The Gospel Messenger--November 1885
 
PREDESTINATION
By Elder Silas Durand
 
Dear Brother Respess:—It is impressed upon my mind to write for the readers of the GOSPEL MESSENGER some of the exercises I have had con­cerning the doctrine of predestination or foreordination. It is a subject that has caused me much perplexity of mind and many trials; but for a number of years I have been firmly settled in regard to it, and feel an hum­ble assurance that it is my dear Saviour who has thus established me in the truth.
 
When contemplating the character of an infinite and eternal God it has always appeared to me that he must have foreordained all events, and ap­pointed the time and destiny of all beings. And many portions of Scripture would appear very clearly to teach that he did so. But then many such questions as the following would often arise to perplex and trouble me.
 
 Could a holy God predetermine that there should be sin? Could he fore­ordain acts that would be sinful and wicked in them that he had before determined should do them? Could he determine that certain events should transpire, which would manifest principles in those connected with them contrary to his pure and holy nature, and which must even be ab­horred by him? Could he foreordain a sinful act and then punish the one who committed it? These are but a few of the perplexing questions which the enemy of all truth suggested to my carnal mind, and with which I presumed to try the infinite and holy One. And I have no doubt many a dear child of God has been in like manner troubled and worried. I have sometimes found myself asking the question, “Would God be just if he should do so and so?” But since I have known him by a precious experience of his grace abounding to the chief of sinners, I have been checked in any such course of reasoning though questions still assail me.
 
 There has been within my heart a reverential fear of God, which has for­bidden me to undertake to decide what would and what would not be just in God. I have felt satisfied that whatever God should do would be right, merely because he did it.
 
It was not until the Lord gave me a good hope through grace that my mind was fully settled with regard to any of these questions. With that hope he gave me such views of himself as set my mind perfectly at rest as to the character of whatever he might do. He is the rock, his work is perfect; for all his ways are judgment; a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”—Deut. xxxii. 4. I felt that I could say with the psalmist, “I will hear what God the Lord shall speak.” I de­sire to take with childlike confidence whatever his Word teaches concern­ing his character and works.
 
All things that take place are either according to the eternal will and purpose of God, or they are contrary to it. If anything could possibly occur that was contrary to God’s will and purpose, then he does not do all his will, and he is not therefore infinite in his wisdom and power. But the Bible plainly teaches that he is infinite in all his attributes, and that he does all his will. "He is in one mind and who can turn him, and whatsoever his soul desireth, even that he doeth.”—Job xxii. 13. “Our God is in the heavens he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”— Psalm cxv. 3. “My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.”— Isa. xlvi. 10. “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will” Eph 1. 11.
 
If Adam’s transgression had not been foreknown by the Lord, then he could not have provided redemption. If that transgression had not been according to his will and purpose it must have been contrary to it, and he must have desired that it should not be. But having been foreknown it must certainly take place, and could by no possibility be prevented. The thought therefore, that the fall of man was not according to the eternal will and purpose of God, leads directly to the conclusion that he was disappointed and dissatisfied, not being able to do all his will and pleasure.
 
 This thought I felt therefore, that I must at once and forever discard. In nothing can I be more firmly settled than in this clear teaching of the scriptures concerning the only wise God, our Saviour, that nothing ever has taken place contrary to his eternal purpose, nor ever will, he is above all power and wisdom, and knowledge and by no conceivable possibility, therefore, can anything transpire which it was his will and pleasure should not transpire.
 
“O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” While, therefore, I cannot for a moment yield to the idea that his power is limited, so that his will is contradicted by any event, however dark and wicked. I can easily conceive that there is a good and infinitely wise reason for all things to be just as they are, hidden away from our understanding in the infinite depths of his unfathomable wisdom: so that I can rest satisfied, and say with my dear Savior, “Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.” It must be that God will do all his pleasure, and that nothing can be different from what he wills it to be but it is not necessary that we should see the reason for all things that he has prepared nor that we should he able to judge of his ways and works by our feeble sense.
 
