he always had and that whatever he decrees at all he decrees eternally. We can conceive of a succession in his decrees in the order of nature, corresponding to the succession in their execution in the order of time; but to suppose that God forms new decrees, and is now, from day to day, adopting new plans, seems repugnant to our most fundamental conceptions of his character. Moreover all objections raised against the doctrine are as valid against present as against eternal decrees. And it is, doubtless, owing to the plausibility of certain objections against the doctrine, more than to any defect in the arguments in its favor, that it fails to gain universal credence among philosophers and Christians. Any discussion of the subject, therefore, would be incomplete which did not notice the principal of these objections. To these, therefore, we now turn.

III. OBJECTIONS.

The objections of greatest weight against the doctrine of divine decrees, and which we would here consider are three, viz: "that it is inconsistent with the moral character of God," and "inconsistent with the moral freedom of man, and is harmful in its practical influence." Are these objec tions valid?

1. The doctrine of decrees is inconsistent with the holiness, benevolence, justice, and sincerity of God. We might,in a general way, reply to this objection, by observing that it lies quite as much against the doctrine of divine providence as against the doctrine of divine decrees. Decrees are God's purpose to do as he actually does, thereby rendering certain whatsoever comes to pass. If there is nothing in his agency inconsistent with his moral perfections, then is there nothing in his decrees inconsistent with them. But we will examine the objection in detail. How is the doctrine of decrees inconsistent with the holiness of God? By making him the author or approver of sin, says the objector. But to make God the author of the sins of his creatures the doctrine must affirm or imply that God is the efficient cause of the sinful acts of his creatures. But

this it neither affirms nor in any way implies. Our statement of the doctrine is that God determined so to constitute and circumstance his creatures that they will act as they do, not that they will, by their constitution and circumstances, be obliged to act thus, or be moved as machines or automatons. The relation of decrees to free-agency we shall consider more particularly hereafter. It is enough here to say that that is a gross misstatement or misconception of the Calvinistic doctrine, which makes the divine purposes sustain to the sinful acts of men the relation of cause to effect, and so makes God the author of sin. But if the doctrine does not imply that God is the author, it does at least, says the objector, "imply that he is the approver, of sin; and so particeps criminis." But if decrees imply approval of sin, it must be because they imply that God commands or desires men to sin. But decrees are not at all of the nature of commands or laws, as has been already explained. Neither do they necessarily imply a desire that the thing decreed exist. Here is just where the objection appears most plausible. Why, it is asked, did God determine so to constitute and circumstance men that they certainly would sin, if he did not wish them to sin? But, as a matter of fact, he did so constitute and circumstance them that they certainly would sin, whether he decreed to do so or not. The difficulty, therefore, is not peculiar to the doctrine of decrees; it is the old problem of the existence of sin. But our doctrine does not necessarily imply that God wished sin to exist, for its own sake, or for any other reason. It is certainly supposable that he decreed the existence of sin, that is, decreed to do what rendered its existence certain, for other reasons than because he desired men to sin.

Some have supposed that sin inevitably results from the very limitation of finite natures, and hence that, in whatever circumstances God should place moral beings, there would be "conditions privative," which would render an experience of sin certain. This supposition is not absurd, nor without some degree of plausibility, and might perhaps

be accepted, were it the only alternative to the rejection of the doctrine of divine decrees. But in our view, there is another supposition far more satisfactory, viz. that God purposes so to constitute and circumstance men that they certainly will sin, not because he wishes them to sin, not because he does not, in every instance, prefer their holiness to their sin; but because there would result from such a change of their constitution and circumstances as would prevent their sinning a greater evil than their sin is. This supposition does not imply that God could not prevent sin in a moral system, but that such a modification of the present system as would be necessary to its prevention would involve evils greater than its existence. Neither does it imply that sin is brought into the system as "the necessary means of the greatest good," but that the system itself, in which sin does exist, but ought not to, is the necessary means of the greatest good. God chose the system, not on account of the sin, but notwithstanding the sin, which it includes. He prefers this system with sin to an inferior system without sin; but he would still more prefer this system just as it is in other respects with holiness in the place of sin. He decrees the existence of sin, therefore, not because he desires it, but because that divine system or arrangement into which sin is sure to enter, is indispensable to the highest good of the universe. Hence there is nothing in the decrees of God relative to sin, inconsistent with that immaculate holiness by which his whole nature is set in intense and unchangeable opposition to sin. He may foreordain its existence, that is, foreordain what renders its existence certain, and yet hate it with perfect hatred, and do all which a regard to the highest good of the universe permits to prevent its existence.

