xvi. 33 ; Dan. iv. 34, 35 ; :\ratt. X. 29, 30. 15. Prove this doctrine from prophecy. God has in the Scriptures foretold the certain occnrrence of many events, including; the free actions of men, which have afterwards surely come to pass. Now the ground of prophecy is foreknowledge, and the foundation of the foreknowledge of an event as certainly future, is God's decree that made it future. The eternal immutability of the decree is the only foundation of the infallibility either of the foreknowledge or of the prophecy. But if God has decreed certain future events, he must also have included in that decree all of their causes, conditions, co-ordi- nates, and consequences. No event is isolated; to make one certainly future implies the determination of the whole conca- tenation of causes and effects which constitute the universe.


Question: In  ivhat  sense  are  tJie  decrees  of  God  free?

Answer: The decrees of God are free in the sense that in decreeing he was solely actuated by his own infinitely wise, righteous, and benevolent good pleasure. He has always chosen as he pleased, and he has always pleased consistently with the per- fection of his nature.


Question: In  ivhat  sense  are  the  decrees  of  God  sovereign?

Answer: They are sovereign in the sense that while they determine absolutely Avhatever occurs without God, their whole reason and motive is within the divine nature, and they are neither suggested nor occasioned by, nor conditioned upon any thing Avhatsoever without him. 18. What is the distinction hetiveen absolute and conditional decrees ? An absolute decree is one which, while it may include con- ditions, is suspended upon no condition, i. e.. it makes the event decreed, of whatever kind, whether of mechanical necessity or of voluntary agency, certainly future, together Avith all the causes and conditions, of whatever nature, upon Avhich the event depends. A conditional decree is one which decrees that an event shall happen upon the condition that some other event, possi- ble but uncertain (not decreed), shall actually occur. The Socinians denied that the free actions of men, being intrinsically uncertain, are the objects of knowledge, and there- foi*e affirmed that they are not foreknown by God. They held that God decreed absolutely to create the human race, and NO COAWITIONAL DECREES. 207 after Adam sinned he decreed absolutely to save all repenting and believing sinners, yet that he decreed nothing concerning the sinning nor the salvation of individual men. I'he Arniinians, admitting that God certainl}' foreknows the acts of free agents as well as all other events, maintain that he absolutely decreed to create man, and foreseeing that man would sin he absolutely decreed to provide a salvation for all, and actually to save all that repent and believe, but that he conditionally decreed to save individual men on the condition, foreseen but not foreordained, of their faith and obedience. 19. What are the objections to attributing conditional decrees to God? Calvinists admit that the all-comprehensive decree of God determines all events according to their inherent nature, the actions of free agents as free, and the operation of necessary causes, necessarily. It also comprehends the whole system of causes and effects of every kind ; of the motives and conditions of free actions, as well as the necessary causes of necessary events. God decreed salvation upon the condition of faith, yet in the very same act he decreed the faith of those persons whose salvation he has determined. "Whom he Aidi j'iredesti- nate, them he also called.'^ Thus his decree from the beginning embraced and provided for the free agency of man, as well as the regular procedures of nature, according to established laws. Thus also his covenants, or conditional promises, which he makes in time, are in all their parts the execution of his eter- nal purpose, which comprehended the promise, and the con- dition in their several places as means to the end. But that the decree of God can be regarded as suspended upon condi- tions which are not themselves determined by the decree is evidentl}^ impossible. 1st. This decree has been shown above (Questions 3-7) to be eternal and all-comprehensive. A condition implies liability to change. The whole universe forming one system, if one part is contingent the whole must be contingent, for if one condi- tion failed the whole concatenation of causes and effects would be deranged. If the Arminian should rejoin that although God did not foreordain the free acts of men, yet he infallibly fore- knew and provided for them, and therefore his plans can not fail; then the Calvinist replies that if God foresaw that a given man, in given circumstances, would act at a given juncture in a certain way, then God in decreeing to create that very man and place him in those very circumstances, at that very junc- tiire, did foreordain the certain futurition of that very event, and of all its consequences. That God's decree is immutable and 208 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. does not depend upon uncertain conditions, is proved (1) from its eternity, (2) from the direct assertions of Scripture. — Isa. xiv. 24, 27; xlvi. 10; Ps. xxxiii. 11; Prov. xix. 21; Rom. ix. 11; Eph. iii. 11. 2d. Tlie foreknowledge of God, as Arminians admit, is eter- nal and certain, and embraces all events, free as well as neces- sary. But, (1) as shown in the preceding paragraph, this foreknowledge involves foreordination, and (2) certainty in the foreknowledge implies certainty in the event; certainty implies determination; determination leaves us to choose be- tween the decree of an infinitely wise, righteous, and benevo- lent God, and a blind fate. 3d. A conditional decree would subvert the sovereignty of God and make him, as to the administration of his whole gov- ernment and the execution of all his plans, dependent upon the uncontrollable actions of his own creatures. But the decrees of God are sovereign. — Isa. xl. 13, 14; Dan. iv. 35; Rom. ix. 15-18. 4th. His decree is declared to depend upon his own " good pleasure," and the "counsel of his own will." — Eph. i. 5, 11; Rom. ix. 11; Matt. xi. 25, 26. 5th. The decree of God includes the means and conditions. 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. i. 4. 6th. His decree absolutely determines the free actions of men. — Acts iv. 27, 28 ; Eph. ii. 10. 7th. God himself works in his people that faith and obedi- ence which are called the conditions of their salvation. — Phil, ii. 13; Eph. ii. 8; 2 Tim. ii. 25. 20. How far are tM decrees of God efficacious and how far 2')ermissive ? All the decrees of God are equally efficacious in the sense that they all infallibly determine the certain futurition of the event decreed. Theologians, however, classify the decrees of God thus: 1st. As efficacious in as far as they respect those events which he has determined to effect through necessary causes, or in his own immediate agency. 2d. As permissive, as far as they respect those events which he has determined to allow dependent free agents to effect. 21. Hoio may it be 2)roved that the decree of God renders the event certain ? 1st. From the nature of the decree itself as sovereign and unchangeable (see above). 2d. From the essential nature of God in his relation to his creation, as an iiihnitely wise and powerful sovereign. 3d. The foreknowledge of God regards future events as cer- DIFFERS FROM DOCTRINE OF FATE. 209 tain. Tlie ground of this certainty must be either in God, or in the events themselves, Avhich last is fatalism. 4th. The Scriptures ascribe a certainty of futurition to the events decreed. There is a needs-be that the event should happen "as it was determined." — Luke xviii. 31-33; xxiv. 46; Acts ii. 23; xiii. 29; 1 Cor. xi. 19; Matt. xvi. 21. 22. Hoio does this doctrine, that Gods universal decree renders the occurrence of all future events certain, differ from the ancient doctrine of faith ? The Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees agrees with Fatalism only at one point, i. e., in maintaining that the events in ques- tion are certainly future. But the Arminian doctrine of divine foreknowledge does precisely the same thing. In every other point our doctrine differs from the heathen doctrine of Fate. Fatalism supposes all events to be certainly determined by a universal law of necessary causation, acting blindly and by a simple unintelligent force effecting its end irresistil)ly and irre- spective of the free wills of the free agents involved. There Avas no room left for final ends or purposes, no place for motive or choice, no means or conditions, but a simple evolution of necessity. On the other hand the Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees postu- lates the infinite all-comprehensive plan of an infinitely wise, righteous, poAverful, and benevolent Father, Avhose plan is de- termined not by mere will, but according to the '"'' counsel of his will,'' securing the best ends, and adopting the best means in order to attain those ends — and whose plan is not executed by mere force, but through the instrumentality of all classes of second causes, free as well as necessary, each pre-adapted to its place and function, and each acting without constraint accord- ing to its nature. There is an infinite difference between a machine and a man, between the operation of motives, intelligence, free choice, and the mechanical forces which act upon matter. There is pre- cisely the same difference between the system of divine decrees, and the heathen doctrine of fate. 23. What objection to this doctrine of tinconditioncd decrees is derived from the ad.mitted fact of mans free agency ? Objection. — Foreknowledge implies the certainty of the event. The decree of God implies that he has determined it to be certain. But that he has determined' it to be certain implies, upon the part of God, an efficient agency in bringing about that event which is inconsistent Avith the free agency of man. 210 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. "We answer: It is evidently only the execution of tlie decree, and not the decree itself, which can interfere with the free agency of man. On the general subject of the method in wliich God executes his decrees, see below, the chapters on Providence, Effectual Calling, and Regeneration. We have here room only for the following general statement: 1st. The Scriptures attribute all that is good in man to God; these " he works in us both to will and to do of his good pleas- ure." All the sins which men commit tlie Scriptures attribute wholly to the man himself. Yet God's permissive decree does truly determine the certain futurition of the act; because God knowing certainly that the man in question would in the given circumstances so act, did place that very man in precisely those circumstances that he should so act. But in neither case, whether in working the good in us, or in placing us where we will certainly do the wrong, does God in executing his purpose ever violate or restrict the pei-fect freedom of the agent. 2d. We have the fact distinctly revealed that God has de- creed the free acts of men, and yet that the actors were none the less responsible, and consequently none the less free in their acts. — Acts ii. 23; iii. 18; iv. 27, 28; Gen. 1. 20, etc. We never can understand lioiu the infinite God acts upon the finite spirit of man, but it is none the less our duty to believe. 3d. According to that theory of the will which makes the freedom of man to consist in the liberty of indifference, i. e., that the will acts in every case of choice in a state of perfect equi- librium equally independent of all motives for or against, and just as free to choose in opposition to all desires as in harmony with them, it is evident that the very essence of liberty consists in uncertainty. If this be the true theory of the will, God could not execute his decrees without violating the liberty of the agent, aiid certain foreknowdedge would be impossible. But as shown below, in Chapter XV., the true theory of the will is that the liberty of the agent consists in his acting in each case as, upon the whole, he pleases, i. e., according to the dispositions and desires of his heart, under the immediate view which his reason takes of the case. These dispositions and desires are determined in their turn by the character of the agent in relation to his circumstances, which character and circumstances are surely not beyond the control of the infinite God. 24. What is meant hy those icho teach that God is the atdhor of sin ? Many reasoners of a Pantheistic tendency, e. g., Dr. Emmons, maintain that as God is infinite in sovereignty, and by his de- DOES NOT MAKE GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN. 211 cree determines, so by his providence lie effects every thing which comes to pass, so that he is actually the only real agent in the universe. Still they religiously hold that God is an in- finitely holy agent in eftectiiig that which, producedyVom God, is righteous, but, produced in us, is sin.