This question may arise: If God ordains that an action should take place which manifests a wicked principle in him who does it, would not God, in that be the author of sin? Would it not follow that he must be the source of wickedness? I state the question somewhat hesitatingly because it seems so irreverent and sinful to even suggest such a thing. But in the blindness and pride of our carnal hearts we do ask it, and are often tempted of the devil to disbelieve the doctrine of God’s foreordination of all things for fear of such a conclusion. I hasten to answer a sharp and decided No! Such a thing cannot be. God cannot be the author of sin or source of wickedness, whatever he may do, or ordain to be done. He ordained that sin should enter into the world and death by sin, and predestinated and commanded things to be done that are sinful in those that do them as in bidding Shimei to curse David, (2 Sam, xvi. 10) in putting a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets, (2 Chron. xviii. 22) as in determining the crucifixion of the Son of God by the wicked hands of those who slew him; yet he is not the author of sin, nor the source of wickedness. Sin is a transgression of the law. God is under no law but his own will, which he “doeth in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none may stay his hand, nor say unto him, what doest thou?” Daniel iv. 35. He can transgress no law, and therefore cannot be the author of sin. He kills, but it is not sin, though it is sin in the man whom he employs as his sword and hand.—Psalm xvii. 13. If he dash whole worlds to death, it is right in him. He created man upright, placed him under a holy law and purposed that he should fall under the condemnation of that law and die, it was right in him. He is a sovereign, whose will is his only law, and that will is right and holy and infinitely wise. If he did not purpose that the man whom he had created should transgress his law, then the fall of man was contrary to his wish and a disappointment to him. But before the world began he had foreordained Jesus for the redemption of his chosen people from that fall, and had given them eternal life and all spiritual blessings in him, he could not have elected them in unto the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ without having determined the need of that sprinkling. —1 Peter 1. 2. The purpose which embraced the salvation from sin, must have embraced also that which caused the need of that salvation. Through the fall of man the Lord determined to display his justice, and grace, and mercy. Who shall therefore dare to say he is the author of sin? It is our carnal minds that object to this sovereign right of God, and refuse to consent to what we cannot understand. ‘‘The carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.’’ But the spiritual mind can easily see that “It was all for the lifting of Jesus on high.”
 
The wicked are God’s sword. Men of the World are his hand.—Psalm xvii, 13. If God does a work with such a sword, the wicked are still wicked. Men of the world are still sinful, though the Lord uses them as his hand to carry out his eternal purpose. Cyrus, the ravenous bird from the East, was none the less a ravenous bird because he executed the counsel of God. The Lord girded him to do his will, yet he did not know the Lord.—Isa. xlvi, 11; xlv, 1—5. The Lord raised up Pharaoh for they very purpose which he fulfilled by him, and then destroyed him for the wickedness he manifested. Those who crucified the Saviour did but what God’s hand and counsel determined before should be done. They were none the less wicked though foreordained to do the awful deed. Peter says of those who stumble at the word, being disobedient, that they were appointed unto it.—1 Peter ii, 8; and Jude speaks of those “Who were before of old ordained unto this condemnation.”—Jude iv.
 
“The Lord hath made all things for himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”—Prov. xvi, 4. Does this mean that he made the wicked as such, in whatever sense he made them, with the end which they fulfill in view? Did he not make them good, and they became wicked contrary to his design? But it is said that he made them for the day of evil, showing the purpose for which he made them carried out. The form of the expression proved this to be the meaning. He created the waster to destroy.—Isa. liv, lii. He made Leviathan (Ps. civ. 26) and formed the crooked serpent, (Joh xxvi, 13) which his love and great and strong word has destroyed. (Isa. xxvii, 1) which old serpent is the Devil and Satan. —Rev, xii, 9; and xx, 2. The saints who behold these things can join the “Song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying great and marvelous are thy works Lord God Almighty. Just and holy are thy ways, thou king of saints.”—Rev. xv 3. God has determined the times before appointed and the bounds of the habitation of all nations of men and those bounds they cannot pass.—Acts xvii, 26; Job xlv, 5.
 
‘‘Thou wilt say then unto me, why doth he yet find fault, for who hath resisted his will?”—Rom ix, 19. No one has resisted his will. But “who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?’’ He does find fault with all iniquity and sin and he causes his people humbly to acknowl­edge that fault, and the justice of their condemnation.
 
