"Election and Reprobation: The Presbyterian Confession of Faith," BQR 1847 (The Errors of Calvinism)

In the articles inserted in the former series of this journal on Presbyterianism, we attacked that system in its very foundation, and proved that it has no support but the imagination and sophistry of its authors.  This, in reality, is all that is necessary for its complete and entire refutation; for when the foundation it taken away, the superstructure must fall of itself.  Nevertheless, in order the better to expose the folly and absurdity of sectarians, we will go farther, and take up and refute the several Presbyterian doctrines in detail.  This, though not absolutely necessary, may not be altogether useless. 

In our present article, we shall select for examination the Presbyterian dogma of predestination and fatalism.  The errors heretofore refuted, with insignificant exceptions, are common to all classes of Protestants; but this error is very nearly peculiar to Presbyterians, and that by which they are chiefly distinguished from other sects.

If there be any theology current in the lower regions, it must be the Calvinistic doctrine of election and reprobation; and among religious societies on earth, they who adhere to it may well be compared to the Dragons de Mort, in the late Continental wars,- so called because they offered and received no quarter, but unfurled the black flag, the sure signal of death.  The excessive harshness of this theology has revolted most religious minds, and even Presbyterians themselves are not unanimous in its maintenance.  In fact, only a portion of their community still retain it; for, not to mention the celebrated quarrel between Gomar and Arminius, which so impaired the strength of Calvinism, the great schism, in 1837 and 1838,- of which we have spoken in the foregoing article,- and which divided the Presbyterians into two very  nearly equal camps, originated chiefly in a difference of opinion in regard to the doctrine of election and reprobation.  The New School Presbyterians repudiate, in the main, the cruel and impious teaching on this article of Calvin, and other rigid predestinarians; while the Old School still retain it, rally under the black flag, their hereditary colors, and swear to prove true dragoons of death to the last.  If, therefore, the doctrine is abandoned by a part, there is still another part that upholds it, and renders its discussion not altogether superfluous.

In the present article, we shall depart, so some extent, from the method we have heretofore pursued, and, instead of taking up chapter and number as we find them in the Confession itself, we shall bring together the several propositions which relate to the same subject, that we may preserve unity and connection in our discussion, and dispose of the whole subject at once.  We will give,- 1. A clear and faithful statement of the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, and show, that, however disguised or mitigated, it is really contained in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith; 2. We will examine and refute the proofs which Presbyterians adduce in its support; and, 3. Set forth and establish the Catholic doctrine which is opposed to it. 1. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, simply stated, is: God from all eternity determined to create some men for the purpose of making them happy and glorious, and others for the purpose of making them unhappy, and consigning them over to eternal torments.  The former he created that he might manifest his goodness; the latter, that he might glorify his justice.  If one object, that it does not appear how such a determination can glorify God, and that to create men for the purpose of torturing them savors of cruelty and injustice, it is replied, that the objection is impertinent.  Is not a man free to take of the same tree a portion for his fire, and another portion to be made into an ornament for his house?

2. This theology asserts that God from all eternity decreed to bestow certain favors and graces on those elected to manifest his goodness, and to cause the others to commit sin and run into every excess, that he might glorify his justice in their punishment.  That is, God does not merely permit the sins of the wicked, as Catholics allege, but positively decrees, ordains them, urges their commission, and actually produces them.  In other words, God, in order to secure the execution of his decree concerning the election of some and the reprobation of the rest of mankind, imposes on the former the necessity of being good, and on the latter the necessity of being wicked; or, to use a comparison which is no exaggeration of the doctrine, God makes, on the stormy ocean of this world, some sink, and others float, by giving to the former a leaden jacket which weighs them down, and to the latter a buoyant jacket, a sort of life-preserver, around their waists, which keeps them up.  Or, rather, to represent still better the present state of men since original sin, God has concealed under the life-preserver a bag of salt, so that, at first, all sink alike; but after a while the salt melts away, the life-preserver prevails, and they who are favored with it arise to the surface, while those who have the leaden jackets do not.  Notwithstanding this, Calvinists tell us, with a grave face, that God is not the author of sin!  First, because, as they say, it is not God, but the leaden jacket, that causes the wicked to sink; second, because the wicked sink willingly, that is, in going down they will to go down, and take pleasure in so doing; third, if it be urged that the sinking should be imputed, not to the leaden jacket, but to the agency that fastens it around their waste, still God is not the author of sin, for he binds on the leaden jacket from a good motive, namely, to show forth his power and justice.  That is to say, God is not the author of sin, because in issuing his decree he is not actuated by improper motives, does not ordain the sin as an end, but as the means to an end; and, moreover, because there can be no sin for him, since sin is the violation of a law, and he is above the law.

3. The numerous necessary consequences and developments of this doctrine are clearly set forth and accepted by Calvinists.  An obvious corollary from it is, that man has no free will, no power to act or not to act, to do good or to do evil, and that everything in him proceeds necessarily from the decrees of God, in such manner that it is not his will that chooses, but God’s decree that necessarily and inevitably makes him act.  Some Calvinists, indeed, admit, in words, the existence of free will in man; but they mean by it merely that man wills what he does, without having any power to do the contrary.  If a stone be dropped from a tower, all readily conceive that its falling to the ground is the necessary effect of gravity, and that the stone has no power to rise or to stop.  Still, admitting it to have knowledge and will, it would fall voluntarily, willingly, and even delight in falling, according to the law of its nature.  This sort of will would proceed from necessity, and it is all the free will Calvinists do or can concede to man.  Or take another example.  No one who reflects on numbers but must yield his assent to the assertion that two and two make four.  A Calvinist will say that this assent is free, because voluntary.  But persons not versed in Calvinistic subtilties will contend that this is not an example of free will, since we are not free not to yield the assent in question.