Question: Hoio  may  it  he  shown  that  God  is  not  the  author  of  sin?

Answer: The admission of sin into the creation of an infinitely Avise, powerful, and holy God is a great mystery, of which no explana- tion can be given. But that God can not be the author of sin is proved — 1st. From the nature of sin, which is, as to its essence, avo/.a'a, want of conformity to law, and disobedience to the Lawgiver. 2d. From the nature of God, who is as to essence holy, and in the administration of his kingdom always forbids and pun- ishes sin. 3d. From the nature of man, who is a responsible free agent who originates his own acts. The Scriptures always attribute to divine grace the good actions, and to the evil heart the sinful actions of men. 26. Hoio may it he shown that the doctrine of unconditional decrees does not rejiresent God as the author of sin? The whole difficulty lies in the awful fact that sin exists. If God foresaw it and yet created the agent, and placed him in the very circumstances under which he did foresee the sin Avould be committed, then he did predetermine it. If he did not fore- see it, or, foreseeing it, could not prevent it, then he is not infinite in knowledge and in power, but is surprised and pre- vented by his creatures. The doctrine of iniconditional decrees presents no special difficulty. It represents God as decreeing that the sin shall eventuate as the free act of the sinner, and not as by any form of co-action causing, nor by any form of temptation inducing, him to sin. 27. What is the ohjection to this doctrine derived from the use of means ? This is the most common form of objection in the mouths of ignorant and irreligious people. If an immutable decree makes all future events certain, ''if ivhat is to be, will he,'' then it follows that no means upon our part can avoid the result, nor can anj^ means be necessary to secure it. Hence as the use of means is commanded by God, and instinctively natural to man, since many events have been effected by their use, and many more in the future evidently 212 THE DECREES OF GOD IN GENERAL. depend upon tliem, it follows that God has not rendered certain any of those events which depend upon the use of means on the part of men.