Some fear this doctrine will cause men to feel that they are not responsible for wicked acts, and will therefore increase wickedness, causing them to say, ‘‘If God has foreordained these things, why am I judged as a sinner?—Rom. iii, 7. It is a great mistake to be troubled, for fear the truth may have a bad effect. Nothing can remove the sense of responsibility which God has laid upon the conscience. The wicked will still find excuse to do wickedly. For it is their delight. But the Lord gives to his people a desire to do his will, he has created them in Christ Jesus unto good works, which he has before ordained that they should walk in them.— Eph. ii, 10. He chose them that they should be holy.—Eph. i. 4. He elected them unto obedience,—l Peter i. 2. He blesses them with a hunger and thirst after righteousness, which no power of the enemy can ever drive away. He makes them to realize the riches of his grace and mercy in the forgiveness of their sins; and he causes them to see that all things, good and evil, light and darkness, sin and holiness, do ‘‘work together” for good to them who love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”
 
Can we suppose that God has ordained an act and not decreed who shall perform that act? To the waves of iniquity he has said, “Thus far shalt thou come,’’ as well as, “no farther,” The wrath of man shall praise him; the remainder of wrath he will restrain”—Ps. lxxvi, 10. That portion of man’s wrath which is not foreordained to work for his praise will not be allowed to find expression in acts. The wicked will not be allowed to carry out their wicked desires. They can do nothing which God has not purposed shall be for his glory. The remainder of wrath which swells and surges up in their hearts shall be securely held and caged there, causing them to gnash their teeth in impotent fury.
 
What a comfort this is to the poor, trembling child of God, when sur­rounded by enemies and dangers. how absolutely safe they feel under the care of such a God, which works all things after the counsel of his own will, and who turn the king’s heart whithersoever he will, as the rivers of water are turned. (Pro. xxi, 1.) They cannot search out his judgments, nor find out his ways, nor trace his path in the deep waters, as he goes on in the execution of his infinitely wise purposes; but they earn trust in him and he sweetly at rest in the bosom of his love when he gives them to feel that trust: for they know that he hath done ‘‘whatsoever he pleased in heaven, and, in earth, in the seas, and in all deep places.” (Ps. cxv, 3; cxxxv, 6) David could see the Lord’s hand in the fearful curses whelm Shimei heaped upon him, and said to those who would have slain him: ‘‘Let him curse because the Lord hath said unto him, Curse David.”—2 Sam. xvi, 10. Yet Shimei was afterwards pun­ished for that sin. 1 Kings ii, 44.) Micaiah knew that the Loud had caused Ahab’s prophets to deceive him with false prophecies of success, and could trust in the Lord though railed at and imprisoned. (2 Chron. xviii, 22.) Our dear Saviour knew when the appointed hour of his enemies and the power of darkness came, and that they could do only what the Father’s hand and counsel determined before should be done. So he feared no evil (Ps. xxiii, 4), as only the will of God could be done, and that must be for good to his people and for his glory. Stephen could rest in the holy will of God when his enemies stoned him to death. David could see his bitter enemies as merely the sword and hand of his God, and could look to him for deliverance from them, if consistent with his will.
 
Job’s great afflictions were directly from the devil and expressions of his enmity, but Job saw only the purpose of God in them, and his supplications concerning them were addressed to the Lord, not as to one who could merely overrule them, but whom hath predestinated and directed them. So may we he enabled to look up through all the afflictions, trials and sorrows that come upon us. and see the hand of an omnipotent, infinitely wise and most loving and merciful God directing and controlling the storms of wickedness and waves of iniquity, as well as the blessing or light from the Sun of righteousness which shall overcome all the powers of darkness, and the peace flowing like a river which shall triumph over all evil, and then most sweetly can we rest in him, whatever be our earthly lot, saying when dire afflictions come: ‘‘It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth him good;‘‘ and in whatever manner our earthly treasures and comforts are removed, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: blessed be the name of the Lord.”
 