4.  Other consequences no less remarkable follow, such as that salvation is possible, not to all men, but to the elect only, and that some others may be called externally, they cannot attain to salvation, because the Almighty has predestinated them to evil; that Christ has redeemed, not all men, but merely the elect, and therefore the graces necessary to assist our free will, so strongly inclined to evil since the fall of Adam, are granted to the elect only, and totally withheld from the reprobate; that the grace which is given to the elect imposes on them the necessity of doing good, since, according to Calvinists, it would be impious and blasphemous to assert that men may resist divine grace, and yet the grace offers no violence to their will, but makes them yield voluntarily, as we yield to the proposition, two and two make four; that the commandments of God are, in many instances, impossible both for the just and the wicked,- for the wicked, in consequence of their predestination and destitution of all grace, and for the just, because God would keep them humble by causing them to fall into sin.  All these consequences are clearly contained in the Calvinistic premises, and the statements we have just given comprise the sum and substance of the Calvinistic theology, as laid down by Calvin himself, and as set forth in the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, in its “ratified and emended” edition.  We have taken no other liberty with it than to divest it of the disguises under which its adherents seek to conceal its hideousness.

6.  Now, the very first proposition we take up in the Confession of Faith is, that God has made some men for eternal life and the rest for eternal death.  In chapter third, which contains most of the Calvinistic tenets on predestination, it is clearly and explicitly asserted, that  “God from all eternity did unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass,” and that, “by the decree of God for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained unto everlasting death.”  Again, “Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life God hath chosen, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them…The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or witholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.”  The doctrine that God has made some men and angels for the purpose of making them miserable is here unequivocally taught.  The effort to conceal it under the phrase “pass by,” so that its harshness should not revolt the unprejudiced reader,- a phrase which Calvin would have stigmatized, as invented to disguise a wholesome doctrine,- is fruitless.  The whole context exhibits substantially all the tenets of Calvin, and the emiserable verbiage adopted fails utterly to conceal them.  The Scriptural passages quoted at the bottom of the page are the very ones adduced by the Genevan theologue, with the exception of a few additional texts which have no bearing on the question; and we may, without fear of contradiction, assert, that the Confession plainly and undeniably teaches the doctrines we have set forth as the Calvinistic.

II. We proceed now to examine and refute the proofs which Presbyterians in their Confession adduce in support of their doctrine.  The first proof we will consider is 1 St. Peter 2:8,- “Being disobedient; whereunto they were also appointed.”  The Westminster divines find in this text an express warrant of that leaden jacket with which the Almighty clothes the wicked to make them sink.  Here, say they, we find that certain persons were appointed by God to be disobedient, unbelievers, reprobates.  But it is not said in the text, whether they were appointed by God or by their own malice, through their own free choice; and, for ought that appears, the meaning of the text may be the reverse of what Presbyterians, following Beza, their leader, suppose.  They suppose that St. Peter intends to teach that God makes certain men disbelievers that he may send them to hell, which is to make God play the part of the most cruel tyrant.  But the text may be rendered,- “Some stumble at the word (the Gospel), being disobedient to that for which they had been appointed.”  That is, the Gospel had been appointed for the Jews first,- and it is to the Jews St. Peter addresses his Epistle,- and our Savior commanded his apostles to preach it to them first, and to announce it the Gentiles only when the Jews should have rejected it.  What mockery, then, to adduce this text as a proof of the blasphemous doctrine that God predestinates men to sin!  Erasmus, who cannot be suspected of undue partiality to Catholics, gives the interpretation we have given, and even the English translation will bear the same sense, by making whereunto relate, not to the disobedient, but to the word.  It will then simply teach that the scandalous Jews were disobedient to the Gospel which had been destined for them.  Hence, the text shows merely that God designed the Gospel to be preached first to the Jews.  It is sufficient for our purpose to show that the text may receive a consistent sense, according to the rules of grammar, without including the Presbyterian dogma.  It is for Presbyterians to show, not only that it may, but that it must, have the sense they give it, before they can use it as a proof of their cherished doctrine.

The second text, among those adduced I the Confession, which we will consider, is from St. Jude.  “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation; ungodly men,” etc.  Here we cannot mistake the cloven foot.  The English translators were so determined to find predestination to sin, that they let slip no occasion of introducing it unawares, as crept in those heretics of whom St. Jude speaks.  The text is mistranslated.  The Douay version reads, “who were written of long ago unto this judgment”; for in the Greek it is not “before of old ordained,” but before written.  That is, St. Jude says it had been previously written, foretold, and announced, that there would be heretics in the Christian community.  It had been written by St. Paul, St. Peter, by the Evangelists in the name of Christ himself, who tells us to beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing, and by the prophets of old, who threaten false prophets with the severest judgments of God.  It is not necessary, then, to deduce from this text the abominable doctrine, that God ordained the men of whom St. Jude speaks to the impieties mentioned, and did it that he might condemn them.  St. Jude, in the remark so eagerly seized upon by the Presbyterians, seeks merely to forestall a difficulty which might arise in the minds of the faithful, namely, If these men creep in unawares, how shall we avoid them?  He answers, that Christians have been warned beforehand, and that those heretics have been described already by our Lord, the apostles, and the prophets.

The third text we notice appears to be selected with more skill than the two we have just dismissed; but it can afford Presbyterians no support. “the Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”  Prov. 16. 

4.  If we may believe Calvin and others of his school, this means that God has made the wicked for the purpose of consigning them to eternal damnation, or the day of evil.  But Presbyterians cannot adopt this interpretation, without supplying many things not found in the text.  They may, indeed, pretend to have the Spirit to direct them in the interpretation, without supplying many things not found in the text.  They may, indeed, pretend to have the Spirit direct them in the interpretation of the Bible, but this, whatever it may be for themselves, is nothing to others, and they must sustain their interpretations by arguments which can be addressed to others, before they can expect them to be adopted.  The text under consideration is susceptible of a different interpretation, and which requires less to be supplied. “The Lord has made everything for himself, and therefore the wicked shall fall into the evil day.”  This is the translation of Vatable, who is not unpopular among Protestants, and who cannot be suspected of partiality.  Solomon means that everything turns out for the glory of God, even the punishment of the wicked; but this is something very different from saying that he makes the wicked fall into iniquity for the purpose of punishing them.  It is one thing to say that God is glorified in the punishments which he inflicts on the wicked; it is another thing to say that he makes men wicked that he may be glorified in their punishment.  The former is compatible with the most perfect justice and goodness; the latter is compatible only with the grossest injustice and cruelty.

