Chapter 1

THE

CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE

OF

PREDESTINATION

EXAMINED AND REFUTED:

BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF

A SERIES OF DISCOURSES

Delivered in St. George's M. E. Church, Philadelphia,

BY

FRANCIS HODGSON, D. D.

PHILADELPHIA:

HIGGINS AND PERKINPINE.

No. 40 NORTH FOURTH STREET,

1855.

Entered according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1854, by

FRANCIS HODGSON,

in the Office of the Clerk of the District Court of the United States in and for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

PHILADELPHIA:

T. R. AND P. G. COLLINS, PRINTERS.

PHILADELPHIA, July 13, 1854.

Rev. FRANCIS HODGSON, D. D.

DEAR SIR: We, whose names are hereunto annexed, having heard your recent series of discourses upon the "Divine Decrees," and believing that their publication at this time would be of great service to the cause of truth, earnestly desire that such measures may be taken as will secure their publication at an early period. We therefore respectfully solicit your concurrence, and that you would do whatever may be necessary on your part to further our object:--

JAMES B. LONGACRE, P. D. MYERS, GARRET VANZANT, R. MCCAMBRIDGE, JOHN J. HARE, THOMAS W. PRICE, DANIEL BREWSTER, CHAS. MCNICHOL, WM. G. ECKHARDT, THOS. M. ADAMS, CHAS. COYLE, FRANCIS A. FARROW, BENJAMIN HERITAGE, THOS. HARE, J. O. CAMPBELL, SAMUEL HUDSON, JAMES HARRIS, JOSEPH THOMPSON, WM. GOODHART, DAVID DAILEY, R. O. SIMONS, JNO. R. MORRISON, AMOS HORNING, JAMES HUEY, ENOS S. KERN, JOHN FRY, JNO. P. WALKER, E. A. SMITH, JOHN STREET, JAMES D. SIMKINS, J. W. BUTCHER, S. W. STOCKTON, JACOB HENDRICK, FOSTER PRITCHETT.

DEAR BRETHREN:--

The motives which induced me to preach the discourses on the "Divine Decrees" are equally decisive in favor of their publication, as you propose. I have taken the liberty to rearrange some parts of them for the benefit of the reader.

Yours,

FRANCIS HODGSON.

To Brothers LONGACRE,

MYERS, and others.

PREDESTINATION.

DISCOURSE I.

"In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will."--EPH. i. 11.

IT would very naturally be expected of a preacher, selecting this passage as the foundation of his discourse, that he would have something to say upon the subject of predestination. It is my purpose to make this the theme of the occasion; and this purpose has governed me in the selection of the text. The subject is one of great practical importance. It relates to the Divine government--its leading principles and the great facts of its administration. Some suppose that the Methodists deny the doctrine of Divine predestination, that the word itself is an offence to them, and that they are greatly perplexed and annoyed by those portions of Scripture by which the doctrine is proclaimed. This is a mistaken view. We have no objection to the word; we firmly believe the doctrine; and all the Scriptures, by which it is stated or implied, are very precious to us.

There is a certain theory of predestination, the Calvinistic theory, which we consider unscriptural and dangerous. There is another, the Arminian theory, which we deem Scriptural and of very salutary influence. My plan is, _first_, to refute the false theory; and, _secondly_, to present the true one, and give it its proper application.

My discourse or discourses upon this subject may be more or less unacceptable to some on account of their controversial aspect. This disadvantage cannot always be avoided. Controversy is not always agreeable, yet it is often necessary. Error must be opposed, and truth defended. What I have to say, is designed chiefly for the benefit of the younger portion of the congregation. I feel that there devolves upon me not a little responsibility in reference to this class of my hearers. Many of them, I am happy to learn, are eagerly searching for truth, and they have a right to expect that the pulpit will aid their inquiries, and throw light upon their path.

The theory of predestination to which we object affirms that God has purposed, decreed, predetermined, foreordained, predestinated, whatsoever comes to pass, and that, in some way or other, he, by his providence, brings to pass whatever occurs.