With love in the Lord to you and all the dear brethren, I remain, Your unworthy brother in Christ, SILAS H. DURAND
 
P. S.—I want to say that I agree with you inn your estimate of Dr. Carleton’s book, which is named, inappropriately, I think, “The Diagram of the Churches.” I found many clear expressions of truth in it, bunt much that I do not think is according to Scripture, such as the Parker two-seed doctrine, the declaration that masonry was a type of the church, and some other things. The writing appeared to me to be of a conten­tious spirit and as striving for the mastery, rather than the expression of a heart made humble and loving and earnest by an experience of God’s rich grace and mercy, and in which the love of God had been shed abroad, causing a feeling of sweet and solemn praise to God and an aversion to levity and vanity. I hoped to find comfort in it, but did not. The matter of dealing with sacred subjects appeared to me to be light and trifling. Such manner is always unbecoming the solemn and most holy subject of salvation. 
      
S. H. D.
Southampton, PA .
 
 

PREDESTINATION
By Elder John Rowe
 
In   writing a brief article under the above heading I design to confine myself to plain Bible teaching upon the subject, for all the reasoning of uninspired men upon the point, whether they be learned or illiterate, should be fully set aside as carnal, except so far as their reasoning is sustained by the Scriptures. God’s declarations of the point are very brief, yet they are full and clear enough to express all that God designs we should understand or teach at present. For twenty years and more after God had taught me that I was a vile being without hope of salvation except through his abounding grace and mercy, it was a question with me whether God had predestinated the wickedness of the world. I rea­soned as follows: Does anything occur in the world contrary to God’s will? Certainly not. Did not God foresee the transgression and fall of Adam? To be sure he did. Could God foresee an uncertainty? Could any matter be any otherwise than as foreseen of the Almighty? Cer­tainly not. Then I would enquire, how could God’s purpose have been ob­tained without the wickedness of men, through which, in many instances, his will was secured? Reasoning thus, I was inclined to the opinion that the wickedness of man was predestinated of God, though I dared not proclaim it, and I now feel thankful that I did not. Such reasoning I had without considering the plain teaching of the Scriptures upon the point which would have saved me much trouble. As to whether God has de­creed all the wickedness of the world there is but one question to determ­ine, viz.: Was the first transgression of Adam a fruit of God’s decree? If so, then all subsequent sin was decreed. So, on the other hand, if that first sin of Adam was not a fruit of an imperative decree of God, then no wickedness is the fruit of his decree; for I suppose it will be allowed that the first sin of Adam was the root of all subsequent sin.
 
I have laid down this proposition to which, I suppose, all concerned will consent to avoid the error and confusion which brethren involve themselves in by referring to that class of Scriptures which declare the sovereignty of God as proof of their conclusion that all things are predes­tinated of God. Remember, dear reader, the question is not whether God is a sovereign, or whether he subdues sin to his will, but the question is as to whether the wickedness of men is the fruit of God’s holy decree. Strictly to this point the discussion should be confined, nor shall I be thrown off of the track by the introduction of remote questions. What­ever may be proven of God’s dealing with wicked men, or of his over­ruling their wickedness and turning it against their designs and to the advancement of his will, all such proofs I say are irrelevant to the point in question, and hence no support of an opposing theory. In approach­ing the question of the transgression and fall of Adam as to whether it was predestinated of God, I premise that Adam was made a rational and intelligent man. While he was made lower than the angels, he was also made higher than the beasts. Beasts are not rational; hence no law was given to them. They are not subjects of law, but should be governed by instinct. But man was a suitable subject of government by law, of which we need no better testimony than the fact that the law was given to him. Here I premise that God’s purpose to govern man by law was as permanent as any other purpose of his. And surely it may be seen that an imperative decree of God that man should transgress, and that before the law was given; such a decree I say would have been a clear contradiction of God’s purpose to govern man by law, and must have fully destroyed such a purpose. Then let us take heed lest by car­nal reasoning we set one purpose of God against another purpose of his. For as Christ is not divided so neither is the Father. We know that an imperative decree of a sovereign, either that subjects should or that they should not transgress such a decree, I say, either positive or negative, would destroy all intelligible ideas of law. Hence for these plain reasons, as well as many others, I don’t believe that God had imperatively decreed the transgression and fall of Adam. It is not the province of law, neither of law makers, either to determine or to prohibit transgression, but to condemn and punish willful violators. “Thou shalt not eat of it” is the only expression of the divine will respecting the transgression of Adam that is recorded in the divine oracles, and to say that God had another opposite will or imperative decree respecting the same matter is, to say the least, very extravagant.
 