Question: Wliat  is  the  ground  upon  luhich  the  use  of  means  is  founded?

Answer: This use is founded upon the command of God, and upon that fitness in the means to secure the end desired, which our instincts, our intelligence, and our experience disclose to us. But neither the fitness nor the efiiciency of the means to se- cure the end, reside inherently and independently in the means themselves, but were originally established and are now sus- tained by God himself; and in the Avorking of all means God always presides and directs providentially. This is necessarily involved in any Cliristian theory of Providence, although we can never explicate the relative action (concursus) of God on man, the infinite upon the finite. 29. Hoiv may it he sJioivn that the doctrine of decrees does not afford a rational ground of discovragement in the use of means ? This difficulty (stated above, Question 27) rests entirely in a habit of isolating one part of God's eternal decree from the whole (see Question 7), and in confounding the Christian doc- trine of decrees with the heathen doctrine of fate (see Ques. 22.) But when God decreed an event he made it certainly future, not as isolated from other events, or as independent of all means and agents, but as dependent upon means and upon agents freely using those means. The same decree which makes the event certain, also determines the mode by which it shall be effected, and comprehends the means with the ends. This eternal, all-comprehensive act embraces all exist- ence through all duration, and all space as one system, and at once provides for the whole in all its parts, and for all the parts in all their relations to one another and to the whole. An event, therefore, may be certain in respect to God's decree and foreknowledge, and at the same time truly contingent in tlie apprehension of man, and in its relation to the means upon which it depends. 30. What are the distinctions to he home in mind hetioeen the ohjections to the proof of a doctrine, and ohjections to the doctrine when proved ? Reasonable objections to the evidence. Scriptural or other- wise, upon which the claims of any doctrine is based, are evi- dently legitimate. These objections against the proof estab- lishing the truth of the doctrine ought always to be allowed their full weight. But when once the doctrine has been proved PRACTICAL EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE. 213 to be taught in Scripture objections levelled against lY, obviously have no weight at all until they amount to a sufficient force to prove that the Scriptures themselves are not the word of God. Before they reach that measure, objectiojis levelled against the doctrine itself, which do not affect the evidence upon which it rests (and most of the objections to the Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees are of this order) oiily illustrate the obvious truth that the finite mind of man can not fully comprehend the matters partially revealed and partially concealed in the word of God.


Question: What  are  tlm  proper  practical  effects  of  this  doctriiie  ?

Answer: Humility, in view of the infinite greatness and sovereignty of God, and of the dependence of man. Confidence and im- plicit reliance upon the wisdom, righteousness, goodness, and immutability of God's purposes, and cheerful obedience to his commandments; always remembering that God's precepts, as distinctly revealed, and not his decrees, are the rule of our duty.


Question: To  lohom  is  election  referred  in  the  Scriptures  ?

Answer: The eternal decree, as a whole, and in all its parts, is doubt- less the concurrent act of all the three persons of the Trinity, in their perfect oneness of counsel and will. But in the economy of salvation, as revealed to us, the act of sovereign election is specially attributed to the Father, as his personal part, even as redemption is attributed to the Son, and sanctification to the Spirit. — John xvii. 6, 9; vi. 64, 65; 1 Thess. V. 9. 6. State that theory of Predestination designated hy its advo- cates the "Theory of National Election." This is the theory that the only election spoken of in the Bible concerning the salvation of men consists of the divine pre- destination of communities and nations to the knowledge of the true religion and the external privileges of the gospel. This 216 * PREDESTINATION. form of election, which nndoubtedly represents a great gospel fact, is eminently illustrated in the case of the Jews. This is the view advocated by Archbishop Sumner in his work on "Apostolic Preaching," quoted b}^ Dr. Cunningham. 7. Staie the theory styled hy its advocates the '■'Theory of Ecclesi- astical Inclividucdism." The view advocated by Mr. Stanley Faber in his " Primi- tive Doctrine of Election," and by Archbishop Whately in his "Essays on some of the Difficulties in the Writings of the Apostle Paul," and others, is styled the doctrine of "Ecclesias- tical Individualism," and it involves the affirmation that God predetermines the relation of individual men to the outward church and the means of grace. Thus by birth and subsequent providences he casts the lot of some men in the most favorable, and of others in the least favorable circumstances.


Question: What  is  the  Armirdan  doctrine  of  election  ?