The last text we shall examine, and, indeed, the principal text adduced in the Confession in support of the doctrine in question, is taken from Romans 9.  This is the great war-horse ridden by Calvin and his associates, and Presbyterians introduce it everywhere, and use it for every assertion, as cooks use salt for every dish.  Their use of it shows clearly how shamefully the Scriptures may be perverted, and how dangerous a weapon they may prove in improper hands, as well as why St. Peter said that St. Paul had written in his Epistle things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest to their own destruction.  We quote the passage entire.

“The children [Jacob and Esau] being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger: as it is written, Jacob have a loved, but Esau have a hated.  What shall we say, then?  Is there unrighteousness with God?  God forbid.  For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.  So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.  For the Scripture saith unto Pharao, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.  Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.  Thou wilt say, then, unto me, Why doth he yet find fault?  For who hath resisted his will?  Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?  Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?  Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?  What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction; and that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?”

Here, we are told, is the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination, clearly and expressly stated.  God predestined Jacob and damned Esau before any could perform any action whatever.  Neither the election nor the reprobation comes through the will or the works of its subject, but through the decree of God, who shows mercy on whom he pleases, and whom he will he hardens.  For life eternal or for eternal damnation, we are as clay in the hands of the potter.  God hardened the heart of Pharao for the very purpose of showing forth his power in him.  But this is the doctrine of Calvin and his school, not of St. Paul. For,

1. The words quoted, if taken without any restriction, involve an evident absurdity.  If God rewards or punishes just as he pleases, without respect to desert, and if our eternal lot in no sense depend on our will or works, he might hurl St. Paul himself from his seat in heaven into the deepest hell, merely for the purpose of showing his power, and proving that works have nothing to do with election or reprobation.  But this is absurd, and even Calvinists themselves would shrink from the bare supposition of its possibility.  To show power by condemning at random, at mere will, is the office of a tyrant, and of a tyrant only, as all men, not deserving a straight jacket or a lunatic asylum, must necessarily admit.

2. There is a whole class of Scriptural expressions congenial to the peculiar genius of the Hebrew language, and of the Jewish people, which have a harsh, and indeed a false sense, when translated literally into our modern tongues.  In the case of these the letter indeed killeth, and hence the folly of making private judgment the test of Scriptural truth.  I have hated Esau means in the text merely that I have loved him less than Jacob.  Whom he will he hardeneth, means simply, whom he will he suffers to harden himself, or leaves in his hardness.  Thus our Lord says, St. Luke 14:26, “If any man come to me and hate not his father and mother, etc., he cannot be my disciple.”  These words can only signify that we are to love father and mother, etc., less than we do Christ, not that we are positively to hate them; for his law forbids us to hate even our enemies, and therefore could not command us to hate our nearest relatives.  In Genesis 29: 31, it is said that Jacob hated Lia his wife; but, from the context, and from the well-known disposition of Jacob, who was a just man, it is evident that this could only mean that he loved her less than he did Rachel.  So again Matt. 9: 13, “I will have mercy and not sacrifice,” means, not that God rejects sacrifices, for he himself instituted and rigorously prescribed them, but simply that he prefers mercy to sacrifice.  In the same way we must restrict the assertion, that God hardened the heart of Pharao, According to the genius of the Hebrew language, this means only that God suffered him to harden himself, or left him in his hardness, which Pharao had brought on himself by his own malice.  That Pharao did harden himself is certain from the Scriptures themselves, Ex. 8: 15, “But when Pharao saw that rest was given, he hardened his own heart.”   And in the following chapter, Pharao, softened by the divine punishments, is represented, verse 27, as saying, -“ I have sinned this time also”; but as soon as the judgments cease, it is added, verse 34, “He sinned yet more, and hardened his heart, he and his servants.”  In perfect harmony with this mode of speaking is it that David said, the Lord had commanded Semei, 2 Kings 16: 10, to curse him, - meaning merely, that he regarded the afflictions which he suffered as a punishment from God, not indeed that Semei had received a revelation or a positive command from God to cruse him; for if so, Semei would merely have done his duty, and David would not have ordered him to be punished for it as he did, when giving his last instructions to his son Solomon.

3. If what we have now said be duly considered, the passage from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans will present no difficulty, and will be seen to have no bearing on the question of predestination, or election or reprobation in reference to the life to come.  St. Paul speaks expressly and solely of the election of the Gentiles to be the people of God, instead of the Jews, who as a nation had hitherto been that people, or the true church; and he at the same time asserts positively that both Jews and Gentiles, if they choose, may belong to the new society which our Lord founds as his kingdom on earth.  To set this forth is the great, almost the sole, purpose of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, and also of several of his other Epistles.  The great objection he had to meet and answer from the Jews, who opposed him everywhere, was, that Christianity could not be the true religion, because the true religion had been found and still was to be found only among the Jews, since they alone had received the promises.  That the purpose of the passage in question is to meet this objection is evident from the fact, that the whole of it is given in answer to the question raised in verse 6 of this same chapter, “Not as though the word of God had taken no effect; for they are not all Israel which are of Israel.”  Having asserted this, he proceeds to prove that the true Israel are not now the Jews as such, but the Christian people, and that, in substituting the Christian people for the Jewish nation as the people of God, no injustice is done to the Jews; since the true Israel, or Christian people, are collected indiscriminately from both Jews and Gentiles,- “Even us (Christians), whom he hath called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”  Ver. 24.  This understood, all the passages which to a superficial reader seem to be pure Calvinism have an easy and natural interpretation, conformably to the Catholic doctrine, and even demanded by the context.

