Datasets:

Alignment-Lab-AI

/

GutenDialogue2

like 1

[ { "from": "human", "value": "To-morrow, dear, she said," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "He won't bite, miss, will he?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Oh, dear, no," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Pretty doggie," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Pretty doggie," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Zank zou, lady," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "It would spoil them to fancy them growing up into great boys or girls, I said." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I want them to be always trots--nothing else." }, { "from": "human", "value": "or" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Too told! said Doll, and Dot repeated, like a mournful echo," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Of course, said I," }, { "from": "human", "value": "We're going to buy some cakes for tea," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Takes for tea, they both called out at once," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Oh no, with the exception of two or three cases of croup, he had no serious ailments among his patients: it was a very healthy season." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "They have probably left St. Austin's, she said." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Many people come here for only the _very_ worst of the winter, and that is about over now." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "How are you, darling? I said." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "And where is----" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Oh lady, it said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Dot is all alone. Doll is 'done to 'Ebben," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Hush, hush, my dear. You mustn't cry. You'll make yourself ill if you cry any more," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Good-bye, my trot," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Dood bye, don't ky, said Dot, stroking my cheek." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Doll won't turn back, but Dot will do to 'Ebben too some day." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Mamma, I exclaimed, rushing into our sitting-room, and throwing myself down on the sofa," }, { "from": "human", "value": "It's just what I thought. I wish you would come away from St. Austin's at once. I shall never, never like it again." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "What _is_ the matter, Florence?" }, { "from": "human", "value": "It's about the trots, I said, now fairly sobbing," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I have just seen one--in deep mourning, mamma,--and--and--the other one is _dead_." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Poor little angel!" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Wherever you go, mamma, don't go to St. Austin's." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "But _Dot_ couldn't have been ill, mamma, I said." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Dot looked perfectly well." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Did he? said my mother. Sometimes she called the trots" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "and sometimes" }, { "from": "human", "value": "in the funniest way!" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I wonder what the other little dear died of?" }, { "from": "human", "value": "So do I, I replied." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Still, on the whole, I think I am just as well pleased not to know." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "(which, children, does not mean the same thing as our English lodgings by any means), at our leisure. Your grandmother was not rich, and the coming so far cost a great deal. The hotel we had been recommended to, was a very comfortable one, though not one of the most fashionable, and the landlord was very civil, as some friend who had stayed with him the year before had written about our coming. He showed us our rooms himself, and hoped we should like them, and then he turned back to say he trusted we should not be disturbed by the voices of some children in the next" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Then they must be old maids! I said, laughing," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "at which Mr. Landlord bowed and smiled, and said something complimentary about mademoiselle being so" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Poor little trots, said mamma." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I wonder if the one that was left still misses the other?" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Place," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "I suddenly stopped." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Oh, mamma!" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Dip, Dip; see Bessie, here is a doggie like Dip," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Dip, Dip, pretty Dip," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Dip, Dip would have satisfied me, even if I had not seen them. The trots never _could_ manage the letter" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "G!" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Here is Dip's kind lady too," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "I _am_ pleased to see you again, miss, to be sure; who would have thought it? she said." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "And they haven't forgot you, haven't Doll and Dot. They are always speaking of Gip and you, miss." }, { "from": "human", "value": "But, Bessie, I began, and then I hesitated. How could I tell her what I had thought?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "How was it you left St. Austin's so suddenly?" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Let me see, she said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "But Dot _did_ 'do to 'Ebben, said Doll, who as well as Dot was listening to what Bessie was saying." }, { "from": "human", "value": "And then Doll 'tummed to 'Ebben too, said Dot," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "If only I had known last night who they were," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Think rather, she said," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "You never did? oh what a pity! exclaimed Sybil." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "You really never, never did, mother?" }, { "from": "human", "value": "As _trots_ I never saw them again, she said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "But you've seen them since, cried all the three children at once," }, { "from": "human", "value": "I couldn't just now, truly I couldn't, said auntie," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Awfully," }, { "from": "human", "value": "It's lovely," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "It must be the post," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Children, dear children, she said," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "It is because you made the story of the trots end nicely that that nice letter came," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "together. Long ago, in so far that you would not be able _anywhere_ to find these children whom I loved so much, and whom I have told you a little about. You would, at least I _hope_ you would, like to know what became of them, how they grew up, and what Carrots did when he got to be a man. But this I cannot now tell you, for my little book is long enough--I only hope you are not tired of it--only I may tell you one thing. If any of you know a very good, kind, gentle, brave man--so good that he cannot but be kind; so brave that he cannot but be gentle, I should like you to think that, perhaps, whatever he is--clergyman, doctor, soldier, sailor, it doesn't matter in the least--_perhaps_ when that man was a boy, he was my little Carrots. Especially if he has large" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "brown eyes, and hair that once _might_ have been called" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Now I know how that fellow Darrin wins his fights," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1835, by B. Waugh and T. Mason, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Every action and motion of every creature is governed by the hidden counsel of God, so that nothing can come to pass, but was ordained by him. The Assembly's Catechism is similar:--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God did, from all eternity, unchangeably ordain whatever comes to pass. And Mr. Buck defines predestination to mean," }, { "from": "human", "value": "The decree of God, whereby he hath, for his own glory, foreordained whatever comes to pass." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "For how, they ask," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God, says Piscator," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "And Calvin says," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God therefore foreknows all things that will come to pass, because he has decreed they shall come to pass. But to this idea there are insuperable objections. Prescience is an essential attribute of the Divine nature. But a determination to do this or that, is not essential to the Divine nature. For aught we can see, God might determine to make a particular planet or not to make it, and in either case the perfection of his nature is not affected. But _to know_, is so essential to him, that the moment he ceases to know all that is, or will be, or might be, under any possible contingency, he ceases to be God. Is it not absurd, then, to say the least, to make an essential attribute of Deity depend upon the _exercise_ of his attributes?--the Divine prescience depend upon his decrees and determinations? It would seem, by this argument, that, if not in the order of time, at least, in the order of thought, and in the order of cause and effect, the exercise of an attribute preceded the attribute itself; and, in short, the attribute must be exercised, as a cause, to bring it into existence! To this monstrous conclusion we are led by following out this argument. And connected with it is another, equally monstrous and absurd. If God must predetermine events in order to know them, then, as the cause is in no case dependent on the effect, the decrees of God must be passed and his plan contrived, independently of his knowledge, which only had an existence as the effect of these decrees. What must be the character of that plan, and of those decrees, which were formed and matured without knowledge, we will not stop to examine, for the idea borders too closely upon the ludicrous to be dwelt upon in a serious discourse. And yet I cannot see how this conclusion can be avoided, reasoning from such premises. It seems to us, therefore, altogether more consistent to consider that, in the order of cause and effect, the exercise of the Divine attributes is consequent upon their existence; and that the plan of the Almighty is the result of his infinite knowledge; and that the decrees of his throne flow forth from the eternal fountain of his wisdom. This idea, moreover, accords with the Scriptures:--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "The foreknowledge of God, it is said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "This is indeed shifting the argument; for if God's knowledge makes an event certain, of course it is not his predetermination. But, according to this notion, every thing contained in the idea of predestination is implied in foreknowledge, which is only throwing the subject back on the ground first glanced at, that knowledge and decree are both one, which is obviously absurd. Beside, such an idea would make the scriptures that represent God's foreknowledge as distinct from his decree and antecedent to it, worse than unmeaning:" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Whom he did foreknow, them he did predestinate, would mean," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--and," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God, would only mean," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "It cannot be conceived, it is said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "But this argument is easily answered, at least for the present. For it assumes what ought to be proved; and what has not, to my knowledge, ever been proved, viz. that to deny Calvinian predestination, is to deny that God has a perfect plan. We acknowledge and maintain that God has a plan, one part of which is, to govern his responsible subjects, without controlling their will, by a fixed decree--to punish the incorrigible, and save those who repent and believe. Does such a plan imply the necessity of a change," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "But, say the advocates of this system," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "If this is true, then indeed we must submit. But the question is, where are these passages? After such a strong assertion, it would probably appear surprising to one unacquainted with this subject, to learn that there is not a single passage which teaches directly that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Yet this is the fact. If this doctrine is taught in Scripture, it is in an indirect manner. Nor will it follow, because God hath predestinated some things, that he hath, therefore, decreed all things. All those passages then which have been so frequently quoted as proof of this doctrine, which only go to prove, that God hath predetermined certain events, are not proof in point. Where are the passages that say he hath decreed all things? We know of many which say of certain events that have come to pass, that God did not _command_ them, nor _will_ them; so that the abundant Scripture proof seems altogether on the other side of the question. It is argued, however, that certain acts of moral agents, even those acts for which they are held responsible, are, according to the Scriptures, the results of God's predetermination, and therefore it is reasonable to infer that all are. This general conclusion, however, is not contained in the premises; nevertheless, if the premises are true, if it can be proved from Scripture that God holds his creatures responsible for the results of his own decrees, such Scripture proofs would be strong arguments to ward off the objections that are brought against this system. For if it is consistent with a righteous God to make a moral agent responsible for one event which was the result of a Divine decree, upon the same principle, perhaps, he might make him responsible for all, though all were decreed. Let us then look at those scriptures," }, { "from": "human", "value": "As for you, says Joseph to his brethren, speaking of their injustice to him," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Now without stopping here to inquire whether Joseph was inspired to utter this sentiment, we are ready to acknowledge, that there are a number of similar scriptures which teach that, in the results of the wicked acts of wicked men, God had a design and a controlling influence, and thereby made them subservient to his own purposes. He hath wisdom and power" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea, even the wicked for the day of evil." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "He doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "He worketh all things after the counsel of his will." }, { "from": "human", "value": "I will do all my pleasure. But these passages establish nothing, in opposition to our views, unless it should first be proved, by other passages, or in some other way, that it is God's will and pleasure to work _all things_, even wickedness, in the wicked. These scriptures prove that all _God's works_ are in accordance with his own will and pleasure; and that he will accomplish them in spite of the opposition of sinners. If it pleases him to form his moral government, so as to leave the responsible acts of his subjects unnecessitated by his decree, this he will do, for" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he should not let the people go." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Now therefore the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands ye have crucified and slain. On these and similar passages it may be remarked, that God blinds men and hardens their hearts judicially, as a just punishment for their abuse of their agency. And for this act of his, in blinding and hardening them, he does not make them responsible. But he holds them responsible for that degree of wickedness which made it just and necessary to give them over to this hardness of heart and blindness of mind. And since there are wicked men and lying spirits, they become fit instruments in deceiving and tormenting each other; and therefore God gives them power and liberty to go abroad," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "of sin. Others affirm it in fact, while they deny it in word. Take for instance the words of Calvin." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I will not scruple to own, he says," }, { "from": "human", "value": "In accordance with this, Piscator, Dr. Twiss, Peter Martyr and others tell us, that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God procures adultery, cursings, and lyings --" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God is the author of that act, which is evil --" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God, by his working on the hearts of the wicked, binds them and stirs them to do evil. They deny, however, that God is the author of sin, because they say," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God necessitates them to the _act_, and not to the _depravity_ of sin: or, that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God does not sin when he makes men sin, because _he_ is under no law, and therefore cannot sin." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Others, and the greater part of the Calvinists of the present day, endeavour to reconcile the ideas of _necessity_ and _free agency_. Man, they say, sins voluntarily, because he chooses or wills to sin; therefore he is a free agent. Hence they exhort sinners to repent, and tell them they can repent if they will. By which they mean, the only impossibility of their repenting, is in their will--their _cannot_ is their _will not_. This has led many to think that there is no difference, between their preachers and the Arminians. But let us look at this subject a little, and see if there is not some sophistry concealed in this dexterous coil of words. God, according to this doctrine, secures the end as well as the means, by his decree of predestination. And therefore, as Calvin says," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "but by his predestination and secret counsel, he irresistibly impels them in an opposite course, for the express purpose, as this doctrine informs us, to secure their transgression. _His_ rule of action is in direct opposition to _our_ rule of duty. And yet he is the author of both! Is God at war with himself, or is he sporting and trifling with his creatures? Or is it not more probable than either, that the premises are false? When or where has God ever taught us, that he has two opposing wills? A character so suspicious, to say the least of it, ought not, without the most unequivocal evidence, to be attributed to the adorable Jehovah. In his word, we are taught, that he is" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--that his" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "How can I give thee up--my heart is melted within me, my repentings are kindled together, --" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "O Jerusalem! Jerusalem! how oft would I have gathered you, and ye would not, --and still he himself" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Therefore God will not punish any of his creatures for any of their acts. Now, who can point out any fallacy in this reasoning? If therefore predestination be true, Universalism is true, according to the universally acknowledged principles of justice. And it is a notorious fact, that modern Universalism, which is prevailing so generally through the country, rests for its chief support on the doctrine of predestination. Others having seen, as they thought, that the Scriptures would not support the doctrine of Universalism, and that matter of fact seemed to contradict the above reasoning, inasmuch as men are made to suffer, even in this life, for their sins, have leaped over all Scriptural bounds into infidelity and philosophical necessity. I have personally known numbers who have been driven, by the doctrine we object to, into open infidelity. And it is well known, that the doctrine of fate, which is closely allied to Calvinian predestination, is the element in which infidelity" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "But for unconditional election, predestination would not be desired, even by those who now hold to it; and but for predestination, unconditional election could not be maintained. Hence these have very properly been called" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, _without any foresight of faith or good works_. Others, and this also is our doctrine, hold that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God did decree from the beginning, to elect, or choose in Christ, all that should believe unto salvation, and this decree proceeds from his own goodness, and is not built on any goodness of the creature; and that God did from the beginning decree to reprobate all who should finally and obstinately continue in unbelief." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God, through sanctification of the Spirit unto obedience, and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son. These scriptures seem to us decisive, that the decree of election rests on foreknowledge, and that this election is made, not according to the arbitrary act of God, but on the ground of sanctification and obedience. The doctrine, therefore, that men are predestinated to eternal life," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "lest _they_ should" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Why should St. Paul fear lest, after having preached to others, he should be a castaway? Either there is, or is not, danger of the elect's being lost. If not, then all these passages are not only without meaning, but savour very strongly of deception. They are false colours held out to the elect, for the purposes of alarm and fear, where no fear is. Will it be said, that possibly some of those addressed were not of the elect, and were therefore deceiving themselves, and needed to be cautioned and warned? I answer, they had then nothing to fall from, and no promise of which to come short. Besides, to warn such to _stand fast_, seems to imply, that the Holy Spirit cautioned the reprobates against the danger of becoming the elect, which idea, while it intimates a very ungracious work for the" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Spirit of grace to be engaged in, clearly indicates, that there was danger of breaking the decree of reprobation! We ask again, therefore, What do these scriptures mean? Will it be said, as some have argued, that these warnings and cautions are all consistent, because they are the very means by which the decree of election is made sure? But let it be understood, that the end is fixed, before the means; because Calvinism tells us, that this election is" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "and that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God's decree lays a necessity on all things, so that every thing he wills necessarily comes to pass, and is therefore sure," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The moment, therefore, God decrees an event, it becomes sure, and to talk of danger of a failure in that event, implies either a falsehood, or that God's decree can be _broken_. But Calvinists, I presume, will not allow that there is any danger of counteracting or frustrating the plan of the Almighty. Hence there is no danger of the elect's coming short of salvation. All the exhortations, cautions, and warnings therefore, recorded in the Scriptures, are false colours and deceptive motives. They are like the attempts of some weak parents, who undertake to frighten their children into obedience, by superstitious tales and groundless fears. God knows, when he is giving out these intimations of danger, that there is no such danger; his own eternal, unchangeable decree had secured their salvation before the means were planned--all this if election is unconditional. But far be this from a God of truth. If he exhorts his creatures to" }, { "from": "human", "value": "_he_ has not made it sure.--If he teaches them to fear, lest they fail of the grace of God, there is doubtless real danger. The conclusion therefore is irresistible, that Cod hath suspended his decree of election to eternal life, on conditions;" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "He that believeth: shall be saved." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "For many are called, but few are chosen. This passage, with the parable of the wedding that precedes it, teaches that the _choice_ was made subsequently to the call, and was grounded on the fact, that those chosen had actually and fully complied with the invitation, and had come to the wedding duly prepared. John xv, 19," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "If ye were of the world, the world would love you, but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. This passage teaches that Christ's disciples were once of the world, and that he had chosen them out of the world, and this _choice_ evidently refers to that time when they became of a different character from the world; for then it was, and in consequence of that election, that the world hated them.--2 Thess. ii, 13," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Because God hath from the beginning, _chosen_ you to salvation, through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "He hath chosen us from the foundation of the world, that we should be holy--having predestinated us unto the adoption of sons, &c. See also Rom. viii, 29," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, and" }, { "from": "human", "value": "The argument upon these and similar passages is, that the decree of predestination could not be founded on their faith or holiness; because they were predestinated to _become_ holy--the decree of predestination had their holiness for its object and end. But if these passages had an allusion to a personal election to eternal life, they would not prove unconditional election," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "to use the language of another," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The apostle shows them, too, that the covenant made with Abraham was not for circumcision, nor for the works of the law, so far as it affected him or his posterity, because it was made while Abraham was in uncircumcision, and on the condition of faith. He argues farther, that this election of the Jews to the enjoyment of these national and ecclesiastical privileges, was not because they were children of Abraham, for Ishmael was a child of Abraham, and yet he and his posterity were rejected; nor yet because they were the children of Abraham through Isaac, because Esau and his posterity were reprobated from these national privileges, while Jacob and his posterity were the chosen seed--not chosen to eternal life, because many of them perished in sin and unbelief, but to the peculiar privileges of God's covenant people. And all this because it was the good pleasure of his will. And as a sovereign, he had the same right to elect the Gentiles to the enjoyment of the covenant of mercy, and upon the same conditions of faith. The apostle concludes this reasoning by an argument which cuts off entirely the idea of unconditional personal election and reprobation. He informs us, that the reason why the unbelieving Jews did not attain to personal righteousness, was" }, { "from": "human", "value": "and the Gentiles attained to personal righteousness, because they sought it by faith. Hence, those that were not his people, became his people, and those that were not beloved, became beloved--and these," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Whereas, if the doctrine we oppose be true, the elect were _always_ his people, and _always_ beloved, and that because he pleased to have it so. That portion of Scripture, therefore, on which Calvinism leans for its greatest support, not only affords it no aid, but actually teaches a different doctrine. There is indeed something of mystery hanging over the providence of God, in bestowing peculiar advantages on some, and withholding them from others. But on this subject much light is cast from various considerations which we have not time to enlarge upon; but especially from that wholesome and consistent Scripture doctrine, that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "This removes at once all complaint of Jew and Gentile, and authorizes the reply, so often misapplied," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Who art thou that repliest against God? As a sovereign, God has a right to make his creatures differ in these things, so long as he requires only as he gives. But this differs as widely from the Calvinistic idea of sovereignty, as _justice_ from _injustice_, as _equity_ from _iniquity_. In fact, God no where in the Scripture, places the election of individuals to eternal life, solely on the ground of his sovereignty, but uniformly on the ground of their complying with the conditions of the covenant of grace. Hence his people are a _peculiar people_--his sheep _hear his voice and follow him_--they are _chosen out of the world_--they are _in Christ_, not by an eternal decree of election, but _by faith_--for" }, { "from": "human", "value": "--and of course, he is not _in him_, until he is a" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--then, and not before, they become his, and he seals them as such," }, { "from": "human", "value": "In whom, _after that ye believed_, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Even so then, at the present time, there is a remnant, according to the election of grace, and if it be by grace then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace; but if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work." }, { "from": "human", "value": "By grace ye are saved." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of his children, &c, to the praise of the glory of his grace." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Now we profess to believe these scriptures as unqualifiedly and as cordially as the Calvinists; and we think them perfectly in accordance with our views of election. For we believe, as has been already stated, that God's plan for saving sinners originated entirely in his love to his undeserving creatures. There was nothing in all the character and circumstances of the fallen family, except their sin and deserved misery, that could claim the interposition of God's saving power. The way of executing his gracious plan, and rendering it available in any case, he of course, as a sovereign, reserved to himself. And if he saw that a conditional election was best suited to the principles of his government, and the responsibility of man, shall it be said, this cannot be, for it destroys the idea of grace? _Cannot_ a conditional election be of grace? Let the intelligent and candid answer. Even many of the Calvinists acknowledge that _salvation_ is conditional, and yet it is of grace; for" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Let the candid judge between us, then, and decide which system most robs our gracious Redeemer of his glory, that which gives man a _native_ and _inherent_ power to get to heaven of himself, or that which attributes all to grace. 4. Finally, when the sinner repents and believes, there is no merit in these acts to procure forgiveness and regeneration, and therefore, though he is _now_, and _on these conditions_, elected, and made an heir of salvation, yet it is for Christ's sake, and" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Thus we" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "He will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, it is said also," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Whom he will he hardeneth. He that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "He that says," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Jacob have I loved, says also in the same manner," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Esau have I hated. Now if these relate to personal election to eternal life, they relate also to personal reprobation to eternal death. But if there is any explanation, by which these are showed not to prove unconditional reprobation to eternal death, the same principle of explanation will, and _must_ show, that they do not prove Calvinistic election. From henceforth, therefore, let all those Calvinists who profess not to believe in unconditional reprobation, cease to urge, in favour of their system, any arguments drawn from the foreknowledge of God, or the necessity of a Divine plan, or from those scriptures that are most commonly quoted in favour of their doctrine. But when they do this, their system must necessarily fall; for all its main pillars will be removed. But I have not done with this objection yet. Whoever maintains that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, must also hold to unconditional reprobation. Does it come to pass, that some are lost? Then this was ordained. Was sin necessary, as a pretence to damn them? Then this was ordained. From these and other views of the subject, Calvin was led to say, that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "and that it was" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "to attempt to separate them. All, therefore, who hold to the unconditional election of a part of mankind to eternal life, _must_, to be consistent with themselves, take into their creed, the" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "God calls to the reprobates, that they may be more deaf--kindles a light, that they may be more blind--brings his doctrine to them, that they may be more ignorant--and applies the remedy to them, that they may not be healed," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Adam sinned, says Calvin," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "And so every one must say, that believes God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. Taking all the links together, they stand thus:--God decreed to create intelligent beings--he decreed that they should all become sinners and children of wrath--and it was so. He then decreed that part of those whom he had constituted heirs of wrath, should be taken, and washed, and saved, and the others left to perish; and then we are told there is no unjust partiality in God, since they all deserve to be damned! What a singular evasion is this! God wishes to damn a certain portion of his creatures, and save the rest; but he cannot do this without subjecting himself to the charge of partiality. To avoid this, he plunges them all into sin and ruin, and forthwith he declares them all children of wrath, and heirs of hell. But in the plenitude of his grace, he snatches some from the pit of ruin, and leaves the rest in remediless wo! Is such a supposition worthy of our righteous God?