Answer: The Arminians admit the foreknowledge of God, but they deny his absolute foreordination as it relates to the salvation of individuals. Their distinguishing doctrine is that God did not eternally make choice of certain persons and ordain their salvation, but that he made choice of certain characters, as holi- ness and faith and perseverance; or of certain classes of men who possess those characters, e. g., believers who persevere imto the end. Since they admit that God foreknows from eternity with absolute certainty precisely what individuals will repent and believe and persevere therein to the end, it follows that their doctrine admits of the statement that God eternally predesti- nated certain persons, who he foresaw would repent and be- lieve and persevere to life and salvation, on the ground of that faith and perseverance thus foreseen. 9. Point out tlue several principles in lohich the above-mentioned views agree and 'wherein they differ. The theories of " National Election " and of " Ecclesiastical Individualism," both teach universally admitted facts, namely that God does predestinate individuals and communities and nations to the external privileges of the gospel and the use of the means of grace. This neither any Arminian nor any Cal- vinist will deny. But these theories are both vicious and both identical with the Arminian theory, in that they deny that God unconditionally predestinates either the free actions or the ulti- mate salvation of individuals. They admit that he gives cer- DIFFERENT THEORIES CONTRASTED' 217 tain men a better chance tlian others, but hold that each man's ultimate fate is not determined by God's decree, but left de- pendent upon the free wills of the men themselves. Neverthe- less, while these theories are all consistently Arminian in fun- damental principle, yet they differ in the manner in which they attempt to bring the Scriptures concerned into harmony witii that system. These theories differ among themselves as to the obje-ds, the ends, and the grounds of this election. As to the objects of the election spoken of in Scripture, the Armin- ian, the Calvinistic, and "Ecclesiastical Individualism" theories agree in making them individuals. The theory of " National Election " makes them nations or communities. As to the end of this election the Calvinistic and Arminian theories make it the eternal salvation of the individuals elected. The theories of "National Election" and of "Ecclesiastical Individualism" make it admission to the privilege of the means of grace. As to the ground of this election spoken of in the Scripture, ad- vocates of the Calvinistic, the "National Election," and the " Ecclesiastical Individualism " theories agree in making it the sovereign good pleasure of God, while the Arminians hold it is conditioned upon the faith, repentance, and perseverance certainly foreseen in each individual case. It is obvious that the Calvinistic Doctrine of Decrees in- cludes the absolute election of both individuals and of commu- nities and nations to the use of the means of grace and the external advantages of the Church. It is also obvious that the admission of the principle of absolute election, as far as this, must be made by all Arminians as well as Calvinists, and hence this admission alone does not discriminate between the two great contesting systems. The only question which touches the true matter in debate is. What is the ground of the eternal predestination of individuals to salvation ? Is it the foreseen faith and repentance of the individuals themselves, or the sovereign good pleasure of God ? Every Christian must take one side or the other of this question. If he takes the side which makes foreseen faith the ground, he is an Arminian no matter what else he holds. If he takes the side which makes the good pleasure of God the ground, he is a Calvinist. This division among themselves, and this alternate agree- ment with and difference from the Calvinistic positions on this subject, is a very suggestive illustration of the extreme diffi- culty the advocates of Arminian principles have in accommo- dating the words of Scripture to their doctrine. In a polemic point of view the Calvinists have the capital advantage of being able to divide their opponents, and to refute them in detail. 218 PREDESTINA TION. 10. State tlie three points involved in the Calvinistic doctrine on this subject. Calviiiists hold, as shown in the preceding chapter, that God's Decrees are absohite and relate to all classes of events whatsoever. They therefore maintain that while nations, com- munities, and individuals are predestined absolutely to all of ever}^ kind of good and bad that befalls them, nevertheless the Scriptures teacii specifically an election (1) of individuals, (2) to grace and salvation, (3) founded not upon the foreseen faith of the persons elected, but upon the sovereign good pleasure of God alone. 11. State the P resnmjjtion of the truth of the above arising from the fact that impartial infidel and rationcdistic interpreters admit that the letter of the Scriptures can be interpreted only in a Cal- vinistic sense. Besides the presumption in favor of Calvinism arising from the fact above stated, that anti-Calvinistic interpreters of the Scripture are reduced to all kinds of various hypotheses in order to avoid the obvious force of the Scriptural testimony upon the subject, we now cite the additional presumption, arising from the fact that rationalists and infidels generally, who agree with Arminians in their intense opposition to Calvinistic Principles, yet not being restrained by faith in the inspiration of the Bible, are frank enough to confess that the Book can be fairly inter- preted oidy in a Calvinistic sense. This is thus the impartial testimony of an enemy. Wegscheider in his '■'•Institutiones TJie- olof/ice Christiana' Boffmatica','' Pt. III., Ch. iii., § 145,* the high- est authority as to the results of German Rationalists in Dog- matic theology, says that the passages in question do teach Calvinistic doctrine, but that Paul was misled by the crude and erroneous notions prevalent in that age, and especially by the narrow spirit of Jewish particularism. See also Gibbon's " Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," Chapter xxxiii., Note 31. — "Perhaps a reasoner still more independent may smile in his turn, when he peruses an Arminian Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans." 12. Prove from Scripture that the subjects of election are indi- viduals and that the end of election is eternal life. 1st. They are always spoken of as individuals, and the elec- tion of whicli they are tiie subjects is always set forth as having grace or glory as its end. — Acts xiii. 48; Eph. i. 4; 2 Thess. ii. 13. 2d. The elect are in Scripture explicitly distiiiguished from the * Dr. Wm. Cuuuingliam, "Hist. Theo.," Vol. II., j). 4G3. THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 219 mass of the visible Church, and hence their election could not have been merely to the external privileges of that Churcii. — Rom. xi. 7. 3d, The names of the elect are said " to be written in heaven" and to be in "the book of life." — Heb. xii. 23; Phil. iv. 3. 4th. The blessings which it is explicitly declared are secured by this election are gracious and saving, the}^ are the elements and results of salvation, inseparable from it, and pertain not to nations but to individuals as their subjects, e. r/., "adoption of sons," "to be conformed to the image of his Son," etc. — Rom. viii. 29; Eph. i. 5; 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Thess. v. 9; Rom. ix. 15, 16. 13. Show tliat this election is not founded on ivorks tvhether foreseen or not. This follows — 1st. From the general doctrine of Decrees which has been established in the last chapter. If God's decrees relate to and determine ^11 events of every class, it follows that no undecreed events remain to condition his de- cree or any element thereof, and also that he has decreed faith and repentance as well as the salvation which is conditioned upon them. 2d. It is expressly declared in Scripture that this election is not conditioned upon works of any kind. — Rom. xi. 4-7 ; 2 Tim. i. 9; Rom. ix. 11. 14. Shoio that in Scripture it is hahituaVy declared, to he founded on " tlic good pleasure of God" and " the counsel of his oivn loill." Eph. i. 5-11; 2 Tim. i. 9; John xv. 16, 19; Matt. xi. 25, 26; Rom. ix. 10-18. 15. State the argument derived from the fact that ^\fcdth" " re- pentance," and ^'■evangelical obedience" are said to he the fruits of the Election. It is self-evident that the same actions can not be both the grounds upon which election rests, and the fruits in whicii that election is designed to result. Since the Bible teaches that "faith," "repentance," and "evangelical obedience" are the latter, they can not be the former. The Scriptures do so teach in Eph. i. 4. "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world thcd loe should he holy, and without blame before him in love." — 2 Thess. ii. 13; 1 Pet. i. 2; Eph. ii. 10. 