Jacob was chosen to the head of the people of God, and the father, according to the flesh, of the Messiah, in preference to his elder brother Esau, and before either was born or had done any action good or evil, solely and purely because such was the pleasure of God; not from the evil or sin of either Jacob of Esau, but from God’s own will or mercy.  No injustice in the choice of Jacob to be, and the rejection of Esau from being, the people of God is done to Esau, because the Messiah could not be born of both, and the favor of being chosen to be the father of the Messiah was due to neither; and therefore God could freely bestow it on which he pleased, without the other having any right to complain of being rejected.  God every day bestows on some natural favors of genius, wit, riches, etc., which he withholds from others, and without injustice; for no one can claim these favors as his due.  But the election of Jacob and the rejection of Esau had nothing to do with eternal life of one or the other.  Esau, though rejected as head of the people of God, was still able and bound to worship God, and by doing so could secure eternal life.  So his posterity, though shut out from making any part of the chosen people, were not deprived of the ability nor of the obligation to worship God.  Hence the words, “I have loved Jacob and hated Esau,” are to be understood of them as chiefs of nations, and it is only when they receive a national application that they are verified, as is evident from the fact that they are quoted from Malachias 1: 3, who says,- “I have loved Jacob and hated Esau, and have made his mountains a wilderness, and given his inheritance to the dragons of the desert,” and from the fact that, though it was said, “the elder shall serve the younger,” Esau in person never served Jacob, but on the contrary was always treated by him as his superior.

As to the personal salvation of Esau, the text says absolutely nothing. Hence some commentators have inferred that he is saved, as also Ismael the son of Abraham, who also was rejected from being the head of the chosen people.  It is very probable that Esau repented of his early cruelty to his brother, and did not die a reprobate.  This will appear at least not unlikely to one who reads Gen. 33, which shows us Esau forgiving his brother with frankness and sincerity; and that the reconciliation which took place proved to be permanent may be gathered from the fact, that many years after, when Isaac died, we read, “his two sons, Esau and Jacob, buried him.”  They who know how bitter and lasting are in general the feuds and animosities of near relations  will not think lightly of the disposition Esau manifested when he forgave his brother, and we may gather from the words of our Lord, “Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven,” a ground of hope that Esau is not lost.  His posterity, though excluded from being the people of God, were not excluded from the chance of salvation.  They even had their saints and elect; for it is the common opinion that holy Job was descended from Esau.

But to return to the Epistle to the Romans.  The Apostle adds another reason why the true religion has departed from the Jews as a nation.  They hardened themselves as did Pharao, and Almighty God suffered them to remain in their hardness. If the Jew persisted, and asked why God had suffered them to harden themselves, the Apostle answered, that no one has a the right to put such a question to God, and the clay has nothing to reply against the potter. Moreover, they have no ground of complaint; for God has already done more for them than strict justice required, inasmuch as he had borne with long-suffering their hardness before rejecting them; and he now would show his justice and power in punishing their obduracy, and his mercy in adopting the Christians as his chosen people, into the number of which people the Jews had the first offer of entering, and might still enter, if they would, as well as Gentiles.  Thus the comparison drawn from the power of the potter over the clay extends, in the reasoning of the Apostle, only to the power which God has over those who have already hardened themselves, and should be extended no farther; otherwise we might from it contend that God may hurl the saints into hell, and raise the reprobate to glory.  As a general rule, comparisons are not to be urged in every point.

St. Paul is supposed by Calvinists to favor their notion, when, from Ex. 9: 16, he states that God raised up Pharao, for the express purpose of showing his power on him for his obduracy; but such an interpretation of the words used betrays only the grossest ignorance of Scriptural language and of the Hebrew idiom.  The phrase merely means, that in consequence of Pharaoh’s obduracy God showed his power on him; and on reading the passage in Exodus, it will be found that it was not till after Pharao had hardened his heart that the words were spoken.  The same principle applies also to the concluding words of the passage under consideration.  “What if God, willing to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath?”  The sense is not that God endured the vessels of wrath for the purpose of showing his wrath, for the endurance was an evidence of his long-suffering, and mercy; but, “What – who has a right to complain – if God now, since he has endured the vessels of wrath, -the Jews as a nation – be willing to show his wrath and make his power known in rejecting them as the depositaries of the true religion?” 

It is evident from these remarks that this famous passage has no reference to predestination, or even to future events, but treats of a fact accomplished in the time of the Apostle, namely, the rejection of the Jewish nation as the people of God,  and the substitution of the Christian people taken from both Jews and Gentiles.  Of this the Jew had no right to complain, since, as the same Apostle teaches us in his Epistle to the Galatians, the Jews were originally chosen to the people of God only for a time, which time expired at the coming of Christ, in whom the law of which they had been the depositaries received its fulfillment; because the promise made to Abraham, on which the Jew relied for the perpetuity of his nation as the chosen nation, was to his seed, which is Christ, in whom no national distinctions are recognized; because the Jew had no claim in justice to the prerogative he had enjoyed, since his nation was not chosen in consequence of any merits of its own, or of its progenitors, for the choice was made while the children were yet unborn, and before either had done good or evil, and of course taking away a prerogative to which he had no claim in justice could be no act of injustice to him; because the Jewish nation had hardened their hearts, and rejected the Gospel, which was offered to them first, and therefore God could justly leave them in their obduracy and turn for his people to the Gentiles; and finally, because the new people of God were not selected in reference to national distinctions, but to faith in Christ.  The Jew was deprived by this rejection, individually, of no advantage, but could still be reckoned among the people of God, if he chose, as well as the Gentiles.  The Gentiles became the chosen people only by faith in Christ, and the Jews could continue to be his chosen people in the same way, if they willed; but seeing they did not so will, they could not complain, if God, who had borne so long with their obduracy, should, to show his wrath and to make his power known, now punish them for their obduracy by leaving them in it.  Understood in this way, the argument is clear and conclusive, and the detached texts which Calvinists wrest in their own favor have a free and natural meaning, without affording any countenance to the shocking impiety and blasphemy, that God predestinates men to sin that he may have the glory of damning them.  Their interpretation is, to say the least, perfectly gratuitous, and it is sufficient for our purpose to show that the passages in question will bear a different interpretation.