And if the doctrine of decrees, relative to sin is not inconsistent with the holiness of God, how is it inconsistent with his benevolence? The objector affirms that a perfectly benevolent being cannot purpose the existence of that which is itself so great an evil, and which draws so many dire evils in its train. But it is an indisputable fact

that a perfectly benevolent being can permit the existence of sin; for he does, and therefore he can, decree to permit it; for it is plain that what benevolence can do, it can decree to do. But as respects this objection, what is the difference between saying that God permits sin, and saying that God so constitutes and circumstances men that they certainly will sin? The permission of sin can be explained only on the supposition that it may be better for God to permit than to prevent it. But this same supposition explains how he can give men such a nature, and place them in such circumstances, that they will sin, and how he can decree to do this. It may be that by no other arrangement could the highest good of the universe be secured. Benevolence, therefore, may require God so to endow and circumstance men that they will sin, and to decree thus to endow and circumstance them; which is only saying that benevolence may require God to decree the existence of sin.

And if the doctrine of decrees is not inconsistent with the divine holiness and benevolence, wherein is it supposed to be inconsistent with the divine sincerity and justice? Is it said that God cannot consistently forbid nor punish what he has himself decreed? But if, as we have already shown, his decreeing a sinful act is perfectly consistent with his most intense disapproval of the act, then may it be consistent, also, with an expression of that disapproval, in the form of prohibition, and threatened and inflicted penalty? There is surely no insincerity in his forbidding, and no injustice in his punishing, what is intrinsically hateful and ill-deserving; but the intrinsic nature of sin is in no way affected by the fact that it is decreed. This last point will come more distinctly under notice, when considering the second great objection to the doctrine of decrees; and to that we now turn, confident that there is nothing in the doctrine, as we have stated and explained it, which does not harmonize perfectly with right conceptions of the moral character of God; yea, more, that right conceptions of the moral character of God logically necessitate a belief of this doctrine.

2. But the objection which is oftenest urged against the doctrine of divine decrees, is its alleged inconsistency with man's free moral agency. We are willing to concede, that, if this objection be valid, it utterly disproves the doctrine of decrees. We believe that all truths, or facts, are selfconsistent and harmonious; and we fully believe that man's free-agency is a fact, established by the best possible evidence, that of consciousness. Therefore, we are ready to grant that any supposed fact which is inconsistent with the free-agency of man cannot be a real fact. If the doctrine of decrees and the doctrine of free-agency can be shown to be inconsistent, so that the one or the other must be rejected as false, we have no hesitation in saying, let the former be rejected and the latter be retained. But their inconsistency must be clearly shown. So many and weighty are the arguments in favor of the doctrine of decrees, that they cannot be set aside for any slight or dubious reason. Surmise and assertion are not enough, however plausible; we want positive and conclusive evidence that divine decrees are inconsistent with human freedom. But where shall we find evidence of such inconsistency? The Bible does not furnish it; consciousness does not furnish it. If it exist anywhere, we may expect to find it in the very nature of freeagency, or in the very nature of decrees. But what is there in the nature of free-agency inconsistent with a divine purpose so to create and so to condition men that they certainly will act as they do act? Free-agency consists in freely choosing; and we can as easily conceive of a person putting forth a choice which accords with the divine purposes as one which is opposed to them, or one in regard to which there is no divine purpose. The nature of the choice is the same, whether we suppose there is, or is not, a previous purpose or plan with which it harmonizes. If this seems like a petitio principii, then let us see if there is anything in the nature of decrees to sustain this objection.

If the divine purposes interfere with human freedom, they must do so, it would seem, in one of two ways: either by causing God to employ influences in securing their fulfil