--Does it accord either with his justice or wisdom? Reason, with half an eye, can see through the flimsy veil, and discover the weakness of the device. I know an attempt has been often made to charge these consequences upon our system, as well as upon the Calvinistic doctrine. For if it is acknowledged that man is born depraved, and this depravity is damning in its nature, does it not follow, it is asked, that all deserve to perish? And therefore God may elect some and justly pass by the rest. I answer--Although all moral depravity, derived or contracted, is damning in its nature, still, by virtue of the atonement, the destructive effects of derived depravity are counteracted; and guilt is not imputed, until by a voluntary rejection of the Gospel remedy, man makes the depravity of his nature the object of his own choice.--Hence, although abstractly considered, this depravity is destructive to the possessors, yet through the grace of the Gospel, _all_ are born free from condemnation. So the Apostle Paul," }, { "from": "human", "value": "As by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation, so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men, unto justification of life." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "--that he" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--that he" }, { "from": "human", "value": "--that he became" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--because, these are so many express Scripture propositions, and rest directly on the authority of God. And while these stand, the doctrine of particular and unconditional election must fall, for the two doctrines are incompatible. That particular election and partial redemption must stand or fall together, has been acknowledged, and is still maintained by most Calvinists; and therefore they have endeavoured to explain away those passages, which so clearly declare that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Christ died for all." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "If I am to be saved, I shall be, do what I may; and if I am to be damned, I must be, do what I can;" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Agreement of Brethren, &c, says:--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The question, as to the object of the decrees, has gone out among our Calvinistic brethren into endless digladiations and irreconcilable divisions, and then goes on to mention nine of these" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "and yet" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "who taught these errors. They recommend their writings, they garnish their sepulchres, they teach their catechisms to the rising generation; they say, even in their Church articles of faith," }, { "from": "human", "value": "We believe in the doctrines of grace, as held and taught by the _fathers_ and _reformers_ in the Church, --and especially do they hold to that root and foundation of the whole system," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God hath, from all eternity, foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." }, { "from": "human", "value": "but he would, doubtless, in his bold, blunt manner, charge them with disingenuousness and cowardice, if not with downright duplicity, for thus shunning and smoothing over and covering up the more repulsive features of their system. How would he chide them for shifting their ground, and changing their system, while they nevertheless pretend to build on the same foundation of predestination! He would, we believe, sternly inquire of them what they meant by saying, all sinners, not excepting reprobates, may come to Christ and be saved?--why they pretended to hold to election, and not to reprobation?--how they could reconcile general redemption with particular election?--and especially would he frown indignantly upon that new doctrine, lately preached and defended, in what has been supposed to be the head quarters of orthodoxy in New -England, by which we are taught that derived depravity is not any taint or sinful corruption of our moral constitution, but consists, exclusively and entirely, in _moral exercise!_ But probably he would get little satisfaction from those who profess his creed and bear his name. They would tell him that the old forms of this system were so repulsive, the people would not receive them; and that, being hard pressed by their antagonists, they had thrown up these new redoubts, and assumed these new positions, not only to conceal their doctrine, but if possible to defend it. And as he could get little satisfaction of _them_, he would get less from us.--Could we meet the venerable reformer, we would thank him for his successful zeal and labour in the Protestant cause; but we would expostulate with him for giving sanction and currency to his" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "With such a proposition there certainly can be no controversy, for it leaves the subject more vague, and the point in dispute more confused than before a definition was attempted. There are two errors, the antipodes of each other, which, in all controversy, and especially religious controversy, ought to be carefully guarded against. The one is an attempt to make the subjects of difference more numerous and consequential than they are in truth; and the other is an attempt to cover up real differences under indefinite propositions and ambiguous terms. Both these errors may be the result of honest motives: the former may arise from a jealous regard to the truth, and the latter from a love of peace. Both, however, are injurious; for neither does the one promote the cause of truth, nor does the other secure a permanent peace. Indeed, bringing antagonist principles into contact gives an additional impulse to their repellent forces, so that a transient union produces, in the end, greater discord. Though the controversy in the Church, between Calvinists and Arminians, has been long and injurious; yet, as an individual, I never can sign a _union creed_ of doubtful terms and ambiguous articles. Nor can I deem it worth my while to contend about such terms and articles. I should fear the searching interrogatory of Him who questioned Job:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? In the present controversy there is danger of this ambiguity also from a less commendable principle than a love of peace, viz. an adherence to old symbols of faith to avoid the imputation of a change; while, at the same time, to escape the force of unanswerable argument, vague propositions, ambiguous definitions, and equivocal terms are made the bulwark of defence. This principle was alluded to in the sermon on predestination; and although it has given great offence to some of the Calvinists, and is represented by the author of the review which we are about to notice as being" }, { "from": "human", "value": "yet it seems to me he knows little of his own heart who thinks himself incapable of such a course. Nor does it seem _utterly unworthy_ of an honest inquirer after truth to mark the effects of arguments upon systems, since the changes effected in those systems, by the arguments urged against them, show the strength of the one and the weakness of the other. If; therefore, I should undertake to answer Mr. Tyler's sermon, my strictures would consist chiefly in pointing out its indefiniteness and incongruity. But this, without convincing, might give offence. And although I see no way of continuing the controversy, as the Calvinists now manage it, without alluding to this course of the advocates of predestination, yet I am happy to say there is less of it in the" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "before us than is common in modern treatises on that subject. Though it is a laboured article of about forty-three pages, yet it is generally in a manly style, and sustained by a train of close and skilful argumentation. It would afford me great pleasure to be able to equal the reviewer's ingenuity, and still more to throw into my reply the serenity of his spirit. I have little occasion, however, in the present case, to dread his talents or lose my temper; for if I understand the reviewer, though his essay bears upon it, if not the" }, { "from": "human", "value": "at least the decided" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "But in what sense are we to understand the position that he (God) purposes the existence of sin? He proceeds to answer:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Not necessarily, in the sense of his preferring its existence in his kingdom to its non-existence, &c. In affirming the doctrine of predestination we affirm no more necessarily than that God, with the knowledge that these beings would sin in despite of the best measures of providence and government he could take, purposed to create them and pursue those measures, not for the sake of their sin, but for the good which he nevertheless saw it was possible to secure in his moral kingdom. This would be a purpose with respect to the existence of sin, a purpose to permit its existence, rather than to have no moral system. --Again, page 613:" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Nothing more (touching free agency) is implied in the purpose spoken of than a CERTAINTY _foreseen_ of God, that if he creates and upholds that being, and pursues wise and good measures of providence, he (the being) will at a given time, fully choose in a given way. In page 612 he says," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God confers on them (mankind) in their creation the powers of free agency, and he uses _no influence_ in his providence or government to procure their sin. Page 614," }, { "from": "human", "value": "He (God) most obviously has no will opposed to his law, though with a foresight of their conduct he should purpose to permit their sin, rather than dispense with the existence of a moral kingdom. But it is useless to multiply quotations. Suffice it to say that the reviewer's whole ground of defence against the arguments of the sermon, on the question of predestination, is solely this Arminian explanation of the doctrine of predestination. He acknowledges, nay boldly asserts, in a strain" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "And so confident is the reviewer that he still believes in the _fact_ of predestination, in the old Calvinistic sense, that in stating his sentiments on this subject he uses the same forms of expression which Calvinists have used, when their meaning was as distant from his as the two poles from each other. He tells us, for instance, that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God determined that the events which take place should take place in the very manner in which they do, and for the very ends. Now if the writer mean what the words naturally imply, then he believes that, in the case of a finally impenitent sinner, God predetermined that all his sins _should_ take place in the manner they did, and for the very end that he might be damned! Again he tells us," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God, in his eternal purpose, has predetermined all events. And, quoting from the Assembly's Catechism," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God, from all eternity, did freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, he tells us that this expresses essentially the views entertained by the orthodox Congregationalists of New-England, among whom, I suppose of course, he would include himself. Now, after what I have said of the reviewer's Arminianism, I doubt not but some of my readers will be startled at these quotations, and be ready to accuse me of great credulity in the judgment I have formed of the writer's sentiments. I shall exculpate myself, however, by saying, in the first place, that if there is any contradiction in the writer's sentiments or language, it is not my fault, but his; and if I should attempt to reconcile them, perhaps the reviewer would not thank me for my officiousness. Beside, after what has been said, I feel safer in understanding the reviewer in an _Arminian sense_, because he and some others take it very ill of me that I have represented them as Calvinists. But, in fairness to the reviewer, it is presumed that he will not consider himself justly chargeable with contradiction. He has used these old terms, it is true, and thus has _subscribed_ to the Calvinistic creed as positively as the staunchest Calvinist; but then, let it be understood, he has _explained_ that creed, and defined the terms, and protests against being held responsible for any other construction than his own. Hence by God's predetermining that sin _should_ take place, in the very manner, and for the very ends it does--by God's foreordaining whatsoever comes to pass--he only means that God foresaw that sin would certainly take place, and predetermined that he would not hinder it, either by refraining from creating moral agents, or by throwing a restraint upon them that would destroy their free agency. In short, that he would submit to it as an evil unavoidably incident to the best possible system, after doing all that he wisely could to prevent it! This is _foreordaining sin!!_ This is _predetermining_ that it _should be!!!_ I cannot but express my _deepest regret_ that a gentleman of the reviewer's standing and learning should lend his aid and give his sanction to such a perversion of language--to such a confusion of tongues. We do not complain of the doctrine contained in the _explanation;_ but we protest, in the name of all that is pure in language, in the name of all that is important in the sentiments conveyed by language, against such an abuse of terms. Alas for us! When will the watchmen see eye to eye! when will the Church be at peace! while our spiritual guides, our doctors in divinity, pursue this course? By what authority will the reviewer support this definition? Do the words _predestinate_, or _foreordain_, or _decree_ mean, in common language, or even in their radical and critical definition, nothing more than _to permit--not absolutely to hinder--to submit to as an unavoidable but offensive evil?_ The reviewer certainly will not pretend this. Much less do they mean this when used in a magisterial or authoritative sense, to express the mind and will of a superior or governor toward an inferior or a subject.--What is the _decree_ of a king? What is the _ordinance_ of a senate? What is the official determination of a legislative body? Let common sense and common usage answer the question. Not a man probably can be found, from the philosopher to the peasant, who would say these words would bear the explanation of the reviewer. Yet it is in this official and authoritative sense that theologians, and our reviewer among them, use these terms. The Assembly's Catechism, as quoted by himself, says," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God, from all eternity, _did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain_," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "that the author of the sermon" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The sermon was against Calvinism, not Arminianism. It is true, the reviewer may say, the sermon alludes, in some parts, to the Calvinism of New-England, and therefore he felt himself implicated. But he certainly was not unless he is a New-England _Calvinist_--unless he believes that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, in the proper sense of those terms. Indeed, it seems that Calvinism, in its proper character, is as obnoxious to the reviewer, as to the author of the sermon; and the former seems to have taken this opportunity to show the _nakedness_ of the system, and bring into notice a better doctrine. If so, is it safe that the reviewer should still accord to them their old symbols of faith? And is it just, that the author of the sermon should be held the defendant on the record, when the execution is issued against Calvinism itself? In answer to the former question, I would say, it is utterly _unsafe_, and never will be approved of, I believe, by Arminians. With respect to the latter question, if it is _safer_ to attack Calvinism in this indirect way, I will not object, though it may seem at present to my disadvantage. But I cannot see that it would be safer--an open bold front always ends best. What if it should subject the reviewer, and the theological doctors in New-Haven generally, to the charge of heresy? Still they ought not to shrink from their responsibilities--they occupy a commanding influence among the Churches and over the candidates of their theological school, and that influence should be openly and decidedly directed to discountenance error. They should remove it, root and branch. Especially should they discard those old symbols of faith, which are not only in themselves, in _their true and proper meaning_, a reflection upon the clerical character, and a _black spot_ upon an otherwise orthodox creed, but are also especially obnoxious, because they are the very articles which the great body of the Calvinists have maintained, in a sense widely different from that of the reviewer. At the head of these stands Calvin, the author of the system, in the Protestant Church. Calvin, who says," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I will not scruple to own that the will of God lays a necessity on all things, and that every thing he wills necessarily comes to pass." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Adam fell, not only by the _permission_, but also by the _appointment_ of God. He not only _foresaw_ that Adam would fall, but also _ordained_ that he should." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The devil and wicked men are so held in on every side, with the hand of God, that they cannot conceive or contrive or execute any mischief, any farther than God himself doth not _permit_ only, but _command_--nor are they held in fetters, but compelled also, as with a bridle, to perform obedience to those commands. Calvin, it seems, was far from thinking that _appointment_ only meant _permission_, or that to _ordain_ only meant certainty _foreseen_. In this he was correct: in this he has been followed by a host of writers down to the present day, and copied in numerous ecclesiastical symbols, in different parts of Christendom; and does not the reviewer know that these terms are understood by Hopkins and Emmons, and all the Calvinists of that school, in a sense widely different from his explanation, and in a sense, too, much more in accordance with the _proper meaning_ of the terms? Does he not know that a great majority of the Calvinists of the United States, and perhaps in New-England, even understand these terms, as indeed they ought to be understood, when used in reference to sin, as expressing a preference of sin, in that part of the Divine plan where sin occurs, to holiness in its stead? Indeed, as I understand the reviewer, from the days of John Calvin down to the present hour, there is, on this point, between the great body of Calvinists and himself, almost no likeness, except in the use of words. Theirs is one doctrine--his another. Why, then, does he oppose the opposers of Calvinism, and thus keep error in countenance? Especially, why does he hail from that party, and hoist their signals, and then, alter _seeming_ to get the victory, by espousing the very cause of the assailed, encourage the _Calvinists_ to triumph, as if _their_ cause had been successful? Is this justice to the author of the sermon? Is it the best way to promote truth? But I forbear. The reviewer's subsequent explanations may remove these difficulties. At any rate, the cause of truth will doubtless advance. The appearance of this review has given additional strength to the sentiment, Calvinism" }, { "from": "human", "value": "The dogma that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God has predetermined all events, and elected (in a Calvinistic sense) out of our guilty world all who shall be heirs of salvation," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Why do our Calvinistic writers retain the words which seem so sadly to perplex our Arminian brethren, when it is certain that we do not attach the signification to them which they always pretend? and then instances in the word" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The editor, in reply, gives as a reason for using these words, that they are Scriptural; and seems to deem it necessary that they should _persist_ in this use until we submit. This reply of the editor reminded me of a remark of Mr. Tyler, in his sermon already alluded to:" }, { "from": "human", "value": "The Calvinist contends that God resolved, from eternity, to permit all the sins and miseries which were to take place; and this he calls, in the language of the Bible, _foreordination_. Now, not to stop here, to show that no true Calvinist would ever call _foreordination_ and _permission_ the same thing, for Calvin has, as we have seen, clearly distinguished the two words from each other, I beg the privilege of adding a thought or two on this idea of Scripture authority for the use or these terms. For if it is only because the Scriptures use these words in this sense, that they _persist_ in using them, I think we may easily settle this question. Let it be shown that the Scriptures use" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "or" }, { "from": "human", "value": "in the sense of mere _permission--not absolutely hindering_. Again: let _one passage_ be shown in which it is said, God" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "all things, or" }, { "from": "human", "value": "whatsoever comes to pass. If this cannot be done, how futile, how more than absurd is it, to talk about using these words, because the Scriptures use them! To use Scripture words out of the Scripture sense, and then appeal to Scripture to sanction this use, is as sad a perversion of the Scriptures as it is of logic. Indeed, to give such a meaning to the word predestinate, is at once to take away the principal scriptures quoted by the reviewer, and others, to prove Calvinistic election. See Eph. i, 5; ii, 10; Rom. viii, 29. Does predestination in these passages mean merely _to permit_, or not _to hinder?_ and do these passages teach a personal election to eternal life? Is this all the Calvinists mean by the _election_ of _sovereign grace_, not of man, nor of the will of mans but of God? Alas! for the elect! If man does not elect himself, and God _only predestinates_, that is, _permits--does not hinder_ his election; who, we ask, will elect him? How does error destroy itself! These gentlemen may take which ground they please; they may either acknowledge that Bible predestination means an _efficient purpose of God_ to accomplish an object, and then meet the sermon on the issue there proposed; or they may interpret these words as the reviewer has, and then give up those passages which they consider their strong hold, in favour of Calvinian election. In either case their system must suffer serious loss. Nothing could be more unfortunate, I think, than this appeal to the Bible to sanction such an abuse of terms. As to the word foreordain, I do not recollect that it occurs in our translation. Jude 4, has" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "&c, but it is in the original very different from the word rendered predestinate. The allusion is to characters that were proscribed for their sins, and designated for deserved punishment. The original for predestinate, proorizo, is used in only one place, so far as I can find, with any direct reference to a sinful act, Acts iv, 28. This passage is quoted by the reviewer. But the determination here spoken of, he himself informs us, relates to" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Hence the predetermination of God, in this instance, probably refers to the _work_ of atonement, without including therein any special decree in respect to the means of the suffering. Christ _could_ have suffered, even unto death, in the garden without any human means. But inasmuch as these men had the murderous purpose, God" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "This is a mistake. I said nothing about _immediate energy;_ this is an essential misrepresentation of the sermon. Again:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "On Dr. Fisk's principle, it is impossible for God to use the voluntary agency of any creature, to accomplish any valuable end in his kingdom, and yet leave that creature accountable for his conduct." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Of the author of the sermon we claim a public acknowledgment of his errors, and make justice and equity the ground of our claim. Again," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "If Dr. F. makes no public retraction from the ground taken in his sermon--if after he shall receive these letters, [!!] remembering also what is said in the Christian Spectator's review of his sermon, he shall allow another copy of it to be printed, I think he will find it difficult to convince any intelligent candid man, that he is not guilty of breaking the ninth commandment, &c. The intelligent reader, who has studied human nature, will know how to make suitable allowances for the dogmatical and premature decisions, and high claims contained in the foregoing extracts. It is not an uncommon thing, that a zealous advocate succeeds in _convincing himself_ of the truth of his cause; but utterly fails with respect to all others. I do not say, that this writer will not gain his argument; but it requires more" }, { "from": "human", "value": "than I am disposed to accord to him, to affirm this as a" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "but talks for most part in general terms, about the unfairness, injustice, and misrepresentations of the sermon. This circumstance would, of itself, free me from any obligation to notice these letters, on the ground of my pledge in the Observer. But yet, as I feel the most perfect readiness to discuss this subject, and as I hope the cause of righteousness may be served thereby, I will willingly proceed in this controversy, both as to doctrine and policy, provided we can secure some suitable public medium, through which to prosecute the discussion. And on this point Mr. M. complains bitterly of the former editors of the Advocate and Journal--for he had applied, it seems, for the privilege of having his letters inserted in that paper, and was refused, on the ground that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Now, since these letters are professedly an answer to the _whole sermon_, the editors, I think, were perfectly consistent with their former statements, in refusing to publish them. If Mr. M. had confined himself to the charges in the Observer, the editors would undoubtedly have given the subject a place in the columns of the Advocate: as it was, however, I think the charge of injustice and unfairness made against the editors by Mr. M. is entirely gratuitous and _unjustifiable_. If it was expected to produce an _effect_ on the public, by such a complaint, I think such an expectation will be disappointed in all places where the subject is understood. And that this was the expectation appears evident from another charge against Methodist preachers, in the following words:--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "It is supposed to be the common sentiment, if not 'the common talk in our land,' that the Methodist preachers have a strong aversion against their hearers reading our writings. The reason of this, in part, is supposed to be, that they choose to have their people receive all their knowledge of our creed from their statements of it, instead of ours; lest they should be convinced, by our arguments, of the truth of our belief." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "We have seen, says the editor of the Evangelist," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Dr. F. exacts that some person should be designated by a sort of common suffrage to be the champion of Calvinism. I cannot believe the editor means to misrepresent me; and yet he has done it. My words are," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Provided that the Calvinistic _editor_ shall, by consenting to this arrangement, be considered as thereby acknowledging that Mr. Metcalf is a suitable man to manage the controversy on the part of the Calvinists. Here is nothing said about a" } ]

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

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Are you willing to be damned? was deemed a very good criterion by which to judge of a religious experience. While the doctrine of predestination was in this manner _going to seed_, and bearing its legitimate fruits, in one direction, it received a remarkably plausible modification in another. The atonement, which was formerly limited to the elect, was now extended to all; and the invitations of the Gospel, instead of being restrained, as before, to the world of the elect, were extended to the world of mankind. But as it would be useless to hold out invitations to those who could not accept of them, another refinement was introduced, and man was found to possess a natural ability to receive salvation, although he laboured under an invincible moral _inability_, which would for ever keep him from Christ, until drawn by irresistible grace. This discovery led to other refinements in language, so that a kind of technical nomenclature was formed, out of words in popular use, which words, by an accompanying glossary, were so defined as to correspond with the Calvinistic system. Thus," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "You can repent if you will, meaning, according to the technical definition," }, { "from": "human", "value": "You can repent when God _makes_ you willing," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Calvinism Improved. It was merely an extension of the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace to all instead of a part. From the premises, the reasoning seemed fair, and the conclusions legitimate. This made many converts. And this idea of universal salvation, when once it is embraced, can easily be moulded into any shape, provided its _main feature_ is retained.--It has finally pretty generally run into the semi infidel sentiments, of _no atonement--no Divine Saviour--no Holy Ghost_, and _no supernatural change of heart;_ as well as" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "It may be a matter of some surprise, perhaps, to a superficial observer, or to one not personally acquainted with the circumstances of the case, why, in leaving Calvinism, these men should go so far beyond the line of truth. But in this we see the known tendency of the human mind to run into extremes. The repulsive features of the old system drove them far the other way. It ought to be remembered, also, that there were few, if any, who were stationed on the medium line, to arrest and delay the public mind in its fearful recoil from the" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Had Methodism been as well known in New-England fifty years ago, as it now is, it is doubtful whether Universalism or Unitarianism would have gained much influence in this country. Late as it was introduced, and much as it was opposed, it is believed to have done much toward checking the progress of those sentiments. And perhaps it is in part owing to the earlier introduction, and more extensive spread of Methodism, in Connecticut, that Unitarianism has not gained more influence in the state. This is undoubtedly the fact in the states of Vermont, New-Hampshire, and Maine, where Methodism was introduced nearly as early as those other sentiments. The result has shown that the foregoing supposition is corroborated by facts in those cases where the experiment has been tried. These remarks may not now be credited, but the time will come, when the prejudices of the day are worn out, that the candid historian will do the subject justice. But to return--though Unitarianism and Universalism are believed to be dangerous errors, yet, as is often the case, they have contributed much, doubtless, to detect the errors and modify the features of the opposite system. Simultaneously with them, the Methodists have engaged in opposing the Calvinistic dogmas. This close examination and thorough opposition, with such other causes as may have cooperated in the work, have driven some of the peculiarities of the Hopkinsian theory into disrepute, more suddenly even than they rose into credit. The sublimated doctrine of disinterested benevolence was so like" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "that even the speculative minds of the shrewdest metaphysicians could not find for it" }, { "from": "human", "value": "in heaven or on earth; and the almost blasphemous dogma, that God was the efficient cause of sin, was more abhorrent, if possible, than even the horrible decree of reprobation. Both, therefore, with the exceptions hereafter mentioned, disappeared. The former, being of an ethereal character, silently evaporated into" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "but the other, being of a grosser nature, and withal more essential to the system itself, _settled to the bottom_, and is now rarely visible, except when the hand of controversy shakes up the sediment. The doctrine of universal atonement, however, was retained, and the theological vocabulary was not only retained, but enlarged and improved. So that from that day to this, we hear but little of the doctrine of reprobation, or of the decrees of God, but much is said of God's" }, { "from": "human", "value": "his" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Divine sovereignty, and" }, { "from": "human", "value": "By which is meant, according to the glossary, the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, and of absolute predestination. The scriptures, also, which used to be quoted to prove the direct efficiency of God, in producing sin and securing the condemnation of the reprobate, receive a different explanation, varying but little, if any, from the Arminian interpretation of those passages. It cannot be doubted, I think, but there has been quite a change in the views of the great body of the Calvinists--and yet not so great and so thorough a change as appearances and terms might at first view seem to indicate. It is not easy to _eradicate_ old prejudices. And it is often found that the mind will cling to the first principles of a favourite system, even after the other parts are so modified as that the new principles would supplant the old, if suffered to be carried out into a consistent whole. In every such case, much labour and argument will be spent in trying to unite the old with the new; but in every instance the rent becomes worse. This leads to a kind of vacillating policy, and an ambiguous course of argument, accompanied with reiterated complaints, that the opposers of the system misunderstand and misrepresent it. And it would be no wonder if the constant friction in the incongruous machinery should chafe the mind, and lead to a dogmatic and an impatient spirit. How far this corresponds with the existing facts, in the Calvinistic controversy, others can judge. In my own view, the peculiar circumstances of the case, connected with the known character of the human mind, fully account for the _apparent_ tergiversation and changing of argument, in this controversy, without criminating the _motives_ of our predestinarian brethren, as some have unjustly accused me of doing. The different parts of the system have lost, in a measure, their original affinities, and yet they have some partial and irregular attractions, which lead them to unite in unnatural and grotesque forms. And as there is no common consent and settled mode of operating among the many who are experimenting upon the materials, there are various sectional and individual formations, which are inconsistent with each other. And their incongruity is the more apparent from the unanimous effort (which I believe is the only work of union in" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": ") to amalgamate each and every variety with the old substratum of the system,--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass." } ]

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

[ { "from": "human", "value": "as it was called, was published in New-York. This was a most severe and witty allegory, against the dogmas and bigotry of old Calvinism. From this work this old theory has obtained the epithet of" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Whenever a man advocates the doctrine of limited atonement, imputed sin, and imputed righteousness, he is said to be" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "&c. These charges, say the Calvinists, are very unjust, ungenerous--in fact, they bear false witness against our neighbours. This is said by Mr. Metcalf, and by others of the New-Haven school. And yet what says the Spectator, the organ and oracle of that school? It says of Dr. Tyler, and of others who oppose the peculiar views of Dr. Taylor, comprising, as we have seen, the great majority of Calvinists, that their views" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "!!![4] Has the author of the sermon said more than this, and worse than this, of Calvinism? And shall he be accused by these very men of bearing false witness against his brethren? And let it be observed farther, in justification of the sermon, that these charges in the Spectator are made by men who have been brought up at the feet of the Calvinistic doctors, and have themselves grown up to the character and rank of doctors in theology. They know the system thoroughly; they have made it the study of their lives, and have they testified to the truth respecting this theory? _So then has the author of the sermon_. Such is the testimony on the one side; and on the other we have decided predestinarians acknowledging, as an article of their creed, what in the sermon was urged as only a logical consequence. According to this system, says the sermon," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Hear the Boston Telegraph:--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God, for his own glory and for the good of the world, said, _Let there be sin, and there was sin!_ Now I beg the reader to look at this subject for a moment. For brevity's sake we will call the Boston Telegraph and its supporters No. 1; the Andover theological seminary and its supporters, which constitute by far the larger body of predestinarians in New-England, No. 2; and the New-Haven divines and their supporters No. 3. The sermon charges predestination with making God the author of sin. No. 2 says this is false: I neither believe it, nor is it to be inferred from my premises. _It is true_, says No. 1: I am willing to admit that God is the efficient cause of sin. He said, Let there be sin, and there was sin. _It is true_, responds No 3, that all who hold and explain predestination as Nos. 1 and 2 explain it, are exposed to the full force of the objections in the sermon--against such views" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "No. 2, in vindication, says that No. 1 is on the old plan--very few hold with him in these days. And as for No. 3, he is already a rank Arminian; and if he would be consistent, he must give up unconditional election, and embrace the whole Arminian theory. Thus do they destroy each other, and confirm the doctrine of the sermon. And shall we still be told that we do not understand this doctrine? Have anti-predestinarians misunderstood this from John Calvin's day to the present? Does honest No. 1 misunderstand it? Does well instructed No. 3 misunderstand it? What then is Calvinism, that cannot, through the lapse of centuries, make itself understood either by friend or foe? Is not this, of itself, a suspicious trait in its character? Let us quote a Calvinistic writer, whose sentiments are much in point, though aimed at the New Divinity:--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "It is a serious ground of suspicion, says this writer," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Some of the most intelligent men in the country have utterly failed to compass Dr. T.'s meaning in argument: so that he declares again and again, I am not understood--I am misrepresented. Who under such circumstances can refrain from suspicion?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Another suspicious circumstance in the case is, that Dr. Taylor expresses himself in ambiguous terms and phrases, which, though they are designed to influence the mind of a reader, afford him the opportunity to avoid responsibility. See pamphlet by Edwardian, pp. 28 and 29. If this is justly said of Dr. Taylor's _recent_ theory, what shall we say of a system the advocates of which," }, { "from": "human", "value": "after the theory has had exhausted upon it the highly cultivated intellects of hosts of expositors through successive generations?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Who, under such circumstances, can refrain from suspicion? especially since these advocates have learned" }, { "from": "human", "value": "To Calvinism it may truly be said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee. Let not the author of the sermon then be accused of bearing false witness, when his testimony is predicated on principles which Calvinists have laid down, and is also corroborated by men of their" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Greek with Greek contend so far as to show, if possible, the inconsistency of both, and then present the doctrine which we believe to be the true system, and show how it stands untouched by the conflicting elements around it as the immovable foundation of the Church of God. I shall begin with the Divine purposes including foreknowledge; then take up human agency and responsibility; and last, regeneration, connected with the doctrine of human depravity, Divine and human agency, &c. May He that said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Let light be, and light was," }, { "from": "human", "value": "We have only to leave those Calvinists, who accord to that sentiment, to struggle, as they can, against the arguments of the sermon--against the common sense of the world--against their own convictions of right and wrong--and, I may add, against their own brethren of" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "some of whom have already publicly denounced the sentiment as" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "The first view is that which we understood to be advocated by Dr. Fisk, in the sermon we reviewed. The writer goes on farther to say that his objection to this is," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Of course he means to say that the _sermon_ advocated a theory which left out of the question all the Divine influence in determining character. How strangely he has misunderstood the sermon, let those judge who have read it. It teaches that God hath fixed the laws of the physical and moral world: that he has a general plan, suited to all the various circumstances and contingencies of government; that God gives the sinner power to choose life; that his grace enlightens and strengthens the sinner to seek after and obtain salvation. In short, it must be obvious that no man who believes in the Divine government and in Gospel provisions can leave this influence out of his system. I will therefore venture upon the following declaration, which it is presumed Dr. Fitch cannot gainsay, namely, Dr. F. _never saw a man and never heard of a man_ that was a believer in revelation, who left out of his creed all that conduct in God which determines character. That such was not the character of my creed, the reviewer might have learned in my reply to his first review, if he could not from the sermon. In the reply it is said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "As God foresaw men would sin, he also determined upon the plan he would pursue in reference to them as sinners, and arranged in the counsels of his own infinite mind the extended concatenation of causes and effects so as to 'make the wrath of man praise him,' and _deduce the greatest possible good from the best possible system_. --And yet, strange to tell, in his answer to my reply, the reviewer says as decidedly as if it were an undisputed truth," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Dr. Fisk advocates the first, (meaning the first view of the Divine purposes given above.)" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "We brought forward the third, (meaning the third view.)" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Now since the third upholds the fact of foreordination, free from the objections of Dr. F., we have succeeded in upholding the fact which Dr. F., as an Arminian, denies, and which Calvinists maintain. Whereas he ought to have said, for he had my statement for it directly before him," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Dr. Fisk advocates the third, and then he might have added," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Now since the third destroys the Calvinistic doctrine of foreordination, therefore in assisting Dr. Fisk to sustain the third we have succeeded in disproving the doctrine of foreordination, which Arminians deny, and Calvinists have attempted to maintain." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "but also that God" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "To God, says Mr. Wesley, in his sermon on Divine providence," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "In the moral world evil men and evil spirits continually oppose the Divine will, and create numberless irregularities. Here therefore is full scope for the exercise of all the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God in counteracting all the wickedness and folly of men and all the subtlety of Satan, to carry on his glorious design, the salvation of lost mankind. Now let me ask the reviewer, is this leaving out all the Divine influence that determines character? Is not this maintaining that," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Now how surprised Mr. M. will be when he learns that we have always preached this doctrine as thoroughly and forcibly as we could, and neither Methodists nor Calvinists ever suspected it was Calvinism until he and those who believe with him incorporated it into their creed, and _for some reason_ unknown to us, called it Calvinism! And how surprised we all are to find that he who was so anxious to be heard in the Christian Advocate and Journal, for the purpose of informing Methodists what Calvinism was, and of disabusing their minds of erroneous conceptions on this subject, himself understands neither Methodism nor Calvinism!! Yet so it is, Calvinists themselves being judges. Dr. Tyler, Dr. Griffin, Dr. Woods, the author of" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Views in Theology," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "It was certainly our intention to place this contested doctrine on grounds which our Wesleyan brethren _could not_ dispute, and it gives us pleasure to find that in this we have had complete success!" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "&c, he has said," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "If an evil, unavoidable and hateful, is allowed by the Creator to come into his kingdom, in one place and time rather than any other, and is thus _particularly disposed of_ by his providence, because it is a disposition of it the best possible, is there no purpose of God in relation to the thing? In doing his own pleasure, in this case, does he not decide on the fact of the entrance of sin into his kingdom just when and where it does? Now I beg the reader to go over this last paragraph once more, and then say if he does not agree with me in the following sentiment, namely, there rarely occurs in any writer an instance of so complete an evasion of a contested question as is here exhibited. Is there no difference between a" }, { "from": "human", "value": "and the foreordaining or decreeing that the thing shall be? And pray what is meant by God's" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "You can make it mean almost any thing. But taking the whole of Dr. Fitch's theory on the subject, he means to say, doubtless, that since the entrance of sin was unavoidable, God determined to restrain and control it so as to suffer it to do the least harm possible--preferring holiness in its stead in every place where it occurs. And this is foreordaining sin!! This is predestination!! Let us illustrate this by a case in point. Cicero, a Roman consul, knew that Cataline was plotting treason against the commonwealth. Cicero perceived that this _hated treason_, though unavoidable, was not wholly unmanageable. He determined therefore to" }, { "from": "human", "value": "He took his measures accordingly. By these Cataline and the principal conspirators were driven out of the city, and compelled, before their plans were matured, to resort to open hostilities. Thus the citizens were aroused and united, and the state saved. In this way the evils of the conspiracy were suffered to come upon the commonwealth" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "and" }, { "from": "human", "value": "by Cicero. In this case the consul had a special" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "He determined to drive the conspirators into open war, rather than suffer them privately to corrupt all they could, and then fill the city with fire and slaughter. The question now is, and it is put not to the reviewer, for he still persists in the use of his terms, but it is put to the common understanding of community, Did the Roman consul ordain or foreordain, or predestinate the treason of Cataline? If by common consent all answer, No, such a statement is a libel upon the consul; and if, in addition to this common understanding of the term, the theological use of the term will not bear such a construction; if the great body of the Calvinists of the present day, and of New-England even, use the term in a different sense, it remains to be seen how the New-Haven divines can stand up before the world and say," }, { "from": "human", "value": "We believe God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "That God, _foreseeing_ the conduct which will certainly ensue on the different measures it is possible for him to take, _purposes_, &c. The sermon says," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God knows all that is, or will be, or might be, under any possible contingency, and that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Where is the discrepancy here? God saw this general plan, as a whole, before he resolved upon its adoption; (I speak now of the order of thought;) he saw, if he made free moral agents, and governed them as such, sin would ensue. And he also saw what he might do in that case to counteract and overrule it to his own glory and the good of the universe.