III. We proceed now to the Catholic doctrine, which stands opposed to the Presbyterian.  The Church teaches that God desires the salvation of all men, and that, so far from having made a portion for the express purpose of condemning them to eternal fire, he puts into the hands of all sufficient and abundant means of salvation; that the real author of sin is the criminal will of man, who freely and of his own malice, which he has the power to reject and expel, chooses evil; that Christ has redeemed all men, and obtained graces for all men, by corresponding to which all can obtain heaven; that divine grace imposes no necessity on the human will; and that the commandments of God are possible to all men, the just and the unjust, since God permits no one to be tempted above his strength.  These views, to say the least, are in accordance with what our reason spontaneously teaches us of that infinitely perfect Being whom we call our Father.

Such is the general statement of the Catholic doctrine on the questions involved, but for the present we shall consider it only so far as it is the direct contradictory of the article of Presbyterianism, which we have just seen is unsupported by the texts alleged.  The rest will come up in order, after we have examined the evidence Presbyterianism adduce in support of the second article of their doctrine, on the “Divine decrees.”

The article we have been considering is, that Almighty God predestinates some men to sin, that he may glorify his justice in condemning them to hell.  We have seen that the texts quoted to prove this horrid doctrine do not necessarily teach it, and, in fact, have no reference to it.  This leaves the doctrine unproved, an unsupported assertion.  Against this doctrine stands the Catholic doctrine, that God wills the salvation of all men, and has furnished all with sufficient and abundant means of salvation.  If we prove this, we disprove the Presbyterian doctrine by proving its contrary.

The Almighty has created no one for the sake of condemning him to hell follows so closely and so necessarily from the most obvious and natural conceptions which we have of the Supreme Being, that the attempt to prove it seems ridiculous, indeed, blasphemous.  As the punishment of parricide was not found in the laws of Solon, because the crime was not supposed to be possible, so it may be thought such a thesis as this should be banished from Christian theology, as combating a theory which can have no advocates.  But – we are ashamed to be obliged to say it – Presbyterians have transcended all bounds, and are even worse than the old Manicheans; for these, at least, excluded cruelty and malice from their conception of God by introducing two principles of things, one good and the other evil.  This unquestionably was a madness, but a very reasonable madness in comparison with that of attributing an evil property to Him who is the author of all good, of ascribing cruelty to Him whom the Scriptures, and hence all Christians in their public hymns, praise as the merciful and patient Lord, filling the earth with his mercy and loving-kindness.  “The Lord is sweet to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works.”  Ps. 144: 9.  Calvin, however, has made this discussion necessary, and on him and his followers must rest its responsibility and its blasphemy.  Happily, the proofs of the Catholic doctrine, that God has made no one for the sake of damning him, nay, that he desires the salvation of all men, not of the just only, but of all others also, are so numerous, clear, and convincing, that they do not and cannot fail to place the cruelty, madness, and absurdity of the Calvinistic doctrine in a clear and strong light.

The sacred Scriptures furnish so many texts expressly to our purpose, that it is impossible for us to quote them all, and it is difficult to make a selection.  But we may take Ezech. 18: 23, as clear and unequivocal.  “Is it my will that the sinner should die, saith the Lord God, and not that he should be converted from his ways, and live?”  The prophet proceeds to argue against those who contend that the ways of the Lord are not right, and declares, verse 30, “Therefore will I judge every man according to his ways”; and concludes the chapter, verse 32, with the assurance, that “I desire not the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God; return ye, and live.”  Is not such language in reference to the impious clear and conclusive?  What more could we desire to prove that Almighty God made them, not for the sake of condemning them to hell, but, on the contrary, that they do good, repent after having sinned, and live?

The same declaration of God’s will occurs again, 33:11, confirmed by a solemn oath.  “As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.”  It is evident from this, that the real cause of the loss of the wicked is their own criminal will, and not the desire or the decree of God to consign them to eternal punishment.  The prophet Osee, 13:9, says as much:- “Destruction is thy own, O Israel; thy help is only in me”; or, as the Protestant Bible has it, “O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help.”  Hence the destruction and the ruin of the wicked come from themselves, from their own malicious course, and the ill use they make of their free will; but the Lord has given them his help to preserve them from the destruction they bring on themselves by their own malice.  Also in the same prophet, 11:9, the Lord says he will moderate the punishment of the wicked Ephraimites, or Samaritans, “because he is God, and not man”; thus showing that it is the essential property of God to remain ever within the bounds of a just punishment.  What horrid impiety, then, to assert that he creates some men for the sake of making them sin and burn eternally for it!

The prophet Isaias, 28:21, calls vengeance and punishment “a work strange to him,” that is, a work foreign to his nature, and to which he resorts only when our iniquities and malice compel him to chastise us.  But on Calvin’s theory, vengeance is the prime mover and first cause of the eternal ruin of the wicked, and therefore should not be called his “strange work,” but a congenial work, and a work in which he took particular delight from all eternity.  When God brought the waters of the flood upon the earth, we are told, Gen. 6:6., that he was “touched inwardly with sorrow of heart,” and that “it repented him to have made man.”  Are not such expressions ridiculous, and even hypocritical, if we are to assume that God made man expressly in order that he might fall into sin and suffer temporal and eternal punishment for it?  Is not that  “internal sorrow,” said to exist in the heart of God, as conclusive proof as could be desired, that God did not make man for the purpose of damning him, and that his original design has been disturbed and set aside by the folly and wickedness of sinners?