John Calvin, when he would silence opposition to such views, speaks freely of the presumption of men who assume to comprehend the hidden counsels of God; but when the object is to sustain such a theory he, with impunity, refers to the secret decrees of God as the embodiment of his views. But I think it fair to conclude that if God has any secret purposes (which are not denied) they are as fully hidden from the advocates of the predestination of all things as from others who are of a different opinion. Talk about presumption! If it does not appear in Calvin, who takes upon himself to affirm that God had a secret decree respecting the transgression of Adam directly in opposition to his expressed will, I say if this is not presumption, we need not be in dread of it. There is an effort to make it appealing that God has imperatively willed all that he has not imperatively willed against. But there is no weight in such argument, for it has just been considered and must be agreed that an imperative decree, either for or against transgression, would dispense with all correct ideas of government by law. Hence all such reasoning must be carnal and should be so regarded at least until it is shown that Adam was not a suitable subject of government by law. With full confidence it is argued that nothing occurs in the world contrary to God’s will, and it is granted that nothing occurs that God wills against. But let me see how such argument will apply to such a theory. We know that God’s will is contained in his word as far as we may understand it. It was not a deception when God said, ‘‘Thou shalt not eat of it,’’ but an expression of his will to government by law and throw the responsibility upon him in the event of transgression. But if God imperatively willed another thing, viz.: that Adam would transgress, don’t we see that whether Adam eat or refrained from eating he must act contrary to God’s revealed will, or else contrary to his supposed secret will? Thus I will recognize the refutation of that theory and pass on to consider other unbelievable consequences following it.
 
I wonder if any man in his senses would argue that Adam was under no obligation to obey the law of his Maker. I should hope not, for with­out an obligation we could not conceive the idea of disobedience. Then if Adam was under obligation to obey the law, God laid that obligation upon him in giving thee law. Will any object to this proposition? I should hope not. However, if God laid an obligation upon Adam to obey the law, and he had previously and imperatively decreed that he should transgress, then God laid an obligation upon Adam to make null his eternal decree, and so man must die only because he failed to make void his Maker’s decree. Is this Bible teaching? Is the belief of such things to be a test of sound and intelligent Baptists? At this point, brethren who advocate the predestination of all things would fly off and introduce abundant proof of the sovereignty of God, and show that we could not conceive how God’s holy ends would have been obtained without the wickedness of men. But this will not be allowed. As to whether God is a sovereign, or as to how his purposes would have been obtained with­out the wickedness of men, not only these are not the main questions involved in this discussion, but such questions are not involved in the main question. The question is, be it remembered, was the first transgression of Adam a fruit of God’s predestination? When that question is settled upon principles of right, reason and revelation, then I will stand shoulder to shoulder and rejoice with them in the pleasing view that our God is a complete sovereign in heaven, earth and hell. Here I undertake to say that things predestinated are fruits of that predestination, and that God is the author of whatsoever he has decreed. When this is shown by plain Bible teaching it will matter little with me what is said to the con­trary, or by whom.
 
We have the following by the pen of inspiration:     “For whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate to he conformed to the image of his son,” —Rom. viii, 29. Now, does not every man who reads understandingly know that the transforming of the Lords people and conforming them to the image of Christ is a fruit of his predestination? Still it should not be supposed that such a purpose abstractly considered conformed them to his image. No; it must be done by the power and Spirit of him who declared the decree. But such an operation of the spirit is in pursuance of such a purpose, and is indispensable to such an end, notwithstanding it was foreappointed. It should be further considered that had there been no such purpose, then there had been no such operation of the spirit, and hence no conforming to the image of Jesus. I reckon those considerations will make it clear to the unbiased reader that it is not enough for God simply to predestinate, but he must also perform his purposes. Again, “Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus to himself according to the good pleasure of his will.” I conclude that seekers after truth will perceive from the above that God is also the author of the adoption of his children as well as of the image of his Son in them. Certainly he will not predestinate the thing and then leave them to adopt themselves without any influence of the decree. Still we are reminded to believe that God solemnly decreed the sin Adam, but that nevertheless he sinned without any influence of the decree, the strongest witness of which, that I know, is John Calvin.
 
