and is every where recognized as a reliable exposition of Old School Calvinism. We will translate a few passages for the benefit of our assailants:

Decrees." The decree, in respect of its objects, often includes a certain condition, but is nevertheless in its own nature absolute; because both the condition and conditional event depend immutably upon God, either in respect of permission in things that are wicked, or of efficiency in things that are good: (vel quoad permissionem ut in malis, vel quoad effectionem in bonis.)"

Necessity. Our author affirms that the Divine decree implies the necessity of future events; but he expressly disclaims the idea of an absolute or physical necessity, as also the necessity of coercion or force; and teaches a necessity which respects only the certainty of the future existence of the event, which is the object of the decree: (respectu certitudinis eventus et futuritionis ex decreto.) And in reply to the objection that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, he says of the decree, "non est effectivum mali, sed tantum permissivum et directivum"-"it is not efficient of evil, but only permissive and directive to proper ends."

Election he defines, "the counsel of God, in which he decreed out of his mere grace to have compassion upon certain persons, and being delivered from their sins through his Son, to bestow upon them eternal salvation." "The decree of eternal life and eternal death has respect to man as fallen (respicere hominem lapsum). Otherwise he says, we represent "God as having reprobated man before by sin he could be the proper object of reprobation; and as having sentenced the innocent to punishment, before any fault was foreseen in them." “ "By the decree of God, the salvation of the elect is established and certain, but by the decree of the same God only in the way of faith and holiness."

The views of Turretine on the subject of Reprobation, will be further adduced when we come to speak more directly on

that topic. We will next look at the sentiments of the Westminster Assembly, which met in 1643, and whom even Dr. Fisk and the Conference will hardly claim to be "moderns!" In order to convict Presbyterians of the monstrous impiety which represents God as the author and efficient cause of sin, these Arminians quote the Assembly's Confession, chap. 5, sec. 4:

"The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom and infinite goodness of God, do so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself to the first fall and all other sins of angels and men, and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them in a manifold dispensation to his own holy ends." This passage is supposed to assert such an "efficient control" over all the actions of men and angels, as to represent God as the author of all their sins. Now it might be a sufficient reply to this simply to quote the remainder of the section, viz. " Yet so as the sinfulness thereof (of wicked actions) proceedeth only from the creature, not from God." The very section, adduced in proof that Presbyterians teach that God is the author of sin, utterly disclaims such a sentiment. Is it fair, to attempt to prove us guilty of an impious dogma, by referring to an article which expressly disclaims it? Further: Let us insert in the body of the foregoing article, the negative which denies its truth, and how will it read? Thus: "The almighty power, unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, do not so far manifest themselves in his providence, as to extend either to the first fall, or to any other of the sins of angels and men, except by a bare permission, which has not joined with it any wise and powerful bounding (i. e. limiting or restraining); nor does God order (or overrule) and govern them, in a manifold dispensation, to any holy end." In the act of sin, therefore, creatures are left beyond the reach of Divine providence; they are without any overruling power, and beyond the limit

of any wise and powerful restraint, for holy and benevolent purposes! Moreover, where there is no government, there is no law, and where there is no law, there is no transgression. In the act of sin, therefore, it is impossible to sin!! In truth, this article is only a full expression of the sentiment of the Psalmist: "The wrath of man shall praise thee, and the remainder of wrath thou wilt restrain." Do Methodists deny this?

Once more our Confession is brought to testify against us. Thus chap. 3, sec. 2: "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, yet has he not decreed any thing because he foresaw it as future," &c. But can any person of sense maintain the affirmative of this article, viz. "that God has decreed many things because he foresaw them as future?" How will it work with his positive or efficient decrees-say to make or judge the world? Has God decreed (or determined) to do either of these great acts, because he foresaw he would perform them? The question answers itself. Let us try it with his permissive decrees. Does God foresee that he will permit certain conduct, and not till then, decree (or determine) to permit it? A child would pronounce it nonsense to talk of a being foreseeing that he will do certain things, and then, not before, determining to do them.

Again it is objected that our Confession of Faith teaches that the angels and men who are predestinated, "" are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished." Conf. chap. 3, sec. 4. But what is the language of Methodism in her standard publications, in reference to this subject? "I believe the eternal decree concerning both (election and reprobation) is expressed in these words, 'He that believeth shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned.' And this decree, without doubt, God will not change, and man cannot resist." Doct. Tracts, p. 15. Now add to this "eternal, unchangeable, irresistible decree"

of Methodism, the admitted truth, that God infallibly foreknows, individually, personally, by name and by number, the identical persons to whom it will secure salvation, and to whom it will secure perdition-that the number of the saved and the number of the lost, are as certainly known in the Divine prescience, as though that precise number of persons had already been admitted to heaven, and that other precise number been cast down to hell. Most manifestly, then, "the number of the predestinated is so definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished," UNLESS the Divine foreknowledge be mere conjecture, and he who knows all things have made a mistake. "Whatever God foreknows," says Dr. Fisk, “will undoubtedly (or certainly) come to pass." He foreknows the exact number who will believe and be saved -that exact number will undoubtedly be saved. He foreknows the exact number who will refuse to believe and perish that exact number will undoubtedly (or certainly) perish. This argument might be extended to a great length, at every step multiplying the embarrassments of our opponents. We might call upon them to explain how they can sincerely and honestly urge, exhort, entreat sinners to flee from the wrath to come, since, on their own principles, "the number of the elect is certain," as Fletcher affirms, and, of course, the number of the reprobate equally certain. Do they expect to change this certainty, i. e. to falsify infallible foreknowledge? How will they, on these principles, evince the mercy of God, in originally creating beings who were infallibly certain to be miserable for ever; or his grace, in giving his wellbeloved Son to die, to make an atonement and purchase a salvation, by shedding his blood for thousands, for whom these blessings were infallibly certain to result only in the aggravation of their unutterable woe?

Our Arminian "antagonists," as they choose to call themselves, will now perceive how vulnerable the scheme of doctrine they have adopted-how easy to retort upon such

authors as Foster and Simpson, the shocking blasphemies they charge upon Calvinism; and especially how foolish, not to say wicked, the attempt to fix upon the Presbyterian ministry the foul stain of deliberate deception, "insincerity," "duplicity," "disingenuousness and cowardice, in smoothing over and covering up, &c." * It is obvious that these foul aspersions lie with far greater force against our Arminian accusers; for who ever heard an Arminian preacher state from the pulpit these difficulties of his system? Who ever finds them even hinted at in such works as Foster's "Objections to Calvinism?" But "to their own Master they stand or fall”—we are not their judges.

LETTER VII.

PREDESTINATION-ELECTION-REPROBATION.

REV. SIR-It has now been made apparent, if I mistake not, that the attempts of Arminians to manufacture a creed for the Presbyterian church, is a total failure; and that the impious dogmas which you say we "must believe," bear "the image and superscription" of the great lights of Arminianism! We might here leave the subject to the judgment of all unprejudiced men. But although it is not our object to write an extended defense of the doctrine of Predestination; yet, as this feature of our system more than all others, has furnished modern Methodists with matter of abuse and denunciation, it may be proper to dwell briefly on its logical bearings upon several distinct topics; in doing which we shall endeavor at the same time to exhibit the weakness of the Arminian scheme.

I. The inquiry, Why does sin exist under the government of a most wise, holy and powerful Ruler? has always been * Dr. Fisk on Elec. and Predest. pp. 34, 35. Methodist Tract, No. 131.