We conclude our quotations from the Old Testament with a passage from the book of Wisdom, which sums up what precedes, and in which the will of God to save all and to damn none is clearly asserted.  “Seek not death in the error of your life, neither procure ye destruction by the works of your hands.  For God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living…But the wicked by works and words have called it to them.”  1 vs. 12-16.  “Thou [O Lord] hast mercy upon all, because thou canst do all things, and overlookest the sins of men for the sake of repentance.  For thou hast loved all the things that are, and hatest none of the things which thou hast made; for thou didst not appoint or make any thing hating it.”  11: 24, 25.  No writer could condemn the Calvinistic dogma in more express or stronger terms.

We proceed now to the New Testament.  This furnishes passages, which, if possible, still more clearly and conclusively condemn the impious dogma of Calvin, and prove the opposing Catholic dogma.  Our divine Savior, of whom it was said that he came not to destroy souls, but to save them, St. Luke 9:56, at the conclusion of the parable of the man who, having ninety and nine sheep in the fold, runs after the hundredth that has strayed, to save it from destruction, adds this maxim, which is the death-warrant of Calvinism:- “Even so it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven that one of these little ones should perish.”  St. Matt. 18:14. If, then, one perish, it is contrary to the will of God, and not in consequence of that will, as predestinarians contend.  2 St. Peter 3:9 establishes the same conclusion. “The Lord delayeth not his promise, as some imagine, but beareth patiently for your sake, not willing that any should perish, but that all should return.”  The reason, then, why God does not punish all the wicked immediately is because his will is that none should perish, but that all should return to him by penance, and live.  Hence, they perish only because of their own free will they go against his will to save them.

Many other passages might be quoted to our purpose, such as those in which it is asserted that Christ came “to take away the sins of the world.” (St. John 1: 29), is the propitiation for the sins not only of the just, but of the “whole world” (1 St. John 2:2), and “died for all men” (2 Cor. 5:14, 15); but leaving by the way, for the present, the consideration of the fact that Christ died for all, we will close our quotations with a few remarks on St. Paul’s doctrine on the subject in question.  Presbyterians would fain introduce this holy Apostle as teaching that God hates and hardens whom he will, making some for hell, as the potter makes some vessels for ignoble purposes; but he, in fact, teaches in the clearest and most decisive manner the doctrine that God hates no man without demerit in him, nay, wills the salvation of all men, even of the wicked.  In this very Epistle to the Romans, in which Calvinists fancy they find authority for their revolting dogma, he plainly teaches that the judgments of God fall only on those who draw them down on themselves by their own evil doings, that God bears with them, and invites and exhorts them to penance, and that it is their own obdurate and impenitent heart, and not the will of God, to which they owe their condemnation.  “We know,” he says, “that the judgment of God is according to truth, against them that do such things; and thinkest thou, O man, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgments of God?  Or despise thou the riches of his goodness, and patience, and long-suffering?  Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance? But according to thy hardness, and impenitent heart,  thou treasurest up wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his works.” Rom 2: 2-6.  The passage from beginning to end is the condemnation of Presbyterianism.  The goodness, the patience, the long-suffering, the benignity of God, that lead the wicked to penance, must be to all, not willfully blind, a convincing proof that God desires the salvation of sinners, instead of compelling them to sin after having foreordained them to everlasting death, as Presbyterians blasphemously allege.

The following passage addressed to his son Timothy is still more to our purpose.  “I desire, therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men,…for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.”  1 Tim. 2. 1-4.  Comments on such a text as this are unnecessary, and would only weaken the impression it irresistibly makes on the reader, that God will the salvation of all, and that Christ gave himself a ransom for all.  What a contrast between this obvious doctrine of the blessed Apostle and that of the Confession, that “by the decree of God some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained unto everlasting death”!

Moreover, it is to be remarked that St. Paul often declares that “with God there is no respect of persons.”  Rom. 2: 11; Col 3: 25. The same declaration is also to be found in other parts of the Sacred Scriptures, particularly 1 St. Peter 1:17. “You invoke the Father, him who without respect of persons judgeth every man according to his work.”  What can be the meaning of such declarations in the view of Presbyterians?  These words, we grant, do not imply that God bestows his graces and favors upon all in equal degree, for the contrary is seen every day in the natural order; one has a remarkable natural facility for the acquisition of knowledge, another is naturally dull.  The words do not imply, that, in things not of necessity but of liberality, God may not prefer one to another.  If I choose to give alms to one beggar, and not to another, I am not an acceptor of persons, for the favor I bestow is due neither.  God bestows spiritual favors on some which he does not on others, but without respect of persons.  He chooses and calls one to high dignity in the Church, and leaves another in the lowest ranks of the laity; but in this there is no respect of persons, because the ecclesiastical dignity is due to nobody.  But there would evidently be gross respect of persons, if you should condemn one to punishment, without any motive save your own will, because punishment is due only to the commission of a crime; and it would be the most odious respect of persons conceivable, if you should purposely make one commit a crime in order to have a pretext for punishing him.  But this is the respect of persons Presbyterians ascribe to the Almighty.

 The view we here take confirms the interpretation we have given to the passage quoted by the Confession from the Epistle to the Romans.  “I have loved Jacob and hated Esau.”  There is no respect of persons here, because the honor of being chief of the people of God and father of the Messiah was due neither to Jacob nor to Esau.  Again, “Whom he will, he hardeneth.”  When one has once thrown himself into sin and voluntarily hardened his heart, the Almighty may justly and does justly leave him in his obduracy, even by withdrawing some of the graces previously granted.  For it would be against all order of justice and providence to say, the more rebellious and sinful one becomes, the greater and more multiplied should be the graces bestowed.