16. The same from the fact that faith and repentance are said to be the gifts of God. If faith and repentance are the "gifts of God," then a man's possessing them results from God's act. If it results from God's 220 PREDESTINATION. act it must result from his eternal purpose. If they be the re- sults of his purpose, they can not be the conditions upon which that purpose is suspended. They are affirmed to be the " gifts of God " in Eph. ii. 8 ; Acts v. 3i ; 1 Cor. iv. 7. 17. State tlie argument derived from what tJie Scriptures teach as to the nature and extent of innate depravity and inability. The teaching of Scripture on these heads will be found stated and established in Chapters XIX. and XX. Now if men are born into the world with an antecedent prevailing tendency in their nature to sin, and they are ever, until regen- erated by the Spirit of God, totally and inalienably averse to and incapable of all good, it follows that unregenerate human nature is incapable either of tending to or of perfecting faith and repentance as the conditions required. If election is con- ditioned upon faith and repentance, then the man must produce his own faith and repentance, or help to produce them. But if human nature can neither produce nor iielp to produce them, it follows either that no man can be elected, or that faith and repentance can not be the condition of election. 18. Stcde the same from what the Scriptures teach of the nature and necessity of regeneration. In Chapter XXIX. it will be proved that the Scriptures teach (1) that regeneration is an act of God; (2) that with respect to that act the soul is passive ; (3) that it is absolutely necessary in the case of every living man. Hence it follows that if it be in no sense man's work, but in every sense God's act alone, it can not be the condition upon which God's purpose is suspended, but an event determined by that purpose. 19. Show that the Scriptures teach that all the elect believe, and that ONLY the elect believe. All the elect believe.— John x. 16, 27-29; John vi. 37-39; John xvii. 2, 9, 24. And only the elect believe. — John x. 26. And those who believe do so because they are elect. — Acts xiii. 48, and ii. 47. 20. What argument is to be drawn fro^n the fact that all evan- geliccd Christians of every theological school express the sentiments proper to the Calvinistic doctrine of unconditional election in aU their prayers and hymns ? That form of doctrine must be false which can not be con- sistently embodied in personal religious experience and in devo- tion. That form of doctrine must be true which all Christians of all theoretical opinions always find themselves obliged to THE DOCTRINE PROVED. 221 express when they come to commune with God. Now all the psalms arid hymns and prayers, written and spontaneous, of all evangelical Christians, embody the principles and breathe the spirit of Calvinism. They all pray God to make men repent and believe, to come to and to receive the Savioin-. If God gives all men common and sufficient grace, and if the reason why one man repents, is that he makes good use of that grace, and the reason another does not believe, is that he does not use that grace, if the only cause of difference is in the men, it follows that we ought to pray men to convert themselves, i. e., to make themselves to differ. Bat all agree in asking God to save us, and in giving him all the thanks when it is done. 21. Sliow that Paul must have held our position on this subject from the nature of the objections made against his doctrine, and from the ansiuers he gave them. Paul's doctrine is identical with the Calvinistic view. 1st. Because he expressly teaches it. 2d. Because the objections he notices as brought against his doctrine are the same as those brought against ours. The design of the whole passage is to prove God's sovereign right to cast off the Jews as a peculiar people, and to call all men indiscriminately by the gospel. This, he argues, 1st, that God's ancient promises embraced not the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but the spir- itual seed. 2d. That " God is perfectly sovereign in the distri- bution of his favors." But against this doctrine of divine sovereignty two objec- tions are introduced and answered by Paul. 1st. It is unjust. for God thus of his mere good pleasure to show mercy to one and to reject another, v. 14. This precise objection is made against our doctrine at the present time also. " It represents the most holy God as worse than the devil, as more false, more cruel, and more unjust." — " Methodist Doc- trinal Tracts," pp. 170, 171. This Paul answers by two argu- ments. (1.) God claims the right, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy." — Rom. ix. 15, 16. (2.) God in his provi- dence exercises the right, as in the case of Pharaoh, vs. 17, 18. 2d. The second objection is that this doctrine is inconsistent with the liberty and accountability of men. This would be an absurd objection to bring against Paul's doctrine if he were an Arminian, but it is brought every day by Arminians against our doctrine. Paul answers this objection by condescending to no appeal to human reason, but simply (1) by asserting God's sovereignty as Creator, and man's dependence as creature, and (2) by as- serting the just exposure of all men alike to wrath as sinners, 222 PREDESTINA TION. VS. 20-24. — See Analysis of chap. ix. 6-24, in Hodge's " Com. on Romans." 22. Discriminate accurately the tivo elements involved in the doctrine of Reprohation. Eeprobation is the aspect which God's eternal decree pre- sents in its relation to that portion of the human race which shall lie finally condemned for their sins. It is, 1st, negative, inasmuch as it consists in passing over these, and refusing to elect them to life; and, 2d, positive, in- asmuch as they are condemned to eternal misery. In respect to its negative element, reprobation is simply sovereign, since those passed over were no worse than those elected, and the simple reason both for the choosing and for the passing over was the sovereign good pleasure of God. In respect to its positive element, reprobation is not sover- eign, but simply judicial, because God inflicts misery in any case only as the righteous punishment of sin. " The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable coun- sel of his own will, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath /or their sins. — " Con. Faith," Chap, iii., Sec. 7. 23. Sltoio that these positions are necessarily involved in the general doctrine of Decrees and in the special doctrine of the election of ,some men to eterncd life. As above stated, this doctrine of reprobation is self-evidently an inseparable element of the doctrines of decrees and of elec- tion. If God unconditionally elects whom he pleases, he must unconditionall}'' leave whom he pleases to themselves. He must foreordain the non-believing, as well as the believing, although the events themselves are brought to pass by very different causes. 24. Prove thcd it is taught in Scripture. Rom. ix. 18, 21 ; 1 Pet. ii. 8; Jude 4; Rev. xiii. 8. " I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes, even so, Fathei', for so it seemeth good in thy sight." — Matt. xi. 25. "Ye believe not, because ye are not my sheep." — John x. 26. 25. Shoiv that the same objection was made against PauVs doc- trine thcd is made against ours. "Why doth he yet find fault?" If he has not given gra- cious ability to obey, how can he command? — See also "Metho- dist Doctrinal Tracts," p. 171. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 223 The apostle answers by showing, 1st (verses 20, 21), that God is under no obligation to extend his grace to all or to any; and, 2d, that the " vessels of wrath " were condemned for their own sins, to manifest God's just wrath, while the " vessels of mercy " were chosen not for any good in them, but to manifest his glorious grace (verses 22, 23). 26. Show the identity of PauTs doctrine with ours from the illustrations he uses in the ninth chapter of Romans. " Hath not the potter power (iloucJ/a) over the day of the same lump to make one vessel to honor, and another to dis- honor, V. 21. Here the whole point of the illustration lies in the fact that there is no difference in the clay — it is day of the same lump — the sole difference is made by the will of the pot- ter. In the case of Esau and Jacob, the very point is that one is just as good as the other — that there is no difference in the children — but that the whole difference is made by the "pur- pose of God according to election " — " for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of ivorks, but of him that collet h,'' V. 11.