The advocates of this doctrine complain loudly that they are misunderstood and misrepresented. The Rev. Samuel Miller, D. D., late of Princeton College, N. J., in a tract on _Presbyterian Doctrine_, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, complains thus: "It may be safely said that no theological system was ever more _grossly misrepresented_, or more _foully_ and _unjustly vilified_ than this." "The gross misrepresentations with which it has been assailed, the _disingenuous_ attempts to fasten upon it consequences which its advocates disavow and abhor; and the _unsparing calumny_ which is continually heaped upon it and its friends, have _scarcely been equalled_ in any other case in the entire annals of theological controversy." "The opponents of this system are wont to give the most _shocking_ and _unjust_ pictures of it. Whether this is done from _ignorance_ or _dishonesty_ it would be painful, as well as vain, at present, to inquire." "The truth is, it would be difficult to find a writer or speaker, who has distinguished himself by opposing Calvinism, who has fairly represented the system, or who really appeared to understand it. They are forever fighting against a _caricature_. Some of the most grave and venerable writers in our country, who have appeared in the Arminian ranks, are undoubtedly in this predicament: whether this has arisen from the want of knowledge or the want of candor, the effect is the same, and the conduct is worthy of severe censure." "Let any one carefully and dispassionately read over the _Confession of Faith_ of the Presbyterian Church, and he will soon perceive that the professed representations of it, which are _daily_ proclaimed from the _pulpit_ and the _press_, are _wretched slanders_, for which no apology can be found but in the ignorance of their authors."

He places himself in very honorable contrast with those whom he thus severely condemns: "The writer of these pages," says he, "is fully persuaded that Arminian principles, when traced out to their natural and unavoidable consequences, lead to an invasion of the essential attributes of God, and, of course, to blank and cheerless atheism. Yet, in making a statement of the Arminian system, as actually held by its advocates, he should consider himself inexcusable if he departed a hair's-breadth from the delineation made by its friends." (pp. 26, 27, 28.)

This writer reiterates these charges, with interesting variations, in his introduction to a book on the Synod of Dort, published by the same establishment. "They," says he, "are ever fighting against an imaginary monster of their own creation. They picture to themselves the consequences which they suppose unavoidably flow from the real principles of Calvinists, and then, most unjustly, represent these consequences as a part of the system itself, as held by its advocates." Again: "How many an eloquent page of anti-Calvinistic declamation would be instantly seen by every reader to be either calumny or nonsense, if it had been preceded by an honest statement of what the system, as held by Calvinists, really is." (_Synod of Dort_, p. 64.)

The Rev. Dr. Beecher says, in his work on _Skepticism_: "I have _never heard a correct_ statement of the Calvinistic system from an opponent;" and, after specifying some alleged instances of misrepresentation, he adds: "It is needless to say that falsehoods _more absolute_ and _entire_ were never stereotyped in the foundry of the father of lies, or with greater industry worked off for gratuitous distribution from age to age."

The Rev. Dr. Musgrave, in what he calls a _Brief Exposition and Vindication of the Doctrine of the Divine Decrees, as taught in the Assembly's Larger Catechism_, another of the publications of the Presbyterian Board, charges the opponents of Calvinism in general, and the Methodists in particular, with not only _violently contesting_, but also with _shockingly caricaturing_, and _shamefully misrepresenting_ and _vilifying_ Calvinism--with "systematic and wide-spread defamation"--with "wholesale traduction of moral character, involving the Christian reputation of some three or four thousand accredited ministers of the gospel." His charity suggests an apology for much of our "misrepresentation of their doctrinal system" on the ground of our "intellectual weakness and want of education;" but, for our "dishonorable attempts to impair the influence" of Calvinistic ministers, and "injure their churches," he "can conceive of no apology."