--And he judged, in his infinite wisdom, that such a moral universe, notwithstanding the sin that would certainly result from it, would, on the whole, be the best; and therefore upon this _foreknowledge_ of the whole, God _founded_ his determination to create the universe, and govern it as proposed. God's foreknowledge of the _certainty_ of any event in this universe, it must be acknowledged, depended upon his determination to create and govern the universe. And in _this sense_ his purpose was _causa sine qua non_, a cause without which any given event would not have happened, and therefore could not have been foreseen as _certain_. But then it should be remembered that there was a foreknowledge anterior to all this, and which was, in fact, the foundation of all subsequent instances of knowing or decreeing. It is therefore true in the sense in which the sentiment is advanced and sustained in the sermon, that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God foreknows in order to predestinate, but he does not (primarily) predestinate in order to foreknow." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "--that these acts" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "--" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Stand by, for I am holier than thou!" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "--no judgment, and" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Lives through all life, extends through all extent, Acts undivided, operates unspent." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The Divine decree is the determination to _produce_ the universe, that is, the _whole series_ of _beings_ and _events_ that was then future. Dr. Chalmers, who has been esteemed so moderate a Calvinist, that some had doubted whether he had not given up absolute predestination altogether, comes out in his sermon on predestination in the following language:--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Every step of every individual character, receives as determinate a character from the hand, of God, as every mile of a planet's orbit, or every gust of wind, or every wave of the sea, or every particle of flying dust, or every rivulet of flowing water. This power of God knows no exceptions: it is absolute and unlimited. And while it embraces the vast, it carries its resistless influence to all the minute and unnoticed diversities of existence. It _reigns_ and operates through all the secrecies of the inner man. It gives birth to every purpose, it gives impulse to every desire, it gives shape and colour to every conception. It wields an entire ascendancy over every attribute of the mind; and the will, and the fancy, and the understanding, with all the countless variety of their hidden and fugitive operations, are submitted to it. It gives movement and direction through every one point of our pilgrimage. At no moment of time does it abandon us. It follows us to the hour of death, and it carries us to our place, and to our everlasting destiny in the region beyond it!!!" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "It is known, also, that the Shorter Catechism has been almost universally used by them in their families, and in the religious instruction of their children. Here then we have a standard of faith, which all the _classes_, I suppose, will acknowledge,--and what saith it? After stating that the decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his own will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever cometh to pass, it goes on to say," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God _executeth_ his decrees in the works of creation and providence, and then for farther explanation adds--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God's works of providence are his most holy, wise, and powerful, preserving and governing all his creatures and all their actions. This is certainly an awkward sentence, if I may be allowed to say this of the productions of an assembly which has been characterised as a paragon of excellency in erudition and theology. Its meaning, however, according to grammar and logic, must be, that by his acts of providence God, in a most holy, wise, and powerful manner, preserves and governs both all his creatures, and all their actions. But as it seems to be a solecism to talk about _preserving actions_, we will understand _preserving_ to belong to _creatures_, and _governing_ to _actions_, and then it will be thus: God powerfully preserves all his creatures, and powerfully governs all their actions: and it is in this way he _executes_ his decrees. There are evidently two methods of governing. That control which is made up of legal precepts, and sanctions, and retributions, is called a government; not that all the subjects of such a government always obey its ordinances, but if they violate them, they are subjected to punishment. _This_ is evidently not the kind of government that the assembly contemplated. It was a government by which God _executed his decrees;_ but, as we have seen, his decrees are not his laws, for they are frequently in direct opposition to his laws. Decree and law are not only frequently opposed, in respect to the moral action demanded by each, but even where those demands are coincident they differ greatly in the _manner_ and _certainty_ of their fulfilment. Of course government, by _executing decrees_, is another thing altogether from government by _executing laws_. But there is another kind of government. It is that _efficient control_ of a superior, by which a being or an act is _made to be what it is_, in opposition to _non-existence_, or a _different existence_. Now this appears to be precisely the kind of government alluded to when it said," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God _executes his decrees_ by powerfully _governing_ all the actions of his creatures." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Thy people _shall_ be willing in the day of thy power." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "(see" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Views in Theology, ) and that the mind must necessarily be swayed by the strongest motive, or by what appears to the mind to be the greatest good. Dr. Edwards, following Leibnitz, incorporated this doctrine of philosophical necessity with the Calvinistic theology. In this he has been followed by a great portion, I believe, of the Calvinistic clergy. Without stopping here to attempt a refutation of this theory, my present object is to show that it necessarily fastens upon Calvinism the charges brought against it, and sustains the definition that has been given to predestination. For since God creates both the mind and the motives, and brings them together for the _express purpose_ that the former should be swayed by the latter, it follows conclusively that God _efficiently_ controls the will, and produces all its volitions. And this is according to express Calvinistic teaching:--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God, says the author of" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Views in Theology, already quoted," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of choices. The inference therefore is plain and unavoidable, _God is the determiner of choices_. The plea that God does not produce volitions, by a direct influence, but indirectly, through second causes, avails nothing. Although there should be ten, or ten thousand intermediate links, if they are all arranged by our Creator in such order as to produce the intellectual vibration intended, whenever he pleases to give the impulse, what is the difference? In point of efficient agency, none at all. Nor yet will it alter the case to say, that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God created the _mind_, and the _means_ that were to influence it. He gave to mind its nature, and to motives their influence and arrangement, for _this very purpose_. Hence, unless man can unmake himself, he is _bound by the law of his nature_ to act in all cases as he does. Why talk about a _free_ agency when it is such an agency as _must_, by _the constitution_ of _God_, lead inevitably to sin and ruin! That old, and in the premises, foolish reply, that man could do differently, _if he chose_, does not help the case. It is only saying, the nature of man is such that it is governed by his perceptions, and since" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions the determiners of choices, whenever God pleases to alter the perceptions so as thereby to change the choice, _then_, and not before, man can do differently. According to this doctrine is it possible, according to the very nature of mind, for the choice to be different until the perceptions are changed? And can the perceptions be changed, until God changes them? To answer either or both of these questions in the affirmative, would be to give up the doctrine of motives. To answer them in the negative, would be to entail upon the doctrine all that I have charged upon it. The advocates of the theory may have their choice. Nor yet, again, will it destroy the force of this argument, to say" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "You misrepresent us!" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "You mistake our doctrine!" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "We cannot tell. And they give this evasive reply perhaps for a reason similar to that which influenced the Jews; they fear that a definite answer will involve themselves or their theory in difficulty. This is a very convenient way to avoid responsibility, but not indicative of much fairness, or confidence in their cause. When men have involved their system in apparent contradictions, it will hardly satisfy the candid inquirer after truth to see them start aside from the very point that is to give character to their whole system. We are told by men who reason upon foreknowledge, &c, that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "God hath decreed whatsoever comes to pass; and then we are told that all men are free, and they enter into a great deal of metaphysical speculation about foreknowledge, the nature of voluntary action, &c, to prove these positions; but when they are pressed upon this point," }, { "from": "human", "value": "How can you reconcile with free agency that kind of Divine efficiency necessary to secure the execution of the decrees, and that kind of dependency of moral agents which this efficiency implies? the reply is," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "We cannot tell--the how in the case we cannot explain. This evasion might be allowable, perhaps, in either of the two following cases: 1. If the apparent discrepancy of the two positions grew out of what is _mysterious_, and not of what is _palpably contradictory;_ or, 2. If both propositions were so _clearly proved_, that it would do greater violence to our reasons, and be a greater outrage upon all acknowledged principles of belief, to disbelieve either of them, than it would to believe them with all their apparent contradictions. With respect to the first alternative, it appears to me, and doubtless it would so appear to all whose prejudices did not mislead the mind, that the want of apparent agreement between the two is not for lack of light in the case, but from the natural incongruity of the things compared. When you say," }, { "from": "human", "value": "God executes his decrees by efficiently controlling the will of man, and say also," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The mind of man is free, both these propositions are clear; there is nothing mysterious about them. But you say, perhaps," }, { "from": "human", "value": "The mystery is in the want of light to see the _agreement_ of the two; we cannot _see_ their agreement, but we should not therefore infer that they do not agree. I answer, What is light, in this case, but a clear conception of the propositions? This we have, and we see that they are, _in their nature_, incompatible; and the more light you can pour upon this subject, the more clearly must this incompatibility appear. If you say that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "then I reply, _We have no business to use them_." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Is there so much evidence in favour of predestination, that I should do more violence to my own reason, and the laws of belief, by rejecting it, than I should by believing that this doctrine is compatible with free agency and accountability? Indeed, Calvinists themselves have so felt the force of these difficulties, when the terms predestination and free will have been understood in their common and obvious sense, that they have attempted a variety of explanations of these terms to do away, if possible, the apparent discrepancy. These attempts have been the principal cause of those changes and modifications in the Calvinistic system, alluded to in a former number. The various explanations and definitions that have been given to foreordination, have already been noticed. We have seen how every effort failed of affording any relief to the system, until we came down to the last; I mean that of the New-Haven divines. This new theory does indeed avoid the difficulty, but avoids it only by giving up the doctrine! Any thing short of this amounts to nothing; it stands forth still the" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "fixed as fate, and fixing, strong as fate, all the acts of subordinate intelligences. Any _real_ modification of it is a virtual renunciation, and a substitution in its stead of the public and consistent decree of Heaven," }, { "from": "human", "value": "He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "What is this power of choice?" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "(_Views in Theology_, p. 163.)--Now if this has any bearing on the question, it relates not to human mind and human volition merely, but to _mind in general_, and must apply to the Divine mind. The same may be said, in fact, of most of the arguments that are brought in favour of this doctrine. Calvinists are convinced of this--and hence this also is a part of their creed. It was defended by Dr. Edwards, and is thus avowed by Professor Upham, in his System of Mental Philosophy. Speaking of the control of motives, he says," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Our condition, in this respect, seems to be essentially the same with that of the Supreme Being himself--he is _inevitably_ governed in all his doings, by what, in the great range of events, is wisest and best. (Vol. ii, p. 381.) Thus the Divine Being is, according to this theory, and by the express showing of the leading advocates of the theory," }, { "from": "human", "value": "made a subordinate to a superior. It is believed there is no avoiding this conclusion; and what then? Why then the doctrine makes God a necessary agent, and leads to atheism! It is nearly, if not exactly, the same as the old heathen doctrine of fate. The ancient heathens supposed that Jupiter himself, the omnipotent father of the gods and men, must yield to fate. Modern Christians teach that there is a certain fitness of things, certain constitutional relations, existing independent of the Divine will, which God himself cannot supersede, but to which he must yield. How does this sink, at once, both the natural and moral perfections of God! The exercises of his wisdom and goodness are nothing more than the result of certain fixed and irresistible influences. Fixed not by God himself, for that would be to give up the doctrine; for in that case, in the order of cause and effect, the Divine mind must have acted without control of motive, if this law of motive influence did not exist until the Divine volition willed it into being and if he could once act independent of this control, he might so act for ever; and the argument built on the absurdity of volition, without an intelligent reason, is contradicted. But if that argument has any weight, it fixes, in the order of cause and effect, a paramount influence eternally antecedent to the exercise of the Divine mind, and controlling that mind with irresistible sway. This is fate! This is atheism! Once set up an influence that controls the Divine mind, call that influence what you will, _fitness of things--fate--energy_ of nature--or necessary relation, and that moment you make God a subordinate; you hurl him from his throne of sovereignty, and make him the instrument of a superior. Of what use is such a Deity? Might we not as well have none! Nay better, as it seems to me, if under the control of his own native influence he is led to create beings susceptible of suffering, and fix the relations of those beings to the motives around them such, that by a law of their nature they are" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "governed by motives in his decisions, he could not determine where to place them, both having the same influence on his mind for a location in the same place! The same writer represents this motive influence, also, as frequently imperceptible, but not the less effectual, and not the less voluntary! And to illustrate it makes the following comparison:--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "It is as if a needle, touched with a loadstone, were sensible of and pleased with its turning to the north, for it would believe that it turned itself independent of any other cause, not perceiving the insensible motions of the magnetic power. This statement of Leibnitz, who had paid great attention to this philosophical theory, is important in several respects. It is, in the first place, an acknowledgment that consciousness is against the doctrine; and it is also a concession that the mind is _imposed upon_, in this matter, by the Creator. But with respect to the argument, that this doctrine leads to materialism, this quotation is important, because it shows that one of the most _philosophical_, if not one of the most _evangelical_ of the defenders of this doctrine, considered the law of motive influence similar to the law of magnetic attraction, differing only in being accompanied by sensation and a deceptive consciousness. And what says its great evangelical champion in this country, Dr. Edwards? He compares our volitions to the vibrations of a scale beam, the different ends of which are respectively elevated or depressed as the opposite weights may chance to vary. What is this but teaching that motions of mind are governed by the same fixed laws as those of matter, and that volitions are perfectly mechanical states of mind? What the advocates of this doctrine charge on the opposite theory belongs, by their own showing, to their own system.