The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-07-06

I (cbap. ~ For tssis siasl How can that
bsg positively assert, that fOu this scheme
they have 10 sins at AZ. They never had;
they can have none. FOR i cannot be sin
in q spark TO rise. or in stone to fall. And
the spark or the stone Is not more neeessR-
nly determined either TO rise or 10 fall, than
the msn IS to sin. to commit that rape, or
adultery, or murder. For God did, before
all time, determine And direct to some par
ticular end, every person or thing, 10 which
he has given, or is yet TO give, being. -
God himself did "predessinate them to fill
up the measure OF their iniquitIes," such
was his sovereign, irresistible cecree, before
the foundation of the world. 10 III up Tie
lasdsus of their inig4ities, that is, to commit
every act which they committed. So Good
decreed the Jews to be the erueifers of
Christ, and Judas to betray him." (Chap.
l. Whose fault was it then? You plainly
say, IL was not his fault, but Gods. For
what was Judas Ur ten thousand reprobates
beside? Could they resist his decree?--
No more than they could pull the sun out
of the armament Of heaven. And would
God punish them with everlasting destruc-
ton, for not pulling the sun out OF the frma
ment? He might as well do it for this, as
for their not doing what ION this supposition)
, was equally impossible"
This is no Misrepresentation Of old
, school Calvinism. Calvin says himself;
Neither shall We fpd any other cause but
the wW Of God for the reprobation of 9TH
ers," that is, the non elect. Book Ill, chap.
22, sec. IL. i is the will of God and not
their sin that causes their damnation ac-
cording to Calvin. Beza says "God hath
predestiuated whomsoever he saw meet, not
ouly unto damnation but also unto the cause
af il" Beza ID de praea. Zuingius, says
t "God moyeth the robber to kill. He killeth,
God forcing him thereto, Curing, lib, de pro-
vid c. s: "God," saith Martyr, ''dolh incline
and force tie asilis Of wicked men into great
sins Martyr, IN Rom. calYinisiic free will
is very different from the definition of that
: term as given by Webster, and commonly
S understood by mankind. And who even
= reads Toplady's works on predesiinalion
: will not say that Mr.. Wesley has misrepre-
G Sented him. And we have the same ism
= now, but it is mysufed and covered up.
y thought you. were a scholar, and some
+ what acquainted with church history, but in
: this | was mistaken. Your remarks on
e Methodist Episcopacy clearly reveals that
. matter. | thought you knew that Bishop
: and Superintendent, we're both from Eais-
;, kOpoS and meant the same thing; and that
Wesley and all the Methodist church held
that Bishop was not an order above pres
= byter or elder but in this was mistaken.
q Mr.. Wesley did prefer the Episcopal mode
: of church government and also the name
Superintendent to that of Bishop, because
of the pride and superiority claimed BY the
a English Bishop. Hence Coke was set apart
i to The Office OF Superintendent of the Socie-
G ties in America. But when those societies
in 1884 organized themselves into the Meth.
t odist Episcopal Church, and as the name
G Bishop was not so offensive and ostentatious
: as in England they called the superintend,
S ants or oversseys, Bishops, but they have
never been considered by any writer of the
; NJ. E. Church to be an or9e, above a pres
byter. So your ammunition on this subject
, is all lost. For the definition of EpiskopoS
| see Robnson'S and Groves Greek and Eng
lish Dictionaries. For the views of the N
, +. Church on the Office of a Bishop see the
, speeches of General conference of 1914.
Your representation of Arminianism as
, quoted from the Doctrinsl Tracts is about
like saying that lahored to prove that the
I Doctrine contained in Calvin's Institutes,
was the same as that now held by the Pres
!. byterians, when j had not said one agord a.
/ bout Presbyterians or Presbyterianism in
my articles. How you arrived at this con-
clusion cannot tell You quote from the
l 5th page of the Doc. Tracts, which reads
D thus, Il belipve the eternal decree concern
, ing both {lhe elect and reprobate) are ex-
pressed in these words: "He that believeth
shall be saved; he that belieyeth not shall
, be damned" And this decree without doubt
God will not change, and man cannot re-
t sist." And yet you So extorted a part Of this
sentence from its true meaning and put in
some of your own as 10 make the reprobate s
damnation unconditional. And yet you talk
about misrepresentation. Your quotation
from the l33th P is all of piece All
ask, is for the reader to look at the book.
But finally yoa tell us that the Preshyte,
rians nor any other branch of the Calynistic
church in America ever endorsed Calvin's
Institutes; that they were never class book
in your Theological Seminaries; and thai no
part OF it is embodied in the confession of
, Faith. Then why do you blame me for not
believing in his "horrib4e Decree" when the
Presbyterians and 'all the rest Of mankind
refuse to endorse it.
You first denied that Calvin caused TIE
death of Servetus, but when proved it, you
then said he was no worse than the church Of
i Rome! That they were as prosecuting d blood
| thirsty as he was. You then said, it was
e the ism of Calvin, and not Calvin, himself,
that was at war with. This admitted
that it was bis prosecuting Spirit and "Hor-
rible decree that ! opposed. The former
had proved, and / quoted lite from the
latter, which scared you so badly that you
enter your disclaimer, and that of that Pres
/ byterians, and all the Calvinists in America,
| lest they be ruined by further developments
from the same source. You say that Calvin
is no the standard of calvinism. You might
as well say, that the Koran is not the stan
Q dard OF Mahommedinism, or Christ the
standard of christianity. | did not say Cal.
t win was the standard of Presby eriauism -
t But be is certainly the standard Of Calvin.
ism. But after all, what decree of Calvin,
is not contained in the confession of Faith?
a