Reader carefully note the following: “In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will.”—Eph. 1,11. Now is not God the author of our heirship, and also of our inheritance? Are not these fruits of his predestination? I hope no brother would give a negative answer. Then let us speak of the first Adam and say in whom we have obtained alienation and corruption. Did we not obtain it in him? And should we go and say being predestinated to such alienation and cor­ruption? If so, don’t we see that God is the author of our alienation and corruption, as certainly as he is the author of our heirship and inheritance? Why do we regard God as the author of these? Have we any better evi­dence than the fact that he has predestinated such things? Then if his predestination is valid proof that he is the author of our heirship and inheritance, and if he has as certainly predestinated our alienation and enmity, then why should not that predestination be regarded as valid proof that he is the author of these also?
 
Let it be proven that God is a sovereign and also a God of foreknowledge, such proofs will never sustain the theory that he has solemnly decreed things which are not consequences of that decree. If God decreed the transgression of Adam, and if that decree had no effect to influence the transgression of Adam, then, to say the least, that was one fruitless decree of the Almighty. Hence we see the least that can be said in harmony with such a theory is too much for mortal man to conceive in his mind, much less to utter from his lips, how much, or rather how little, such speaks for the wisdom of God. Would it not be folly in a court in passing sentence upon a murderer, to solemnly appoint that the murderer should die after his neck was broken? His neck being broken the murderer would die without such decree of the court. But we are required to believe that God’s appointment of Adam’s transgression was not only necessary, but indispensable, but still it is insisted that his transgression was a fruit of altogether another thing. Such as teach that Adam’s transgression was appointed of God have never shown from the Scriptures, neither can they, that God’s purpose in the matter extended any further than to leave Adam, without restraint, to act from his own volition. To be culpable, actions must be fruits of an intellectual mind or will, and such was Adam’s sin, and hence the responsibility fell upon him, and justly so, too. God’s foreknowledge of his sin is some­times referred to us evidence that it was decreed. But it has never been shown that foreknowledge and predestination is exactly the same thing. No, but the Bible plainly shows the contrary, speaking of them severally and as distinct. ‘‘Whom he did foreknow he also did predestinate,’’ etc. Now I conclude that God foreknew his people in their relation to the first Adam, in the same character that he foreknew the wicked in that relation. And if the foreknowledge obliged the predestination, it would oblige the appointment of all to the same end, for we know that exactly the same thing in principle will not secure opposite results. Hence we see that their theory gets no support from God’s foreknowledge. It has previous­ly been considered that to be culpable, acts must be fruits of an intellec­tual will , and Adam’s transgression could not be a fruit of his will at all, and at the same the a fruit of God’s foreknowledge, or of his predesti­nation. It was not on the ground of God’s foreknowledge, nor on the ground of his imperative decree, that Adam sinned, but it was his own deliberate act, and hence his culpability. Some have wondered what had become of God’s decree of salvation if Adam had not sinned and thence concluded that his sin was appointed. But we should conclude that his sin was as certain as foreseen of God, as if predestinated of him, and hence we need not worry ourselves with such reasonings.
 