--_They_, not we, make choices the result of animal instinct, or senseless mechanism. I know Professor Stuart, in his late exposition of the Romans, seems to reprobate these comparisons; and while he contends, as I should think, as strenuously as Dr. Edwards, for a complete and efficient control of the Divine Being over all our volitions, he appears to think that there is a great difference between the laws of intellectual and material action. So, indeed, do we think. But we think that difference consists in the mind's being free from that control for which the professor contends; and we believe when he contends for that control in the volitions of the mind, he contends for that which, from the nature of the case, entirely destroys the other part of his hypothesis, viz. that the operations of the mind are free, and essentially different from mechanical motion or the laws of attractive influence in the material world. If the attractive power of motives over the mind is any thing different from the law of gravitation or magnetic attraction, what is that difference? Should any one say, I cannot tell; I ask then, How does he know but it is _that very power_ for which Arminians contend? Most probably it is that power. Or will it be said, the difference between motive influence and gravity is consciousness? I reply, Consciousness is no part of the relation between motives and the power of choice. I see not indeed how it affects that relation at all. And this the comparison of Leibnitz, already alluded to, clearly illustrates. Look at that flowing stream; it hastens on most freely, and by the law of its own nature down the gentle declivities or more precipitous slopes of its meandering channel. Suppose now that Omnipotence should impart consciousness to the particles of the continuous current, it would then wake up to perceive the action and feel the pleasure of its own delightful motions. It would roll on still by the law of its own nature, and would feel that it was free to move according to its own _inclination_ and voluntary tendency, for its will would of course be in the direction of its _motive_, or in other phrase, its _gravitating_ influence. But could it turn its course and roll back its waters to their fountains? It could if it was so _inclined_. But its present _inclination_ is toward the bottom of the valley or the bosom of the ocean, and thither, by the relation that exists between its particles and the gravitating influence of the earth, it rolls on _with the utmost freedom_, though with the utter impossibility of changing its own course, without an inversion of the gravitating power. Let the hand of Omnipotence invert the slope of the mountain, and to! with the same freedom these very waters roll back again to their original fountains! Thus it is with the human mind. It is conscious of being free to move in the direction of its inclinations, but require it to turn its course and move in the current of its volitions, in an opposite direction, and it would be utterly impossible, until Omnipotence himself should change the motive influence.--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of choices." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "which is philosophically absurd. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the mind has no _power_ of _choice_, but has a _susceptibility_ of being drawn into a state called volition by the power of motives. It will avail nothing, as I conceive, to say that there is evidently a difference between the susceptibility of the mind in this case, and the susceptibility of matter in other cases, unless it be shown what that difference is: for when that difference is pointed out, it will doubtless be found to be what is in direct opposition to the motive theory. It is the misfortune of the Calvinistic system that it often has to assume positions to keep itself in countenance, which positions themselves are a virtual abandonment of the system. So the New-Haven divines have done to support predestination, and to this all Calvinists are driven in their attempts to reconcile free will, or the power of choice, with their doctrine of motives, dependence &c. We may be told in the case before us, that" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "unriddled. The human mind, by the constitution of its nature, has the power of choosing according to the influence of the strongest motive; and therefore, so far as this can be called a power, it has the natural power to convert itself; and this is the reason why" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "is the burden of almost every sermon and exhortation in modern preaching; all the sinner has to do is to choose, in view of motives, and he is converted. And here, too, is unravelled that other mystery which we have been so puzzled to understand, viz. that although all possess the natural power to convert themselves, yet no man ever did convert himself without the special interposition of the Divine agency; for, observe, God keeps the motives in his own hands;" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of _choices;_ that is, of _conversions;_ for to choose in a particular way, is to be converted. Whenever, therefore, he is disposed to let the sinner convert himself, according to his natural power; that is, when he is disposed to overpower the mind by an irresistible motive, he brings the motive and mind in contact, and _it is done_. Thus the sinner has as much power to convert himself as he has to resolve to eat when he is hungry; for all the power he has to do either, is a susceptibility of being operated upon, and controlled by the strongest motive; and thus you see, also, that _God_ converts the sinner, because he supplies the motive that influences the choice; and here, too, is seen the occasion for misquoting so frequently and misapplying so universally, that passage in the Psalms:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "That is, when God applies the controlling motive to influence to a right choice, then shall the sinner, by a law of his nature, _become willing to be converted_. Such are the wonderful philosophical discoveries of modern theology! This is the way for man to convert _himself_ by natural power, and this is the way for _God_ to convert him, without the aid of _super_ natural power! Well might a divine of this cast, whom I heard preach not long since, say of regeneration," }, { "from": "human", "value": "There is nothing supernatural or miraculous in it." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "to God with scarcely a change of theory. Hereafter let no man say, that the work of regeneration is a mystery--that in this work we cannot tell whence the regenerating influence comes, or whither it goes; for it comes through the philosophical channel of motive influence by which it introduces a" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "into the mind, and the work is done. Let no man hereafter say that his" }, { "from": "human", "value": "or" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "or" }, { "from": "human", "value": "for lo, the philosophy of regeneration is at length explained! and the whole secret is found to consist in the philosophical relation between motives and mind!! Can any one wonder, after this, that in Geneva, in Germany, and in New-England, Calvinism has finally resulted in Socinianism? And can any one help trembling for a large portion of the orthodox Churches among us at the present day? Grant that there is an increase of zeal, a greater stir among the people, more revivals, &c; all these, with a good foundation, would promise well for the Church; but we fear there is a worm at the root. By this it is not intended to insinuate that the work is always spurious and the professed conversions unsound. In many instances it is undoubtedly the reverse of this. It might be expected after the people had been lulled for a long time under the paralyzing opiates of old-fashioned Calvinism, that this new and _apparently_ opposite theory should rouse many to action." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I had been taught, said a man not far from this," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "We are conscious, say the theorists," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Let it be granted, a Calvinist might say," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "his _moral_ image doubtless. Man, then, in his own subordinate sphere, has the power of originating thought, the power of spontaneous moral action: this, _this only_, is the ground of his responsibility. Will it be said that this puts man entirely out of the control of his Creator? I answer, By no means. It only puts him out of the control of such direct influences as would destroy his moral liberty. Does the power of moral action, independent of the magistracy and the laws, destroy all the control of the civil government over malefactors? How much less in the other case? God can prevent all the mischief that a vicious agent might attempt, without throwing any restraint upon his responsible volitions. It is thus that he" }, { "from": "human", "value": "and" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Original sin standeth not in the _following_ of Adam, (as the Pelagians vainly talk,) but it is the corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith and calling upon God: wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, (going before to assist us,) that we may have a good will, and working with us when we have that good will." }, { "from": "human", "value": "Free agency (of a responsible kind) consists in the possession of understanding, conscience, and will;" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "The synod of Dort decided thus:--" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "We believe that God--formed man after his own image, &c, _capable in all things to will_ agreeably to the will of God. They then speak of the fall, and say," }, { "from": "human", "value": "We reject all that is repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a _slave to sin_, and has nothing of himself, unless it is given him from heaven. And speaking of the change by grace, they add," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The will thus renewed is not only actuated and influenced by God, but _in consequence of this influence becomes itself active_. And to show that Calvin did not consider the voluntary acts of a depraved sinner as proof of free will, he says," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Man _has not an equally free election of good and evil_, and can only be said to have free will, because he does evil voluntarily, and not by constraint; and this he ironically calls" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "These quotations, I think, show satisfactorily that the early Calvinists believed man to have lost his power to choose good by apostasy, and can only regain it by grace. It is true, they generally believed that whenever this grace was imparted to an extent to restore to the mind the power of choosing good, it was regenerating grace. And herein they differ from the Arminians, who believe that grace may and does restore the power to choose good before regeneration. This, however, does not affect the point now under examination, but involves a collateral question, which will be examined in its proper place. One thought more, and I pass to the arguments on the main questions in the articles quoted above. These articles are taken from the 9th and 10th of the articles of the Church of England. Our 8th is indeed identically the same as the 10th of the Church of England; and the latter part of that article, commencing," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Wherefore, &c, is taken substantially from St. Austin himself. Thus much for the Calvinistic authority of the doctrine we defend. To which, if it were necessary, we might add quotations from Beza, Dr. Owen, a decided Calvinist, and many of the ancient fathers. Nay, the Remonstrants declared, in the presence of the synod of Dort, that this was" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "(See Dr. Taylor's Sermon.) But what this" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "is, we are at a loss to determine; as also what the" }, { "from": "human", "value": "is that is predicated of this nature; nor has Dr. T. told us how he knows that all men will sin and only sin, when in fact they have natural power to avoid it; or in what other than" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared unto all men. They speak in special terms of the unregenerate--that they _grieve_, _resist_, and _quench_ the _Spirit_ of _grace_, which certainly they could not do if they had it not. But if they have the operations of the Spirit, what are these operations? What is the Spirit doing to the inner man? Will it be said he is bringing motives to bear upon the mind? But what motives other than those found in the Gospel? These the sinner has without the Spirit. If these motives can convert sinners, any of us can convert our neighbours." }, { "from": "human", "value": "But, it is said," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "If I had not come, says the Saviour," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "He that believeth not is condemned already, _because_ he hath not believed in the only begotten Son of God." }, { "from": "human", "value": "These and many other passages seem to imply that the sinner is rejected on the ground of his neglecting offered grace. But if this is the ground of his condemnation, it is not for the abuse of natural power. I see no way for a plausible attempt even to get rid of this argument, unless it should be attempted to raise a question respecting the nature of this grace. It may be said that" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "In reply I would say, First, Even this shows that man could not have been saved from sin without grace, and hence on this ground this theory would be involved in the very difficulty which it attempts to throw upon our view of the subject, viz., that grace is necessary to make men guilty, because none can be guilty in a case where their course is unavoidable. But, leaving this for another place, I would say farther, in reply to the above, that the Scriptures do not represent this grace as confined to _external provisions_, but on the contrary speak of it as operating upon and influencing the mind, and that, too, in the very way for which we contend. Look at a few Scriptural expressions, promiscuously selected, and see how clearly they sustain our position. In the first place, to give the argument full force, let us notice the Scripture account of man's natural condition. He is" }, { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "and all this in consequence of sin. Indeed, this is the very definition of his sinful character and condition. If such language does not describe _utter inability_ of the sinner to serve God, then no language can do it. Now let us see what grace does. Its very design is to" }, { "from": "human", "value": "to unstop deaf