The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1874-05-27
GkeQntelligrtre

A THEOLOGICAL WoRK NJ Gen. 7. ID
HARRts,-We were not aware until yes
terday that our friend, General HARRn
the Pension Agent at this point, was {
theologlan, and still less that he had eve
appeared in print In that character
True, wc have known Tor q long time tina
the General possesses an inqulrlng turr
oI mind and Is fond Of scientific and intel
lectual study and conversation, but be
yond the current interest that nearly al
intelligent reading people feel In tho sub
Iect Of theology we knew not that he hat
ever given It special attention. In thil
suppOsition, however, we find that We
were in error. The General is not only
student in theological matters, but also
an author and teacher in them. Thil
much We ascertAined yesterday from
meeting with A.llttle work issued by the
Presbyterian Board OF Publication, called
"CalvlniSm Vindicsted," the same being
an essay "by THOMAS N. HARRIS, ruling
elder in the Glenville Church, Virginia" /"
This essay Is scriptural cxegesis upon The
doctrines of ioreknowlcdge and foreordi.
nation, and Is in the shape Of o letter ad.
dressed to the Rev. 7. B. HUauEs, of Zane
Street NJ, E. Church, at that time
several years ago. travelling preacher
on tho Glenville Circuit" 1t seems that
the General and tho Rev. Mr.. HUdHEs
wercin the habit OF convcrsing together
on religious subjects, and that the one be.
ing oalYinist and the other an Armen.
ian they naturally differed widely in
their opinions. However, they seem to
havc differed 10 very iraternal and ex-
emplary spirit, and TO have sought to
convert each other by proving tho scrip
turalness oil their respective positions. We
know not what arguments Mr.. HuoHEs
was in the habit Of using to defend his
position, but the pamphlet before US fully
dlscloses, We suppose, the citations and
deductions relied upon by the General.
We have looked over his published array
Of texts and comments with considerable
interest. Just at this time, when the
Swing trial has turned public attention to
reading and investigating the arguments
pro and con on the subject Of Calvinism,
1t Is not only appropos but almost
providentlAl, as 1t were, to come
across a recognized exposition Of one
side Of the controversy in such plain
and short compass as is presented in the
little work before US. We do not re-
member Of ever meeting before with
tract that go nnequivocally sets forth the
same doctrines. Tho General takes the
bold ground that from tho beginning Of
the world part OF the human race werc
elected 10 salvation and the balance to
perdition. This is indeed bold ground,
in this age OF the world, and especially
In view Of the fact that there is such
Derceptible falling away in all directions
from the old and stern dogmas of relig-
ion taught generation ago. There is as
little equivocation in tho array Of clta-
tons and deductions adduced in support
Of this doctrine in the pamphlet before US
as We could expect to find in o partisan
exposition, and perhaps many people in
reading it will repeat in substance the
words Of tho man who listened 10 Chiel
Justice Marshall's argument in favor Of
the o. s. BaDk-yiz; "The position ls
admissible, tho argument is logI-
cal and tho conclusion inevitable,
but, nevertheless. l don't believe in the
U. s. Bank" And so in like manner,
perhaps, many persons reading this little
work oi General HARRIS will concede the
admissabllity of the doctrine OF foreordina.
ton, the logic Of the argument by which
it Is sustained from 6criptural texts, and
the insviableness o! the conclusions ar
rived at, who will nevertheless repudiatc
tho whole doctrine as dark, repulsive and
terrible. There are, however, ono or two
places where the General gets into a fog
in tho course of his argument, and where
hc consequently leaves the reader in the
same predicament. We mean o logical
fog Of course, and do not refer to the still
sadder predlcament in which tho
reader Is left at the end OF tho whole doc.
ument by the helplessness and hopeless
meas Of his spiritual situation. For in
stance, here Is very foggy place in the
pamphlet SO far as our ability to pcne-
trate the logic involved is concerned:
God gave man, at lis creation, both
the inclination and tho ability to obey his
moral law, and yet left him free TO violate
1t, should he choose 10 do 80.
In this his FREQ agency consisted !;
and from this we deduce his re-
sponslbillty. Man lost both the ability
and the inclination to obey when he broke
the law and became sinner; but his los
ing the ability to obey did not release him
from the obligation to obedience, because
ne lost the obedience BY his own volun-
tarv act, his own free choice"
Wehave tried to discover by what pro-
cess man can convince himself that a
human being in this Nineteenth Century
has lost the ability and inclination to do
right by virtue OF "his own voluntary act''
performed through On ancestor 5000
years ago. We frankly confess our ina
blltty to comprehend such statement.
However We will not stop to comment on
the Generals various positions on this and
other noints made In hia namnblot W.