The proofs against Calvinism which we have adduced from our inspired volumes are sufficient; but he dogma of predestination is so repugnant to reason itself, especially when enlightened and directed by faith, that we cannot refrain from offering a few additional remarks.  The wisdom of God is totally at variance with predestination to sin and hell.   God, in creating the world, and man his noblest work, must have had a motive, and a motive supremely reasonable and worthy of his infinite wisdom.  He made man for an end, and what end we all know, from the very elementary lessons of the Christian religion.  One of the first questions put to the child in the Catechism is that which requires him to assign the end of his own creation.  “Who made you? God. Why did he make you?  To know him, love him, serve him in this life, and be eternally happy with him in the next.”  This is the end for which Christians have always believed man was created.  But on predestinarian principles the answer here assigned could not consistently be given.  The Presbyterian child, to answer in conformity with the teachings of his sect, must answer to the question, Why did God make you? – I don’t know; perhaps to offend and disobey him here, and be eternally miserable hereafter.  But this answer, which follows rigorously from Presbyterian principles, is so revolting to reason, so absurd, so contrary to the notions which all have of the will of God so save all men, and of their redemption through Christ, that Presbyterians themselves shrink from giving it.  In their Larger Catechism, they ask, “What is the chief end of man?” and answer, “Man’s chief end is to glorify God and fully enjoy him forever.”  Truth is powerful and will out, in spite of all efforts to conceal it.  After having told us in the Confession of Faith that by “God’s decree, for the manifestation of his glory, some are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained unto everlasting death,” they now tell us, in their Catechism, the end of man is “to glorify God and enjoy him forever.”  If the end of man be to glorify God, then God made him for that end; then God made all that they might enjoy him; and then he foreordained none to everlasting death, unless for their own demerits; for otherwise the end for which he made them would not have been to enjoy him, but that they might be separated from him and burn eternally in hell.

Again, a God of infinite wisdom and mercy can hate no being without cause or motive, as is evident of itself.  Hence, the royal prophet represents it as a horrid thing that his enemies “hated him without cause.”  (Pss. 34. 19, 48. 5, 48. 61.)  But if the Almighty from the beginning had foreordained some to everlasting death, he would have hated them without cause.  The foreordination is the effect of hatred, of hatred as relentless, as intense as eternity is long; for God could not thus foredoom the objects of his love.  The question does not turn on a greater or less degree of happiness and glory bestowed upon some and refused to others.  For we grant that God might have made us solely for a temporal end, and he has created angels who are superior to men, and angels of different degrees of eminence.  He may also have less love for one than for another at his pleasure; but he cannot hate any one at his pleasure.  Hatred requires essentially some demerit in the object hated, or else it is injustice and cruelty.  Consequently, predestination to hell without motive of demerit in the predestinated, from the mere will of God, is unjust and cruel, which cannot be affirmed of God without absurdity and blasphemy.

Punishment, furthermore, is evidently unjust, unless for a crime committed.  This is a most manifest and certain principle of both the natural and the eternal law.  But eternal death is the most awful punishment, and therefore to inflict it where there is no crime committed is the most frightful injustice.  But there is no difference between inflicting punishment where no crime is committed, and willing the punishment and then causing the crime to be committed that the punishment may be inflicted.  Therefore, to suppose that God first wills or predestinates men to eternal death, and then makes them sin or fall into crime that he may inflict it, is charging him with the most frightful justice.  The conclusion is irresistible and undeniable.

Presbyterians tell us that by this predestination to hell God shows his infinite power and his sovereign justice.  But who is not revolted at the bare thought of an intelligent being showing his power by punishing and torturing his creatures, not for their offences, but for the sake of showing his power?  Cruelty to animals is considered unjustifiable even in men; how much more the infliction of eternal punishment on reasonable beings, for the sake of showing his power, by their Creator?  When we read of the treatment the Helotes received from the Spartans, we shudder at the flagrant violation of the rights of humanity.  They were excluded from the cities and subjected to severe labor; and, moreover, at a certain period in each year, were flogged, for no crime but simply that of being Helotes.  They were made drunk in order to create in the Spartan youth a disgust for drunkenness; and when they were becoming too numerous, the young Spartans were sent to hunt them to death as wild beasts.  What a horrible state of society does not this fact disclose!  But to the everlasting shame of predestinarians, on their system, the good God, whom we are taught to call our Father, and who reveals himself as the Father of mercies, is made to act in regard to men and angels incomparably worse than this.  For before they were created, before they had committed or could commit any evil action whatever, they were predestinated to everlasting death, and the sin they commit was intended, foreordained, as the means of fulfilling the decree which doomed them to the everlasting death!  He creates men that he may damn them justly, show his sovereign justice in their damnation!  The bare statement is enough to curdle an ordinary man’s blood; what, then, can Calvinists be who profess to believe it?  And what must be their views of God, to suppose that such a manifestation of power and justice can redound to his glory?  Why, even the Devil himself would almost scruple to accept of such glory, and spurn the sycophant who would award it to him.

The Scripture authorities we have adduced, and the reasonings we have offered, are undoubtedly amply sufficient for our purpose; but our conclusion will acquire a firmer hold on the mind, by being invested with the authority of the Church, the seal of truth and correct interpretation of Scripture.

As early as 475, we learn from ecclesiastical history, a priest of the Gallic Church, called Lucidus, broached errors similar to those of our modern predestinarians.  The bishops of Gaul were not slow to bring him to an abjuration of his errors, and in a letter which he wrote to a council of bishops convened at Arles, he expressly condemns his past errors, on account of which the council was assembled.  He condemns the assertion, that “Christ had not died for all”; that “the prescience of God condemns some violently to death”; that “those who perish, perish through the will of God”; and that “some are doomed for death, and others predestinated for life.”  These errors do not seem to have spread far at that time; but we find, a few years later, another council, held at Orange, 529, asserting, “that some are predestinated unto evil by divine power, we not only do not admit, but, if there be any that would admit such great evil, we give them anathema with all detestation.”