The Rev. A. G. Fairchild, D. D., in a series of discourses entitled _The Great Supper_, likewise published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, complains in these terms: "Sectarian partisans are interested in misleading the public in regard to our real sentiments, and hence their assertions should be received with caution. Those who would understand our system of doctrines, must listen, not to the misrepresentations of its enemies, but to the explanations of its friends." (p. 40.) Again: "As these men cannot wield the civil power against us, they will do what they can to punish us for holding doctrines which they cannot overthrow by fair and manly argument. God only knows the extent to which we might have to suffer for our religion, were it not for the protection of the laws! For, if men will publish the most wilful and deliberate untruths against us, as they certainly do, for no other offence than an honest difference of religious belief, what would they not do if their power were equal to their wickedness?" (p. 73.)

This writer expresses his sense of the "wickedness of those who oppose Calvinism" in still stronger terms: "If, then, the doctrines of grace [Calvinism] are plainly taught in the Scriptures, if they accord with the experience of Christians, and enter largely into their prayers, then it must be exceedingly sinful to oppose and misrepresent them. Those who do this will eventually be found _fighting against God_. We have recently heard of persons praying publicly against the election of grace, and we wonder that their tongues did not cleave to the roof of their mouth in giving utterance to the horrid imprecation." (p. 178.) Ah! These Methodists are very wicked!

The Rev. L. A. Lowry, author of a recent work, entitled _Search for Truth_, published by the same high authority, discourses as follows:--

"When I see a man trying to distort the proper meaning of words, and, presenting a garbled statement of the views of an opponent, I take it as conclusive evidence that he has a bad cause; more when he is constantly at it, and manifests in all that he does a feeling of uneasiness and hostility towards those who oppose him. During my brief sojourn in the Cumberland Church, I was called upon to witness many such exhibitions, that, in the outset of my ministerial labors, made anything but a favorable impression on my mind. I found there, in common with all others who hold to Arminian sentiments, the most uncompromising and _malignant_ opposition to the doctrines of the Presbyterian Church, while there was _not_ a man that I met in all my intercourse, that _could_ state fairly and fully what those doctrines are. Their views were entirely one-sided; the truth was garbled to suit their convenience; and the creations of their own fruitful fancy were constantly being presented before the minds of the people, thereby deepening their prejudices, and drawing still closer the dark folds of their mantle of ignorance and bigotry." (pp. 65, 66.)

Again: "It is painful to witness the ignorance and stupidity of men--their malignity and opposition to the truth--who have learned to misrepresent and abuse Calvinism with such bitterness of feeling, till, like a rattlesnake in dog-days, they have become blinded by the poison of their own minds." (p. 156.)

In this attempt to destroy confidence in the veracity of Arminians, so far, at least, as it is connected with their representations of Calvinism, leading individuals are singled out for special animadversion. Dr. Miller assails the moral character of Arminius. He says of him that, "On first entering upon his professorship, he seemed to take much pains to remove from himself all suspicion of heterodoxy, by publicly maintaining theses in favor of the received doctrines; doctrines which he afterwards zealously contradicted. And that he did this contrary to his own convictions at the time, was made abundantly evident afterwards by some of his own zealous friends. But, after he had been in his new office a year or two, it was discovered that it was his constant practice to deliver one set of opinions in his professional chair, and a very different set by means of private confidential manuscripts circulated among his pupils." (_Synod of Dort_, p. 13.)

Dr. Fairchild speaks thus of a passage by Mr. Wesley: "In the doctrinal _Tracts_, p. 172, is an address to Satan, which we have no hesitation in saying is fraught with the most concentrated blasphemy ever proceeding from the tongue or pen of mortal, whether Jew, Pagan, or Infidel, and all imputed to the Calvinists. One cannot help wondering how such transcendent impieties ever found their way into the mind of man; I am not willing to transfer the language to these pages; but the work is doubtless accessible to most readers, having been sown broadcast over the land." (_Great Supper_, p. 150.) He also indorses the charge of forgery which Toplady made against Mr. Wesley. (See p. 111.)

The late Dr. Fisk is charged with garbling the _Confession of Faith_ for sinister purposes (p. 111); and with "scandalous imputations" against Calvinism. (p. 150.)

