CHAPTER V.
DEEP WATERS.
It was a bright moon-lit night, and the town of —— showed dimly in the silvery sheen which vaguely illuminated the half of every object. It was calm and quiet. The people were sitting in groups on the galleries, porticoes and piazzas of their respective residences, enjoying the cooling breezes that stole out of the circumjacent forests and crept gently along the deserted streets.
“’Twas one of those delicious nights,
So common in the climes of Greece,
When day withdraws but half his lights,
And all is moonshine, balm and peace.”
Ernest and Mr. Hillston were sitting in the gallery of the preacher’s residence. The young man was sad and silent.
“Ernest,” said Mr. Hillston kindly, “what is the matter with you? You have not been like yourself for two or three days. You seem to be in deep trouble.”
“So I am, Mr. Hillston. I am wading through the ‘deep waters’ about which you sing.”
“I knew there was something the matter. Is it anything you can tell? Sometimes it is a great relief to unbosom ourselves to a kind friend, who can sympathize with us, if nothing more.”
“I do not mind telling you, Mr. Hillston, though I cannot see that it will do any good.”
“You do not know that. I have lived a long time in this world, and have, at least, tried to comfort a great many people under clouds of sorrow. Probably I might be able to give you some advice which would be useful.”
“Well, you know I was engaged to be married to Clara Vanclure?”
“Yes; you told me that.”
“She has broken the engagement.”
“For what reason?”
“I suspect that Comston has deceived her.”
“Did you have no quarrel with her? Frequently young people fall out about trifles, and soon become reconciled.”
“No; we had no quarrel. She discarded me coolly and deliberately.”
“Well, my dear boy,” said Mr. Hillston, with tenderness, “it is no more than I expected.”
“Why?” asked Ernest.
“Do you not remember some weeks ago, when you told me about the affair, that you thought I did not approve your choice?”
“Yes, sir, distinctly.”
“I did not think you had made a wise selection, and as I did not congratulate you then, I now congratulate you on the happy termination of the affair.”
“You are cruel, Mr. Hillston,” said Ernest, in a tone of bitterness.
“Far from it, my boy. I know you must suffer for a while. But mark what I say: you will, no doubt, see the day when you will regard it as the best that could have happened to you. I was surprised at your choice, but as the poet says:
‘Lovers are blind, and cannot see
The petty faults themselves commit.’
But I could see that Miss Clara would not suit you at all. She has as few qualifications for a minister’s wife as any lady of my acquaintance.”
“Minister’s wife!” exclaimed Ernest. “She would not have been a minister’s wife.”
“I see you are still disposed to disobey the Divine call; but you would better yield, or your present trouble will be only the beginning of sorrows. I have no doubt that it is foreordained that you shall be a preacher of the gospel.”
“Look here, Mr. Hillston,” cried Ernest suddenly, “I have been reading my Bible to discover if that doctrine of predestination is taught.”
“Well, do you find it in God’s Word?” quietly asked Mr. Hillston.
“I think not, sir. On the contrary, I find all through it that man is a free agent.”
“My dear boy, who denies that man is a free agent? I am sure that I will endorse every passage which you can cite that teaches human responsibility.”
“Why, I do not see, Mr. Hillston, how you can possibly reconcile predestination with man’s free moral agency.”
“I do not pretend to do so, Ernest. You are like a good many people I know, who think that predestination is not taught in God’s Word, because they cannot make it harmonize with free agency. I have frequently been amused at some ministers who undertook to show that there is no such doctrine as fore-ordination in the Bible. They quoted those passages which prove that man is a free agent, and then at once jumped to the conclusion that God could not shape or control human destiny. We must accept both doctrines, for both are clearly taught in the Scriptures. You cannot understand the Trinity, but your failure to comprehend it is no proof of its falsity, is it?”
“No, sir, of course not. But I did not think you could hold to predestination and free agency at the same time. What do you do with the passage of Scripture which says that ‘Christ tasted death for every man?’”
“Do with it? I accept it without hesitation as a precious truth.”
“Well, well, well,” said Ernest, as though greatly perplexed, “and yet you say that some men were condemned from all eternity. How in the world can that be? ‘Whosoever will,’ says the Scripture, ‘let him take the water of life freely.’”
“Certainly,” answered the preacher, gently. “I quote that in every sermon I preach, and urge sinners to avail themselves of the world-embracing invitation.”
“But if their destiny is already determined, what is the use of your preaching to them and urging them?”