A monk called Gotescalchus, or Gottschalk, in the ninth century, broached anew the very errors we find in the Confession of Faith.  This monk was then residing with Count Eberhard, to whom a learned bishop, Raban of Mayence, wrote:-

“I hear that you keep in your home a certain Gottschalk, who teaches that divine predestination imposes on men such a necessity, that, even if they exert themselves to the best of their abilities, with the help of divine grace, to work out their salvation, they will exert themselves in vain, if they are not predestinated for life; as if God by his predestination impelled men to sin!  This doctrine has already thrown many persons into despair.  It has made them say, ‘What need is there of my working out my salvation?  Fro in vain shall I do good, if I am not predestinated; and if I commit sin, predestination will make me reach eternal life, notwithstanding.’”

These sad results of predestinarianism Raban saw only on a small scale; it was reserved for succeeding centuries to see them exhibited on a large scale.  It is needless to add, that Gottschalk was condemned in several councils.  In that of Mayence, 848, the error of this proud monk which was condemned  was, that “God predestinates to evil as well as to good, and that there are men dragged to ruin by predestination, as if God had created them to damn them.”  The Fathers of the Council of Quercy, 849, and that of Valence, 855, say, “In the condemnation of the reprobate, their bad deeds precede the just judgment of God; God has foreseen but not foreordained their malice, because the malice comes from them, not from him.”  “That some are predestinated by divine power to evil not only do we not believe, but if any one do maintain it, we give him anathema.”  Two centuries later, Pope Leo IX, writing to the Bishop of Antioch, and summing up the principal articles of faith, says, - “I believe God has predestinated only good, and has foreseen good and evil.” 

The most holy Council of Trent repeats and confirms the preceding condemnation of the predestinarian heresy; for it maintains (Sess. 6, c. 2), that Christ died for all,- quoting the words of Scripture, that he gave himself a propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world; and in canon 17 of the same session decrees,- “if anyone shall say the grace of justification is given only to those who are predestinated unto life, and that all the rest of us who are called are called indeed, but receive no grace, because predestinated unto evil, let him be anathema.”  The venom of the predestinarian heresy is also to be found in the fact, that it asserts the necessity of some to be good, and the impossibility of others to avoid evil, through the want of free will, a point which we shall hereafter consider, and which this holy council has also expressly condemned.

The Presbyterian doctors wind up their chapter on God’s eternal decree with the wise admonition, that “the doctrine of this high mystery is to be handled with especial prudence and care.”  A timely suggestion.  They may well make it; but in making it, they virtually say, “The doctrine is true, indeed; but take care that you do not preach it clearly and on all occasions.  It is true; but it is so harsh, that, if preached, it might bring Presbyterianism into disrepute; it might make people crazy, and haunt them night and day by a more frightful terror than the sword of Damocles; it might have an immoral tendency, loosen all moral restraints, and encourage sinners to run into every excess, by assuring them that it can make no difference, since, if they are predestinated unto life, they cannot be lost, and if they are predestinated unto evil, they cannot be saved; nay, may lull parents, instructors, clergymen, into sloth and lukewarmness, and check all exertions for turning the wicked from the evil of their way, under pretence that the decree of God, in regard alike to those who are to be saved and those who are to be damned, will infallibly be accomplished without any human intermeddling.”  What do Presbyterians themselves, in this admonition, but condemn their own doctrine, confess its immoral tendency, its incompatibility with social peace, virtue, and order, and that it opens to the door to all licentiousness and vice?  Their confession is warranted by their history, and even more disastrous consequences still would have followed, if they had not, in general, proved themselves, through God’s restraining grace, better than their principles, and unable to act them out.

But every thing will fall into its place, and peace and confidence, without which success in any undertaking is impossible, will enter the breast, if, instead of this gloomy decree, we bear in mind,- 1. That God sincerely wills the salvation of all men, even since the fall of Adam; and that even since that fall, as before, the true end of man is to know God, love and serve him, and be happy with him forever.  And Christ has truly died for all, to redeem all without any exception, agreeably to what the Church sings every Sunday at the Credo, “for us men, and for our salvation,” – propter nos homines et propter nostram salutem.   Hence, in one sense, it is true and undeniable, that all men – ante praevisa merita – are predestinated unto everlasting life, and there is, and there can be nothing in the decrees of God to render this predestination null or fallacious.  Hope is the undoubted privilege of every son of Adam; for Christ has purchased it for all, even the most inveterate sinner, and truly, entirely, and sincerely; for it would be the most horrid blasphemy to suppose there is or can be hypocrisy in God.  2. That God foreordained no one to damnation, but that it is man who predestinates himself to hell by his own wicked works, which it was truly in his power to do or not do, and which, therefore, he might avoid, and would avoid, if he did not through his own malice choose to do them.  These two points are settled in the creed of Leo IX,- Credo Deum praedestinasse bona tantum, praevidisse bona et mala,- I believe God has predestinated good only, and that he has foreseen both good and evil.  3. That the just and the unjust must alike exert themselves unremittingly to obtain their salvation,- the just, because it is written, “Hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown,” Apo. 3:11; and because it is also written, Phil. 2:12. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling,” yet should their heart be free from distrust, For God never abandons us, unless we first abandon him; - sinners, because it is written, “As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live.  Turn ye from your evil ways, and why will you die, O house of Israel?”  Ezec. 33:11; and to all is addressed the admonition of St. Peter, “Wherefore, brethren, labor the more, that by good works you may make sure your vocation and election.”  2 St. Peter 1:10. You are elected and predestinated in the intention of God; see that you render this predestination effectual by your good works.

These considerations sufficiently dispose of the first article of the Presbyterian doctrine on election and reprobation; the second article, as given in our general statement, we will endeavor to discuss and dispose of in our next Review, having already detained our readers as long as it may be desirable to detain them for one quarter on so disagreeable, and we may say, so revolting, a subject.  Nevertheless, our Presbyterian friends must not regard themselves as slighted.  We shall, God permitting, pay them as much attention, for some time to come, as they can desire, or their own views of their importance can demand.