I will now take a little space to consider some texts of Scripture which are regarded as proofs of the predestination of all things. “The Lord hath made all things for himself, yea even the wicked for the day of evil.” —Prov. xvi, 4. Now while it is true that God made the wicked, yet Solo­mon has not informed us that they were so any otherwise than by a trans­gression of law. Nor was their transgression a result of their original make, for man was made good, as the Scriptures avow. Then don’t we see at once that the theory that the wickedness of the world was appointed of God gets no support from that text. If God made the wicked as such, i. e. if he made them wicked, then he would be as well pleased with his wicked creatures as with the good, otherwise we should conclude that he despises the work of his own hands. Again, if God made the wicked as such, if they are exactly what he made them, then we should conclude that he punishes the wicked just because they are exactly what he made them. And who believes that? “I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace and create evil, I the Lord do all these things. “—Isa. xlv. 7. The above is referred to as proof of the predestination of all things— certainly with more confidence than of understanding. For it must he agreed that creation was finished the sixth day, and that whatever may be said to the contrary, God said that all of his creatures were good— See Gen. 1, 31. Then the text should he investigated with that fact in view. It should be noted that it says “I create’’ (not created) evil, hence in the sense of the text, doubtless, creation is going on today. For instance, by God’s providential restraints laid upon the wicked, such as busybodies and tattlers, neighborhoods may enjoy peace and tranquility, and the Lord makes it by his restraint of interrupters of peace. But when he is pleased to withdraw his restraints and leave corrupt human beings to act out the corruption of their nature, then feuds, broils and confusion, prevail in families and in neighborhoods, for which God brings evil, i. e. chastisement upon them. Thus God makes peace and creates evil in families and in neighborhoods. By his constant watch over nations, restraining the ambition of corrupt rulers, setting their liability to lose their grandeur and power against their thirst for more, the nations enjoy peace so long as the Lord makes it. But when for the correction or for the destruction of individuals, or of nations, the Lord is blessed, as in many instances, to withdraw his restraints and let the deep rooted corruption of proud and haughty rulers extend, then evil of strife, com­motion, war and bloodshed abounds abundantly, and the Lord creates it. Not in the sense of producing, but by withdrawing his restraints, just as he hardened Pharaoh’s heart by lifting off of him the restraints which his weighty judgments laid upon him. Such a construction we know is not against God’s teaching that creation was finished the sixth day and that all of his creatures were good. While it may he seen at a glance that if God created evil in a sense of producing, as some would have, then that declaration that all of his creatures were good, could not be true. Convince me that God created evil and the wicked as such, and then I will not be heard arguing that God is not the author of his creatures.
 
The following is thought pertinent to prove the predestination of all things “But the wicked shall do wickedly.”—Dan. xii, 10.
 
Reader, when such passages as the above are brought as proof of their point, it should not be marvelous to us that a great array of Scripture is brought to prove it to their own satisfaction. Do the wicked do wickedly by an imperative command of God? If so, they are as fully in obedience to God as others who do right at his command. How could wickedness be wickedness, and at the same time be engaged in by God’s command? Or how could wickedness be wickedness, and at the same time a fruit of God’s holy decree? Such as are not blinded by human theory will readily perceive that in that place it is only declared, (not commanded) what the wicked will do without God’s restraint. But yet again, ‘‘What if God, willing to show his wrath and make his power known, endureth with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” etc. That text certainly proves that the vessels of wrath are fitted to destruction, but it has never been shown how their fitness for destruction consists altogether in their perusing the will and imperative decree of their Maker. When this is shown, and not until then, I will acknowledge the passage as proof of the predestination of all things. That God appointed them to destruction and that they are fitted to that destruction is not denied, but to suppose that God had imperatively decreed the very wickedness, of which their destination is the end, this will be very difficult to prove. What had been the difference in principle if God had appointed them to destruction without respect to that sin? I ask what would have been the difference in this and in his predestinating the wickedness of men, and then appointing them to destruction as a consequence of the very thing he had predetermined?
 
The following has more semblance of proof than any thing that has been proposed to prove the predestination of the wicked acts of men: “For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast appointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.’ ‘—Acts iv, 27, 28.
 
“The above certainly witnesses that the crucifixion of Christ was pre­determined and that the characters spoken of were gathered together for that purpose. Upon that event was hinged the salvation of all the Lord’s people. Nor was it less certain that the characters that did, should crucify Christ, but still I cannot see in such filings any evidence that God had predestined the wickedness of those who crucified him. If I should determine the death of a dog by delivering him to a lion, though my de­cree might be irreversible, yet it had no influence upon the disposition of the lion to destroy the dog. So the crucifiers of Christ, as manifest enemies to him, needed no influence from God’s decree to incline them to the deed, nor did they receive any influence from that source. It was but for God to lift off of them his restraint, and they, with “wicked hands,” crucified him, as the scriptures avow. It has previously been shown to the satisfaction of some people, that whatsoever God purposes he also performs his purpose in the matter under consideration was that Christ should be crucified, and hence he delivered him to characters who were eager to do it. But this don’t prove that that eagerness to crucify Christ was a fruit of God’s decree. No, in fact it could not be, as it was wicked, declared so to be, then how could a holy decree be the origin of it? Job was of the opinion that “not one” could bring a clean thing of an un­clean, hence we ought not to conclude that an unclean thing proceeds from a clean. I mean it ought not to be believed that God’s holy decrees are the origin of the wickedness of men. They that teach such things need not fear that Christ would not have been crucified, except God had decreed the wickedness of his crucifiers. For their wickedness, and all of its effects, was as certain, as foreseen of God, as if decreed by him.
 