ears, and" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "to" }, { "from": "human", "value": "to" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Christ strengthens the sinner, that he may" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "It is on the ground that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "God worketh in him to will and to do, that man is exhorted to" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Thou strengthenedst me with strength _in my soul_. But leaving farther quotations of this kind, let the reader fix his attention on the stress which the Scriptures lay upon the striving of the Spirit. All the efficacy of the word is ascribed to the Spirit; and hence the apostle declares that he" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "that it" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Indeed," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Hence the frequent cautions not to" }, { "from": "human", "value": "or" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Now what, I ask, can all these scriptures mean? Is there any plausibility in the idea, that by such expressions nothing is meant but the general provisions of grace in the Gospel economy? That no direct, gracious influence of the Spirit upon the heart is intended? In fact, the new idea of conversion by motives and moral suasion seems to be a device to meet this very difficulty. The old Calvinists charge the advocates of the New Divinity with holding that all the Spirit does in operating upon the heart, is not by operating upon it directly, but indirectly _through the truth_: which has given rise to the saying," }, { "from": "human", "value": "If I were as eloquent as the Holy Ghost, I could convert souls as well as he. And if they do hold this, it is no wonder, for indeed it is the legitimate consequence of the doctrine of natural ability. They doubtless arrive at it thus:--According to the Scriptures, man's responsibility turns on his rejecting or improving the grace of God. That grace cannot be an internal gracious influence upon man's moral nature, because that would conflict with the notion of responsibility, on the ground of natural power. These scriptures therefore can mean nothing more than that a gracious atonement is provided, and a record of Divine truth made, and now, in the use of his natural power, the sinner is required to judge of and embrace this truth, which if he does, he in this sense improves the grace of God, and is converted; but if he does it not, he grieves the Spirit, and is condemned. Thus in the one case, if he is converted, it is in the use of his natural power," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "But my object is to call the attention of the reader to some very direct and express passages, to show that it is grace, and grace alone, that enables the soul to do the will of God." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "I can do all things, saith the apostle," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Query: would not the apostle have thought it presumption to have said, I can do all things without strength from Christ? Has he ever intimated such a sentiment in all his writings? Does he not rather say," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "We are not sufficient of ourselves _to think any thing as of ourselves_, but our _sufficiency is of God?_ This is the apostle's general language, and it is in perfect accordance with the declaration of his Master," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Without me ye can do nothing." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "As the branch _cannot_ bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine, _no more can ye_, except ye abide in me." }, { "from": "human", "value": "No man _can come_ to me, except the Father draw him." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Likewise the Spirit Helpeth our infirmities; for we know not what to pray for as we ought." }, { "from": "human", "value": "My grace is sufficient for thee; for my strength is made perfect in weakness." }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "The God of all grace--stablish, strengthen, settle you." }, { "from": "human", "value": "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father, &c, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with _might_, by his _Spirit_, in the _inner_ man," } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "The common theory (of Calvinistic orthodoxy) leads us to entertain low thoughts of ourselves, especially in a moral view; and to feel that we are not of ourselves _sufficient for any thing spiritually good_, and that, for whatever holiness we now possess, or may hereafter attain, we are dependent on Divine grace. What stronger gracious ability do Arminians hold to, than this?" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Not of ourselves sufficient for any thing spiritually good. And is this the common theory of Calvinism? Then Calvinism here, as in other points, is divided against itself. Indeed one would be induced to think, were it not for the context, either that Dr. Wood differed from his brothers generally, on this point, or was off his guard at this moment. But he tells us, in this very paragraph, that he" }, { "from": "human", "value": "But he fears the" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "which Dr. T." }, { "from": "human", "value": "On reading this last passage, I confess I am at a loss to know what to say or believe of this Calvinistic opinion of natural power. Dr. Taylor's" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "respecting" }, { "from": "human", "value": "I take to be a frank statement of Dr. Wood's opinion, and that of other Calvinists. Dr. T. says man has natural power _sufficient_ to make a right choice. Does not Dr. Wood say this? He says he does not differ from" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "and it is notorious that this is the doctrine of the generality of those ministers. Dr. Tyler, of Portland, one of Dr. Wood's coadjutors in opposing Dr. Taylor, says, in a sermon[5] on free salvation," }, { "from": "human", "value": "There is no reprobation taught in the Scriptures, which destroys human liberty, or which impairs the sinner's _natural power_. Every man is a free moral agent. Life and death are set before him, and he is _capable_ of choosing between them. What language can be more" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "than this? It teaches us that man has _natural power_, which renders him _capable_ to make a right choice. It is true, Dr. Taylor, and" }, { "from": "human", "value": "carry out this doctrine into its legitimate and practical bearings. On the ground of this power, they exhort sinners" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "One of them, as reported to me by a preacher, went so far as to say, in a public address, that sinners ought to be ashamed to ask the aid of the Holy Spirit to convert them, since they had power to convert themselves. And what objection can any, who hold to natural power to choose life, urge against this? If, as Dr. Tyler teaches, in his" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Examination of Dr. Taylor's Theological Views, a right choice implies regeneration; and if every man is _naturally capable_ of a right choice, as taught by this same Dr. Tyler, and the" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "That the sin of Adam introduced into his nature such a radical impotence and depravity that it is impossible for his descendants to make any voluntary efforts toward piety and virtue, or in any respect to correct and improve their moral and religious character, and that faith and all the Christian graces are communicated by the sole and irresistible operation of the Spirit of God, without any endeavour or concurrence on the part of man. This of course makes the elect entirely passive in their conversion; and consigns the reprobate to destruction for the sin of Adam, which, it is maintained, is imputed to him by virtue of a federal relation; or at best gives him over to unavoidable personal and eternal condemnation for possessing a nature which he had no agency in bringing upon himself, and from which he has no power to extricate himself. The difficulties of this system are so numerous and so palpable, whether it be tried by the standard of Scripture, of reason, or of common sense, that I need not here allude to them. Suffice it to say that they have pressed so heavily upon the Calvinists themselves as to baffle all their ingenuity and invention at defence, and have driven them finally into all those changes and modifications so frequently alluded to in this controversy. I will here say in advance that, in my opinion, this, after all, is the strongest position Calvinism can assume. The moment its advocates depart from this, they must either, to be consistent with themselves, verge over into the other extreme of Pelagianism, or strike off into the" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "nor welcomed" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "If, however, they by any means go into a state of punishment, their sufferings will be unjust; or if they are admitted into heaven, it will not be a salvation by grace, nor will it be preceded by regeneration, nor will their song be," }, { "from": "human", "value": "Unto Him that hath loved us, &c. This is not only contrary to the whole Gospel system, but also is in direct opposition to many scriptures, especially Rom. v, 18:" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. It also leaves infants involved in the natural evils of diseases, pains; and death, not only without any assignable cause, but also in direct opposition to the cause assigned by the apostle--" }, { "from": "human", "value": "And so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "Calvinists, say that the sin of Adam introduced into his nature such a radical impotence and depravity that it is impossible for his descendants [who, it is believed, are propagated in the moral likeness of their fallen ancestor] to make any voluntary efforts [unassisted by grace] toward piety and virtue, or in any respect to correct and improve their moral and religious character. Thus far we go together; but this is a point of divergency, from which we take very different directions. Instead of going on to say" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "we say that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "and that this grace so enlightens, strengthens, and aids the human mind, that it is thereby enabled to make that choice which is the turning point, conditionally, of the soul's salvation; and that it is by this same gracious aid that the man, when he has this good will, is enabled" } ]

[ { "from": "human", "value": "And would you believe, reader, that any reasonable man would resort to such an idea for the sake of helping out a theory? _And yet it is even so_. A paper lately published under the sanction of the New Divinity, purporting to be an inquiry into" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "says," }, { "from": "human", "value": "The ground has of late been taken (if we understand the discussions on this subject) that mankind are literally _at birth_ voluntary and accountable agents, and actual sinners against God; that the new-born infant is a responsible subject of God's moral government, and actually sins with a knowledge of his duty, and in the same sense with the adult sinner violates moral obligation, does wrong, ought to be penitent, and to change its moral character. And as a proof that this is the ground now assumed, the same writer gives us a quotation from Rev. Mr. Harvey, who has been one of the most active in this state in opposition to the New-Haven divines, in which he says," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "A moral being, for aught we know, may commence his existence in an _active_, _voluntary_ state of the will; he may be a voluntary agent from his birth, and thus, in fact, to a certain extent sinful, and that without supposing that _depravity is seated in any thing but the will_. This same writer also states that Dr. Spring, in a treatise on" }, { "from": "human", "value": "a work which I have not at hand, has advanced and defended the sentiment of" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "And has it indeed come to this at last, that this natural ability, for which Calvinists have so strenuously contended, is nothing more than the power the new-born infant has to commit actual sin on the one hand, or" }, { "from": "human", "value": "on the other! Alas for Calvinism! To what miserable shifts--yes, I must call them _miserable_ shifts--is this system driven! On this subject I will not express myself in accordance with my feelings. The respect I have for the intelligent, learned, and pious gentlemen who have advanced this idea, restrains me in this matter. Such a result, in the advocacy of a favourite theory, is however in strict accordance with the known obliquity of the greatest and purest minds. But while we respect the authors of such a theory, and while we feel the necessity of taking heed to ourselves, lest we also fall by the same example of prejudice, we cannot suffer our common sense to be imposed upon by such gross absurdities. In this, however, we see that, as before, in trying to maintain their _ability_, they gave up their _depravity_: so here, in trying to establish their _depravity_, they destroy their _ability_. Nay, what is still worse for this theory, this very attempt to prove that infants are" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "is an indirect denial of the doctrine of derived depravity. Why do these gentlemen wish to establish this point? Why, forsooth, in order to show that men are _guilty_ from their birth, which is an acknowledgment, of course, that they cannot prove them guilty only by proving that they have intelligent moral exercise. Consequently it is a concession that this exercise is the occasion and origin of their guilt. This is not the first time that Calvinism, in trying to save itself, has gone over and joined the ranks of its opposers. Can the reader see the difference between this doctrine of actual sin from the birth, viewed in connection with its origin and bearings, and the New Divinity, which makes sin consist exclusively in moral exercise? Let these old-side Calvinists, then, sheath the sword of controversy which they have drawn against their brethren, and join in with them to defend, if possible, the Pelagian doctrine which, it would seem, after all, they hold in common stock. Has the Rev. Mr. Harvey been so active in getting up an opposition theological school in Connecticut to teach that the infant" }, { "from": "human", "value": "This is clearly a work of supererogation--a useless expenditure of money and of talents. The New-Haven Theological School is capable--alas! too capable of carrying on this work, especially if Mr. Harvey and his friends will cease their opposition, and unite in their assistance. Does Mr. Harvey fear that the New-Haven divines will not begin their" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "early enough to make it _natural depravity?_ They have given assurances that they will not be particular on that point. Only allow that there is no sin previous to the first intelligent act of choice--previous to the corresponding power to make themselves new hearts, and they will be satisfied. They have said already that" }, { "from": "human", "value": "Hence we see nothing between these gentlemen on this point worth contending about. It will, however, be important that all who hold to conversion by motives and mere moral suasion should not put the commencement of these" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "so far back that the subject cannot understand Gospel truth; otherwise they may yet get into another difficulty as serious as the one they are trying to avoid. But to the subject. It has been very distinctly shown, I think, from the reasoning of the Calvinists themselves, and from the nature of the case, that there can be no such intermediate theory as they contend for, between the native impotency of old Calvinism and Pelagianism. But as this is an important point, I will illustrate it farther by an examination of the _seat_ of this Calvinistic depravity. It is seen, by the quotation above from Mr. Harvey, that he considers" }, { "from": "human", "value": "And this is avowedly the sentiment of at least all those Calvinists who believe in natural ability. It is on this ground that they reiterate incessantly," }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "You can if you will;" }, { "from": "human", "value": "There is no difficulty except what is found in a perverse will. It is on this ground, also, that they tell us" }, { "from": "gpt", "value": "They do not say a right choice is a _condition_ or a fruit of the new birth; but _it is itself the new birth_. But to understand this subject clearly, it is important to know what they mean by the will. It appears to me they use this term with great indefiniteness, if not latitude of meaning. If they mean by this what I understand to be the legitimate meaning of the term" } ]