Question: In  ivhat  sense  is  God  said  to  harden  men?

Answer: See Rom. ix. 18, and John xii. 40. This is doubtless a judicial act wherein God "\jdthdraws from sinful men, whom he lias not elected to life, for the just pun- ishment of their sins, all gracious influences, and leaves them to the unrestrained tendencies of their own hearts, and to the uncounteracted influences of the world and the devil. 28. Stcde the objection brought against the Ccdvinistic doctrine of election on the ground that it is inconsistent tvith Justice. It is maintained that if God by a sovereign unconditional decree determines to pass by some nien, and to withhold from them the grace necessary to enable them to repent and believe in Christ, it is unjust in God to hold them accountable, and to punish them for tiieir want of faith. 29. State the fundamental vieiv tvhich necessarily underlies all Arminianism as to the relation which the remedied ivork of Christ sustains to the justice of God, and as to the relation ivhich the human race by nature sustains to the divine government. When the Arminian system is sifted to its fundamental principles, it is found to rest upon the postulate that the gift of Christ is a necessary compensation to the human race for the evils brought upon it for the sin of Adam. It is admitted that 224 PREDESTINATION. the sin of Adam was the cause of his whole race becoming sinners, and that every one of his descendants comes into the worhl with a nature so far depraved as to be morally incapable of loving God and disposed to evil. But they maintain that men are by nature in the first instance not responsible for their moral condition, since it comes upon them each at his birth, antecedent to all personal action They hold, therefore, that man can not be punished for original sin, nor could any man ever be held responsible for any act of disobedience springing as an inevitable consequence out of that original depravity, if God had not through Christ provided a remedy, giving to each man gracious ability to do all that is required of him as the condition of his salvation. This redemption and gracious ability to believe and obey God owes to all men, and they are necessary to render any man responsible and punishable for his sins, since thus alone is he, as far as this class of exercises go, endowed with the power of contrary choice. Dr. D. D. Whedon, in the " Bibliotheca Sacra," April, 1862, p. 257. — " It is not then until there is redemptively conferred upon man what we call a gracious ability for the right, that man can be strictly responsible for the wrong." He says, p. 254, that after Adam sinned the only alternatives open to God in con- sistency with justice were either, 1st, to send Adam and Eve to perdition before they had children, or, 2d, to allow him to prop- agate his kind under the antecedent disabilities of sin, and provide a redemptive system for all. He distinguishes between guilt or moral responsibility for character and moral corruption of nature. Under the con- ditions of pure nature, he teaches that only Adam and Eve were responsible, as well as corrupt, because they, having been created morally free, voluntarily made themselves vile by their own act. On the other hand their descendants are all morally polluted and spiritually dead, because they inherit corrupt na- tures from Adam; but they are not guilty, neither responsible for their birth sin nor for any of its consequences, because it was determined inevitably by an act not their own. In the actual state of things consequent to the gift of Christ every man is responsible because every man has sufficient grace. Hence it follows — 1st. That the provision of redemption Avas not a work of infinite free grace, but a mere act of justice in compensation for evils brought upon our nature by Adam. 2d. That this is owed equally to each and every man with- out exception. "I reject," says John Wesley, "Methodist Doc. Tracts," pp. 25, 26, "the assertion that God might justly have passed by me and all men, as a bold, precarioiis assertion, utterly unsupported by Holy Scripture." 3d. It follows also SALVATION IS OF GRACE. 225 that the gracious help of the Holy Ghost is just as necessary to render men responsible sinners as to bring them to salva- tion. 4th. It follows that grace sends men to hell, as well as takes them to heaven, and that it has done far more of the former than of the latter work. 30. 81\oio tliat their position here is absolutely inconsistent ivith lohat the Scriptures and the entire Christian Church teach of the nature and necessity of the Satisfaction made to divine justice by Christ. It will be shown under Chap. XXV., that the Scriptures teach, the entire Church being witness, that in order to the salvation of man, a lull satisfaction to the inalienable principle of justice essential to the Divine nature was absolutely necessary. So that if God's justice is not satisfied, grace can not be shown to any man. "^lliis would be absurd if men were not antece- dently responsible for the sins for which it is necessary that they should make satisfaction. What is the sense of a '^Hedemptively conferred gracious ability" respecting parties who have forfeited nothing because they are responsible for nothing? In their case is not both "redemption" and "grace" an impertinence? 31. Prove from Scripture that salvation is of grace. Grace is free, undeserved favor showed to the undeserving. If redemption is a debt owed to all men, or if it be a compen- sation prerequisite to their accountability, then it can not be a gratuity, and the gift of Christ can not be an eminent expres- sion of God's free favor and love. It can only be an expression of his rectitude. But the Scriptures declare that the gift of Christ is an un- paralleled expression of free love, and that salvation is of grace. Lam. iii. 22; John iii. 16; Rom. iii. 24; xi. 5, 6; 1 Cor. iv. 7; XV. 10; Eph. i. 5, 6; ii. 4-10, etc. And every true Christian recognizes the essential graciousness of salvation as an insep- arable element of his experience. Hence the doxologies of heaven.— 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20; 1 Pet. i. 18, 19; Rev. v. 8-14. But if salvation is of grace, then it is obviously consistent with God's justice for him to save all, many, few, or none, just as he pleases. 32. Shoio that the objection that unconditioned election is incon- sistent ivith the justice of God is ctbsurd and antichristian. Justice necessarily holds all sinners alike destitute of all claims upon God's favor. It is unjust to justify the unjust. It would be inconsistent with righteousness for a sinful man to claim, or for God to grant, salvation to anv one as his due. 15 226 PREDESTINATION. Otherwise the condemning sentence of conscience is denied, and the cross of Christ made of none effect. On the very gronnds of justice itself, therefore, salvation must be of grace, and it must rest upon the sovereign option of God himself whether he provides salvation for few, many, or for none. The salvation of none is consistent with justice, or the sacrifice of Christ was a payment of debt not a grace. And the salvation of one undeserving sinner obviously can lay no foundation upon which the salvation of another can be demanded as a right. 