Some very confidently refer to the following as proof of the predestina­tion of all things: “Surely the wrath of men shall praise thee, the re­mainder of wrath shalt thou restrain.”—Ps. lxxvi, 10. If that was offered as proof of God’s sovereignty, it would appear very forcible, but if I were to select a text to prove against the predestination of all things, I could do no better than to take the above. Did God predestinate the wrath and wickedness which he restrains? If he predestinated any he did, for there is but one source of wrath and wickedness, and this must be agreed. Then if God appointed the wrath and wickedness which he restrains, don’t we see that he is circumscribing and restraining his own appoint­ments? I hope no reader will as perversely construe anything I have written here as that passage is construed by some to prove the predestination of all things. So far from regarding the text as proof of that point, I should rather be willing to ground my whole objection to such a theory upon that one text, proposed as proof of it.
 
With these considerations in tiny mind, to say to me that God has predestinated the wickedness of the world is to say to me that he is the au­thor of that wickedness. Though I am aware that our brethren (but few of them) don’t intend this, I think I understand how they involve themselves in error and confusion by confounding the questions of sov­ereignty and foreknowledge within the question of predestination, while to my mind the Bible clearly sets those questions apart. Believing that in holding the predestination of all things it was not designed to teach that God is the author of sin, I have heretofore paid but little attention to the brotherly discussions on the point. But of late such discussions have assumed a more formidable appearance. Dr. Carlton of Texas, a rigid advocate of the predestination of all things, and a Baptist in good standing in his section, as far as I know, says to such as cannot accept his views upon the point, ‘‘I would advise you to go to the Fullerite Baptists, where you belong, for the true disciples of Christ have no fellowship for your theory.’’ There, it is seen is in clear declaration of non-­fellowship, for, I venture to say, four-fifths of the Baptists in the South. In vindication of the same principles another writes. ‘‘I do not suggest that this iron—mouth doctrine shall be eaten with soft-shell teeth.” Besides many such taunting expressions as the above, there is in many places arising bitter strife and confusion among brethren, and hence my concern in the question. I never moved my pen to write upon the subject till I saw such strife and confusion arising as was a sole grief to me to behold among brethren. But when I see trouble increasing in the camps of Israel, I must sound the alarm; let it affect my own standing as it may.
 
And now, in the close or this article, I would beg and beseech brethren, for Zion’s sake, to abandon such declarations as that the wickedness of the world was predestinated of God. Such declarations are not found in the Scriptures, certainly not, except by inference. And we have seen that devoted and highly educated brethren infer different conclusions from that class of Scriptures regarded by some as proof of the predestina­tion of all things. And how can we conclude that God requires any to go beyond his expressions of the point, to the wounding of others, possessed of equal advantages. But Dr. Carlton says again, “But because of their obtuse spiritual vision, they fail to comprehend some of the deep things of God, they deny the gift to others.” Is not that bold and assuming to be uttered by an uninspired man? Still about its equivalent has been uttered by many, and honestly I do think they need check and reproof, to which end I have labored. In my pamphlet of forty pages will be found a much more full and clear investigation of the point, than I could write in the space allowed me for this article.
                                                                                   
Butler, Ga.
JOHN ROWE.
 
REMARKS.—In reading these letters of Elds. Durand and Rowe, we think it will be seen that there is no real difference in spirit, neither admit God to be the author of sin; neither believes that anything has happened by chance, or can so happen, and if not by chance, then the question is HOW? It is a great deep.—R.