It is not impossible that our Calvinistic brethren should be misrepresented. Nor is it impossible that they should misrepresent both themselves and others. I do not admit that they are thus misrepresented by their Methodist opponents, but it is not my intention to refute these charges at this time. I refer to them now to justify the special caution which I shall observe in presenting their tenets. They make it necessary for us to prove beyond the possibility of doubt that they hold the doctrines which we impute to them. I shall give their views in their own words.

Calvin says, in his _Institutes_: "Whoever, then, desires to avoid this infidelity, let him constantly remember that, in the creatures, there is no erratic power, or action, or motion, but that they are _so governed _by the secret counsel of God, that _nothing can happen_ but what is subject to his knowledge, and DECREED _by his will_." (Vol. i. p. 186.)

Again: "All future things being uncertain to us, we hold them in suspense, as though they might happen either one way or another. Yet, this remains a _fixed principle_ in our hearts, that _there will be_ NO _event which God has not_ ORDAINED." (_Ib_. p. 193.)

Again: "They consider it absurd that a man should be blinded by the will and command of God, and afterwards be punished for his blindness. They, therefore, evade this difficulty, by alleging that it happens only by the permission of God, and not by the will of God; but God himself, by the most unequivocal declarations, rejects this subterfuge. That men, however, _can effect_ NOTHING but by the secret _will_ of _God_, and can _deliberate_ upon nothing but what he has _previously decreed_, and DETERMINES by his _secret direction_, is proved by express and innumerable testimonies." (_Ib_. p. 211.)

Again: "If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and did not also _dispose_ and _fix_ them by his _determination_, there would be room to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight rendered them at all necessary. But, since he foresees future events only in consequence of _his decree that they shall happen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that ALL _things come to pass rather_ by ORDINATION and DECREE." (Vol ii. p. 169.)

Again: "I shall not hesitate, therefore, to confess plainly, with Augustine, 'that the _will_ of God is the _necessity of things_, and that _what_ he has _willed_ will _necessarily come to pass_.' " (_Ib_. p. 171.)

Again: "With respect to his secret influences, the declaration of Solomon concerning the heart of a king, that it is inclined hither or thither according to the Divine will, certainly extends to the whole human race, and is as much as though he had said, that WHATEVER CONCEPTIONS we form in our minds, they we _directed_ by the _secret_ INSPIRATION of GOD." (_Ib_. p. 213.)

Finally, for the present: "_What God decrees_," says this celebrated writer, "must NECESSARILY _come to pass_." (_Ib_. p. 194.)

I think it will not be said, by any one who has heard me attentively, that I either misrepresent, or misunderstand, Calvin, when I impute to him the doctrine that God has purposed, decreed, determined, foreordained, predestinated whatsoever comes to pass, and that he in some way or other brings to pass whatever occurs.

But it may be objected that we ought not to hold modern Calvinists responsible for all the doctrines of Calvin; that they "no further indorse them than as they are incorporated into their acknowledged creeds." To this we cordially assent. By this rule we will abide. What, then, is the language of the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, the established standard of orthodoxy in the American Presbyterian Churches? The third chapter commends thus: "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (p. 15); and, at the commencement of the fifth chapter, we read: "God, the great Creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by his most wise and holy providence."

Observe, he, according to this statement, not only _upholds_ and _governs_ all creatures, but _directs_ and _disposes_ all _actions_ and things, from the _greatest_ even to the _least_.

The _Larger Catechism_ says, in answer to the question, "What are the decrees of God?" "God's decrees are the wise, free, and holy acts of the counsel of his will, whereby, from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained _whatsoever comes to pass in time_, especially concerning angels and men."

The _Shorter Catechism_ answers the same question by these words: "The decrees of God are, his eternal purpose according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained _whatsoever comes to pass_."

The next question in this Catechism is: "How doth God execute his decrees?--_Ans_. God executeth his decrees in the works of creation and providence."

In a work, entitled _An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines_, by the Rev. Robert Shaw, published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, and revised by the Committee of Publication, we find the following passages: "That God _must have decreed all future things_ is a conclusion which flows necessarily from his foreknowledge, independence, and immutability." (p. 58.)