33. State and refute the ohjection that our doctrine is inconsistent with the rectitude of God as an impartial ruler. Arminians often argue that reason teaches us to expect the great omnipotent Creator and Sovereign of all men to be im- partial in his treatment of individuals — to extend the same essential advantages and conditions of salvation to all alike. They argue also that this fair presumption of reason is reaf- firmed in the Scriptures, Avhich declare that God is "no re- specter of persons." — Acts x. 34, and 1 Pet. i. 17. In the first- named passage this applies simply to the application of the gospel to Gentiles as well as Jews. In the second passage it is affirmed that in the judgment of human works God is abso- lutely impartial. The question as to election, however, is as to grace not as to judgment pronounced on works, and the Scriptures nowhere say that God is impartial in the commu- nication of his grace. On the other hand, the presumptions of reason and the texts of Scripture must be interpreted in a sense consistent with the palpable facts of human history and of God's daily providential dispensations. If it is unjust in principle for God to be partial in his distributions of spiritual good, it can be no less unjust for him to be partial in his distribution of temporal good. As a matter of fact, however, we find that God in the exercise of his absolute sovereignty makes the greatest possible distinc- tions among men from birth, and independently of their own merits in the allotments both of temporal good and of the es- sential means of salvation. One child is boi-n to health, honor, w^ealth, to the possession of a susceptible heart and conscience, and to all the best means of grace as his secure inheritance. Many others are born to disease, shame, poverty, an obtuse conscience and hardened heart, and absolute heathenish dark- ness and ignorance of Christ. If God may not be partial to indivitluals, why ma}' he be partial to nations, and how can his dealings with heathen nations and the children of the abandoned classes in the nominally Christian cities be ac- counted for? ' OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 227 Archbishop Whately gives this excellent word of Avarning to his Arininian friends: "I wonld suggest a caution relative to a class of objections frequently urged against Calvinists drawn from the moral attributes of God. We should be very cautious how we employ such weapons as may recoil upon ourselves. It is a frightful but undeniable truth that midti- tudes, even in Christian countries, are born and brought up in such circumstances as afford them no probable, even no pos- sible, chance of obtaining a knowledge of religious truths, or a habit of moral conduct, but are even trained from infancy in superstitious error and gross depravity. Why this should be permitted neither Calvinist nor Arminian can explain; nay, why the Almighty does not cause to die in the cradle every infant whose future wickedness and misery, if suffered to grow up, he foresees, is Avhat no system of rehgion, natural or re- vealed, will enable us satisfactorily to account for." — " Essays on some of the Difficulties of St. Paul." Essay 3d, on Election. 34. Refute the ohjedion draivn/rom such passages as 1 Tim. ii. 4. "Who will (SsXsi) all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." The word QeXsiv has two senses — (a) to be inclined to, to desire; {h) to purpose, to itdll In such connections as the above it is evident that it can not mean that God jimposes the salva- tion of all, because («) all are not saved, and none of God's purposes fail, and (/>) because it is affirmed that he ivills all to "come to the knowledge of the truth" in the same sense that he wills all to be saved — yet he has left the vast majority of men to be born and to live and to die, irrespective of their own agency, in heathenish darkness. Such passages simply assert the essential benevolence of God. He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. He does take great pleasure in the salvation of men. Yet as a matter of fact, in perfect consistency with his benevolence, for reasons sufficient, though not revealed to us, he has provided no redemption for lost angels, and no efficacious grace for the non-elect among mankind. These passages simply assert that, if it were not for these reasons, it would be agreeable to liis benevolent nature that all men should be saved. 35. Show that our doctrine does not discourage the iise of means. It is objected that if God from eternity has determined that one man is to be converted and saved and another is to be left to perish in his sins, there is no room left for the use of means. As John Wesley, in "iNIethodist Doc. Tracts," falsely represents 228 PREDESTINATION. the doctrine of Toplady, " There are suppose twenty men, ten are ordained to be saved do what they may, and ten are or- dained to be damned do what they can." This is an absurd as Avell as wicked caricature of the doctrine. 1st. The decree of election does not secure salvation without faith and holiness, but salvation through faith and holiness, the means being just as much decreed as the end. The Calvin- ist believes, as well as the Arminian, that every man who does evil will be damned, elect or non-elect. 2d. The doctrine of election does not presume that God con- strains men inconsistently with their freedom. The non-elect are simply let alone, to do as their own evil hearts prompt. The elect are made Avilling in the day of God's power. God works in them to ivill as well as to do of his good pleasure. To be made ivilling takes away no man's liberty. 3d. The decree of election only makes the repentance and faith of the elect certain. But the antecedent certainty of a free act is not inconsistent with its freedom, otherwise the certain foreknowledge of a free act would be impossible. The decree of election does not cause the faith, and it does not interfere with the agent in acting, and certainly it does not supersede the absolute necessity of it. 36. Hoiv far is assurance of our election possible, and on luhat grounds does such assurance rest ? An unwavering and certain assurance of the fact of our elec- tion is possible in this life, for whom God predestinates them he also calls, and whom he calls he justifies, and we know that whom he justifies, he also sanctifies. Thus the fruits of the Spirit prove sanctification, and sanctification proves effectual calling, and effectual calling election. — See 2 Pet. i. 5-10; 1 John ii. 3. Besides this evidence of our own gracious states and acts, we have the Spirit of adoption, who witnesseth with our spirits and seals us. — Rom. viii. 16, 17; Eph. iv. 30. In confirmation of this we have the example of the apostles (2 Tim. i. 12) and of many Christians. 37. Hoiv does this doctrine consist uith the general benevolence of God? The only difficulty at this point is to reconcile the general benevolence of God with the fact that he, being infinitel}'^ wise and powerful, should have admitted a system involving the sin, final impenitence, and consecpient damnation of any. But this difficulty presses equally upon both systems. OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 229 The/acfe prove that God's general benevolence is not incon- sistent with his allowing some to be damned for their sins. This is all that reprobation means. Gratnitous election, or the positive choice of some does not rest npon God's general benev- olence, but upon his special love to his own. — John xvii. 6, 23; Rom. ix. 11-13; 1 Thess. v. 9.


