CONTENTS. Difficulties in connection with the doctrine of Original Sin-The confused, incoherent and contradictory statements made on the PAGE DIFFICULTIES OF ARMINIANISM. LETTER I. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. TO BISHOP SIMPSON: Rev. Sir-I take the liberty of addressing these Letters to you, for several reasons: 1. You have been long a preacher, and for a time were one of the editors of the Methodist Episcopal church, and are well known as a zealous defender of its faith. 2. Your ministerial brethren have elevated you to a position among the chief functionaries of their ecclesiastical system, and of course you stand upon the watch-tower as a prominent guardian of its administration. 3. In a formal "Introduction" to the work called "Objections to Calvinism," by the Rev. R. S. Foster, you have given your indorsement to the doctrinal caricature which he calls Calvinism. Thus you say, the "argumentation is strictly logical," "the book is very valuable," "well executed," and of "great merit." The numerous extracts which appear in these Letters, will furnish appropriate illustrations of this flattering notice from your pen. Suffice it for the present to say, that to every well informed Presbyterian, it must seem marvelous, that you should employ such terms in relation to such a production. But as the act is done, and as the "Objections" are published "for the Methodist Episcopal church"-as you have thus embarked your character as a theologian and a man of enlarged views, with that of Mr. Foster, there seems to be a propriety in directing these Letters to you. These facts will also explain why, in referring to Mr. Foster's work, I couple your name with his—not only because you have indorsed his statements, but in your "Introduction" have yourself adopted some of the most offensive and injurious of them. To illustrate my meaning: in speaking of " the subject of Predestination," which you say "has for ages engaged the attention of theologians and philosophers"—you state "the questions which arise" as follows: "Is the destiny of every human being unchangeably determined before his birth, without reference to foreseen conduct? Has the mind a power of choice? Can it move freely within certain specified limits? Will the nature of its movements and choice influence its eternal happiness?" "These questions," you add, "have in some form exercised the highest powers of the human intellect;" and the obvious inference which you wish to have made, is that Calvinists or Predestinarians hold the following positions, viz. that "the eternal destiny of every man is unchangeably fixed before his birth without reference to his foreseen conduct" or character as righteous or wicked-that the mind has no power of choice-that it cannot move freely -that the nature of its movements and choice have no influence on its eternal happiness." Such is Predestination! Such, according to Bishop Simpson, are the doctrines held and taught by Presbyterians and other Calvinists. And the book which repeats and reiterates these impious statements, and attempts to fix them down upon Calvinistic churches, the Bishop indorses, and his sect publishes as one of "great merit!” Let the reader observe -Bishop S. does not affirm merely that these impieties have, by some Anti-Calvinists been considered as legitimate inferences from the doctrine of Predestination. That would be These are the bad enough-but he goes much farther. questions! These are the real points which have exercised and divided the minds of "theologians and philosophers." But so far as regards the Presbyterian church, we need hardly say that no person broaching such monstrous sentiments, could be received as a member of any of our ecclesiastical bodies-and if Bishop Simpson will undertake to prove such charges against any individual minister of our communion, we pledge our word that he shall be brought to trial, and if the Bishop shall sustain the accusation, that the guilty one shall be forthwith suspended from the office. It is no concern of ours, even though you could prove that "the Atheistical school of philosophers," "the Jewish Essenes" and "the Mohammedans," held the doctrine of Predestination, as you state it. So also it has been fashionable for Arminian disputants to charge Calvinism with being nearly allied to Stoical fate. The Greek and Roman philosophers, called Stoics, are admitted by even Arminian authors, to have been the greatest, wisest and most virtuous of all the heathens; and their sayings are often quoted by Arminians as a confirmation of some of the most important truths of Christianity; particularly relating to the unity and perfection of the Godhead, a future state, the duty and happiness of mankind, &c. The doctrine of Fate, as held by the Stoics, was in some respects very erroneous, though they differed among themselves. And if any of them taught the same doctrine held by others of the ancient heathen-viz. that Fate was a power which overruled and controlled both men and gods, it was of course sheer Atheism. Even Bishop Simpson will not pretend to find any thing of this sort in Calvinism. But where do we find the "philosophers and theologians" of ancient and modern times, whose sympathies and views most nearly harmonized with those of modern Arminians? We find them among the followers of EPICURUS, the father of Atheism and licentiousness-among the Sadducees, who said "that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit"—and among the Mohammedans, 66 one of whose |