Again: "The decrees of God relate to all future things without exception; _whatever is done in time was foreordained before the beginning of time_." (p. 59.)

Again: "If from all eternity he knew all things that come to pass, then from eternity he _must_ have _ordained_ them" (p. 60). Again: "The foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree; for God could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had decreed they should be." (p. 59.)

In another publication of this Board, entitled _Fisher's Catechism_, we find the following questions and answers:--

"_Q_. What are the decrees of God?--_Ans_. The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath _foreordained whatsoever comes to pass_." (p. 51.)

"_Q_. Are all the decrees of God then unchangeable?--_Ans_. Yes: from all eternity, he hath, for his own glory, unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." (p. 53.)

"_Q_. Does anything come to pass in time but what was decreed from eternity?--_Ans_. No: for the _very reason why anything_ comes to pass in time, is _because God decreed_ it." (p. 54.)

"_Q_. Are things that are casual or accidental positively decreed?--_Ans_. Yes." (_Ib_.)

"_Q_. What has the decree of God fixed with respect to man's continuance in this world?--_Ans_. It has _immovably fixed_ the precise moment of _every_ one's _life_ and _death_, with _every particular circumstance thereof_." (_Ib_.)

"_Q_. How does God execute his decrees?--_Ans_. God executes his decrees in the works of creation and providence." (p. 57.)

"_Q_. What is it for God to execute his decrees?--_Ans_. It is to bring them to pass; or give _an actual being in time_, to what he _purposed from eternity_." (_Ib_.)

"_Q_. Does not God leave the execution of his decrees to second causes?--_Ans_. Whatever use God may make of second causes, in the execution of his decrees, yet they are _merely tools_ in his overruling hand, to bring about his glorious designs, and must do all his pleasure." (_Ib_.)

"_Q_. Are there not certain means by which the decrees of God are executed?--_Ans_. Yes; but these _means_ are _decreed as well as the end_." (p. 52.)

"_Q_. Is there an exact harmony or correspondence, between God's decree and the execution of it?--_Ans_. When the thing decreed is brought actually into being, it _exactly corresponds_ to the idea or platform of it _in_ the infinite _mind_ of _God_." (p. 57.)

"_Q_. Can none of the decrees of God be defeated or fail of execution?--_Ans_. By no means." (_Ib_.)

"_Q_. Does God's governing providence include in it his _immediate concurrence_ with every action of the creature?--Ans. Yes; God not only _efficaciously concurs_ in _producing_ the action, as to the matter of it; but likewise _predetermines_ the creature to such or such an action, and _not to another, shutting up all other ways of acting_, and leaving _that only open_ which he had _determined_ to be done." (p. 67.)

"_Q_. Why are the decrees of God said to be _absolute_?--_Ans_. Because they depend upon no condition without God himself, but entirely and solely upon his own sovereign will and pleasure." (p. 52.)

On page 67 he tells us that "the _worst action_ that was ever _committed_, the _crucifying_ of the Lord of glory, was _ordered_ and _directed_ by God."

The Rev. Dr. Musgrave says, &c.: "In the former chapter, we endeavored to explain and prove the three following propositions:--

"1. That _all things that come to pass_ in time, have been _eternally_ and _unchangeably foreordained_, because most certainly foreknown to the infinitely perfect Jehovah." (p. 18.)

The Rev. Dr. Boardman, of this city, in his discourses on the doctrine of election, not only quotes with approbation that part of the Confession of Faith which says, "God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass" (p. 49), but also says: "Some persons appear to think that the Divine decrees are restricted to spiritual matters. This is so far from being a correct opinion, that the Scriptures represent ALL EVENTS, however _trivial_, as being embraced in those decrees." In this connection, he also affirms "that the Divine decrees embrace not only _ends_ but _means_, and that both in temporal and spiritual things, where an end is decreed, the _means_ by which it is to be reached or accomplished are _also decreed_." (pp. 56, 57.)