The Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1852-1853, 1853-06-01


Episcopal orders, commissioned and dlrec-
ted him to set apart Francis Asbury, to the
same Episcopal Office" Now besides the
intrinsic absurdity Of a priest ordaining a
bishop. and the exceeding doub fulness OF the
matter Of fact, that Wesley who declared
lhat he would rather be called fool, knave,
william" than bishop, should designate anoth-
or TO beir the office and title, he 30 much
abhorred: Besides all this observe with what
authori the Doctors of Meth hodism speak,
VIXEN writing for the special use and bene-
fit of the sect. Mark their language
Episcopal mode of church governmert'-
"Etpiscot al ofhce"-''letters Of episcopal or
ders"-"rpscopal ordination" DC. But
how modcs,ly does DR.. Bangs relate the
same story in the appendix to Bucks The.
oogical Dictionary? The Doctor tells us
that being assisted BY other preSbyters Of
the church of England, by prayer and i'm
position of hands he (Wesley) set apart
Thomas Coke, a presbyte OF said church,
as Superentenaed of tie Methodist socie,
ties in America" Not word about being
made bishop. or receiving the episcopal
office. Again, "Mr. Asbury being arst
ele;ted by the unanl alous voice OF the
preachers, was ordained by DR.. Coke, first
to the office of deacon, their elder, and then
superintendent or bishop" In the Book oil
D discipline, the statement says nothing about
"superintendent," it is nothing but episcopal
mode Of church government, episcopal OF
fee, episcopal orders, episcopal oriinantion
But the appendix to Buck, it is all saperin-
temdent, and the poor bishop comes tagging
in the shape Of an alias. just as though he
had been smuggled into his present position
AS silly as possible to escape detection!-
Why this pueriIe aflectation Of high sounding
tiiles-this ludicrous min,iery OF the Eng
lish Hierarchy"
But you have quoted from Calvin's insti.
tutes on the subject of reprobaton, then
exclaim, this is truly "horrble doctrine. "
Now let US look at the Armenian doctrine
on the same subject. and see itit is less hor-
rible. We turn 10 page l3o your volume
Of "Doctrinal Tracts" published BY your
General conference and highly commended
by the agents Of your "Book concern"
Look at the following quotation. God
predestinates, or .tore-appo1atS all disobedi-
ent unbelievers 10 damnation, not without,
but according to his fore -knowedy sc Of all
their works from the foundation Of the
woild." "God from the founda ion OF the
world foreknew all mems believing or no:
believing, and according to tlis toseknowl-
edge (vIz. from the foundation of the world
or from eterniiy,l he refused, or rep obotea
all disojedient unbclicyers as Snch 10 dam
natisn. 1t is here asserted that some mer
will live and die. disobedIent unbelievrrs, u
and that God had pufrct!y foreknowled e
of all mems believing or not believing. Il
follows then that he perfectly foreknew thei:
character, names, and number: These were
certainly known j. G., Immediately certain
as God could not mistake single uame,
or miscount single unit OF the precise
number OF "the dlsohedient unbelievers, "
who are tore appointed to damnatioar' This
fore appointment or r'fusla at the exact
nunaber Of dsobedicnt unbclievcrs;" this dc.
cree of reprsddtton, was passed "beiore they
were born" and OF course "belore they had
done either good or evil" Thus "Some
men are born dcvoted from the womb lo
eternal DEATH" What then is the use o.
preaching 70 them, praying for them &c.
"This eternal decree (of reprobalion
we are iolI in the same volume page Is
''God will not change, and man cannot re
sis!" So that the Arminan deciee oil Rep
rotation is not ON y eternal, but IresiStaWt
and unchaaqeable!
These "disohedient unhelicver" are thus
particularly and unchangeably designed
and the number, is so certain and dt6nil,
that il cannot be.either increased, or dimin
ished. 0 horrible Arminian decree! Ant
now what must we think of the men whC
make in an outcry about the difficulties o
the Calvinistic theory, but who AT the same
openly avow such scheme as the forego
ing?
You wish to convey the impression b,
quoting from the institutes Of Calvin, tha
they are the standard Of Calvinism. Thev
are not the standard by which Calvinists o
America are to be tried; for you well know
that they have not only not endorsed al
the sentiments of that work, but have dis
tictly disclaimed such endorsement. Will
equal propriety might we call ev:ry Yves
leyan Methodist an anti-repuhlcan and
tory, because John Wesley was hostile t.
the cause of American Independence, ant
believed it to be the Work of tie devil! An
his followers publish by thousands and scat
ter over the land the sermons which contain
these reasonable sentiments!
By what sort Of logic do you make 1t aRpea
that Calvinists are responsible for all th
sentiments embraced in Calvin's institutes
Have Preshyterans, or any other body O
Calvinists, ever professed to adopt all tn
theolo sical views of the Rcformer? Not a
all. Do they use the institutes as elias
book in their Theological Seminaries? Nc
Have they embodied any part Of that wor
in their Confession of Faith? No sue
thing is pretended. Highly as we homo
the memory and veneratc the talents Of. th
Ilustrious Calvin" we call no man master
The Bible interpreted by the Confession {
Faith, is the standard Of PresbYteriansm
and by this alone ale we willing to be tried
and for this alone are we responsible.
Your attempt TO make the Presbyteria
Church responsible for certain views Of th
distinguished Reformer, who lived tw
centuries ago, is futile in the extreme
Every person moderately familiar with sue
t topics, know that the Presbyterian ch1c
has "at sundry times and in divers mar
ners." distinctly disclaimed any design ;
endorse the work called, "The institutes
! and among the rest, in the preface to thi
very work which you profess to cite a
witness against her, her Board Of Publica
ton disavow any intention to endorse til