Question: How  does  this  doctrine  consist  with  tJie  general  gospel  offer?

Answer: In the general offers of the gospel God exhibits a salvation sufficient for and exactly adapted to all, and sincerely offered to every one without exception, and he unfolds all the motives of duty, hope, fear, etc., Avhich ought to induce every one to accept it, solenuily promising that whosoever comes in no wise shall be cast out. Nothing but a sinful unwillingness can pre- vent any one who hears the gospel from receiving and enjoy- ing it. The gospel is for all, election is a special grace in addition to that offer. The non-elect may come if they will. The elect will come. The decree of election puts no barrier before men preventing them from accepting the gospel offer. Any man, elect or non-elect, will be saved if he accepts. The non-elect are left to act as they are freely determined by their own hearts. There is just as great an apparent difficulty in reconciling God's certain foreknowledge of the final impenitence of the great majority of those to whom he offers and npon whom he presses, by every argument, his love with the fact of that offer; especially when we reflect that he foresees that his offers will certainly increase their guilt and misery. 39. Hoio can the doctrine of reprobation he reconciled with the holiness of God ? Reprobation leaves men in sin, and thus leads to the increase of sin throughout eternit3^ How then can God, in consistency with his holiness, form a purpose the designed effect of which is to leave men in sin, and thus lead inevitably to the increase of sin. But it is acknowledged by Arminians as well as Calvinists, that God did create the human race in spite of his certain fore- knowledge that sin would be largely occasioned thereby, and he did create individual men in spite of his certain foreknowl- edge that these very men would continue eternally to sin. The real difficulty lies in the insoluble problem of the permission of evil. "Why is the existence of evil tolerated in the universe of an infinitely wise, righteous, merciful, and powerful God ? 230 PREDESTINA TION. The Avminians are as little able to answer that question as the Calvinist. 40. What is the jiractical hearing of this doctrine on Christian experience and conduct ? It must be remembered, 1st. That this truth is not inconsist- ent with, but is part of, tlie same gracious system with the equally certain principles of the moral liberty and responsi- bility of man, and the free offers of the gospel to all. 2d. That the sole rule of our duty is the commands, threatenings, and promises of God clearly expressed in the gospel, and not this decree of election, which he never reveals except in its conse- quents of effectual calling, faith, and holy living. When thus held, the doctrine of predestination — 1st. Exalts the majesty and absolute sovereignty of God, while it illustrates the riches of his free grace and his just dis- pleasure with sin. 2d. It enforces upon us the essential truth that salvation is entirely of grace. That no one can either complain, if passed over, or boast himself, if saved. 3d. It brings the inquirer to absolute self-despair, and the cordial embrace of the free offer of Christ, 4th. In the case of the believer, who has the witness in him- self, this doctrine at once deepens his humility, and elevates his confidence to the full assurance of hope. 41. State the true nature of the question discussed hy theologians concerning the order of the divine decrees. As we believe that the Decree of God is one single, eternal intention, there can not be an order of succession in his pur- poses either («) in time, as if one purpose actually preceded the other, or {b) in distinct deliberation or option on the part of God. The whole is one choice. Yet in Avilling the entire system God, of course, comprehended all the parts of the system Avilled in their several successions and relations. In like man- ner as a man by one act of mind recognizes a complicated machine with which he is familiar, and in the same act discrim- inates accurately tlie several parts, and comprehends their unity and relation in the system, and the design of the whole. — Dr. Charles Hodge's " Lectures." The question, therefore, as to the Order of the Decrees is not a question as to the order of acts in God decreeing, but it is a question as to the true relation sus- tained by the several parts of the system which he decrees to one another. That is. What relation between Creation, Predes- tination, and Redemption did the one eternal purpose of God THE ORDER OF THE DIVINE DECREES. 231 establish ? AYliat do the Scriptures teach as to the purpose of God ill giving his Son, and as to the object and ground of elec- tion ? The ground and object of election has been fully con- sidered above. The design of God in the gift of Christ will be fully considered under Division IV. of Chapter XXV. 42. What is the Arminian theory as to the order of the decrees relatiruj to the human race? 1st. The decree to create man. 2d. ]\Ian, as a moral agent, being fallible, and his will being essentially contingent, and his sin therefore being impreventible, God, foreseeing that man would certainly fall into the condemnation and pollution of sin, decreed to provide a free salvation through Christ for all men, and to provide sufficient means for the effectual application of that salvation to the case of all. 3d. He decreed absolutely that all believers in Christ should be saved, and all unbehev- ers reprobated for their sins. 4th. Foreseeing that certain individuals would repent and believe, and that certain other individuals would continue impenitent to the last, God from eternity elected to eternal life those whose faith he foresaw, on the condition of their faith, and reprobated those Avliom he foresaw would continue impenitent on the condition of that impenitence. 43. What is the vieio of this subject entertained by the French Protestant theologians., Camero, Amyraiit, and others ? These theological professors at Saumur, during the second quarter of the seventeenth centiu-y, taught that God — 1st. De- creed to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. To pro- vide, in the mediation of Christ, salvation for all men. 4th. But, foreseeing that if men were left to themselves none would re- pent and believe, therefore he sovereignly elected some to whom he decreed to give the necessary graces of repentance and faith.


Question: What  is  the  infra-Iapsarian  vieio  of  predestination?

Answer: The infra-lapsarian {infra lapsum) theory of predestination, or the decree of predestination, viewed as subsequent in pur- pose to the decree permitting man to fall, represents man as created and fallen as the object of election. The order of the decrees then stand thus: 1st! The decree to create man. 2d. To permit man to fall. 3d. The decree to elect certain men, outof the mass of the fallen and justly condemned race, to eternal life, and to pass others by, leaving them to the just consequences of their sins. 4th. The decree to provide salvation for the elect. 232 PREDESTINATIOX. This is the common view of the Eeformed Churches, confirmed alike by the svnod of dort and the westminster assembly.