“Now, my boy, don’t begin at the roof to build your house, but commence at the foundation, and work upward. Suppose I show that this ‘horrid doctrine,’ as some people call it, is contained in God’s Word?”
“Well, I wish you would,” said Ernest. “I am open to conviction.”
“Then let us go into my study, and appeal to the Blessed Book itself; for it should be final in every theological controversy.”
They were soon seated, and the old man arranged his spectacles, and opened the Bible.
“It seems to me,” said Mr. Hillston, “that the eighth and ninth chapters of the epistle to the Romans ought to remove every doubt on this subject. You have surely noticed the celebrated passage, Romans 8:29. Now here it is: ‘Whom He did fore-know, He did predestinate.’ What does predestinate mean? It has only one meaning.”
“That is true,” said Ernest, “but might it not refer to the righteous character? He did fore-know and predestinate the righteous character. I can admit that.”
“How will you separate a man from his character?” asked Mr. Hillston. “You might just as well talk of separating sugar from its sweetness. What is the character of sugar? It is sweet. Can you deprive it of this attribute without utterly destroying it? Certain qualities and attributes constitute character, and make the man. If a man has no character, he is a brute. Godliness, holiness, etc., are nothing till they become concrete by entering into the moral constitution of an individual. It is in vain, then, to talk about God’s saving the ‘righteous character,’ because that is nothing but an abstraction. Besides, Paul says, ‘whom’ He did fore-know, not ‘what.’”
“I will take back the word ‘character,’ if you will allow me,” said Ernest, “and say that God predestinates the righteous man.”
“Very well,” replied Mr. Hillston. “We agree, then, it is the individual that is foreordained to salvation. All denominations are agreed that there is an election of some sort. Let me ask upon what principle you think God elects men to salvation?”
“Why, sir, God elects those to salvation who He fore-saw would repent of their sins.”
“That view,” said Mr. Hillston, “is a flat contradiction of what Paul says. The apostle describes the several steps or processes in the believer’s salvation. He does not say that God predestinated those who would repent, but those ‘whom He did predestinate He called, and them that He called He justified.’ According to your view, the passage ought to say: ‘Them whom He justified, on account of their repentance, He predestinated.’ The plain meaning of the passage is, that God predestinated some men to salvation, and in consequence of that election, He called them and justified them. The apostle reiterates this view in some of the other epistles. Here is Eph. 1:3, 4, 5: ‘Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. According as He hath chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love. Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself according to the good pleasure of His will.’ Now,” continued Mr. Hillston, “ought not this passage to put an end to all controversy? The apostle declares there was an election. When? He says ‘before the foundation of the world.’ Why did He choose us? Was it because we were righteous? No. Was it because God fore-saw that we would repent? No. He chose us that ‘we should become holy and with out blame.’ Now what do you say?”
“I confess,” said Ernest, “that such passages puzzle me no little. Why does God choose some men to salvation, and pass by others, when all are guilty alike?”
“Ah! there’s the difficulty,” said Mr. Hillston. “The good Lord has not informed us on what principle He makes the choice. If we knew that, there would be an end of all discussion. All we know about it is, that it is ‘according to the good pleasure of His will.’ Is not that a sufficient reason?”
“Somehow, this doctrine of predestination appears to me to be unjust,” said Ernest, looking confused. “You say that God passes by some men without giving them an opportunity to be saved.”
“I did not say that, Ernest.”
“Well, it amounts to that.”
“On the contrary, they do have an opportunity to be saved. The invitations of the gospel are extended to all alike, and all could be saved, if they would. No man ever was lost simply on account of the ‘eternal decrees.’”
“Why, how can they be saved,” asked Ernest, “if it is predestinated that they shall not accept the invitations offered to them?”
“But, my young friend, the Bible does not say that they shall not accept, but that they will not. ‘Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life,’ said our Lord. The greatest obstacle in the way of human salvation is found in the perversity of the will. If men only willed to be saved, they could be. How, then, is there injustice in predestination?”
“Well,” said Ernest, “if some men are foreordained to eternal death, I should like to know what is the use of your preaching to them?”
“When you get to be a minister, if you discard predestination and election, I want to ask you a question or two,” said Mr. Hillston. “Assuming that you are a preacher, I will ask you these questions now.”
“Very well; proceed.”
“You believe in God’s fore-knowledge?”
“Certainly.”
“Do you believe that all men will be saved?”
“No, sir; some will be lost,” answered Ernest.
“That is certain, is it?”
“Of course, it is.”
“Then,” said Mr. Hillston, “what is the use of your preaching to certain men that God knows will be lost? Will not the same result follow in both instances?”
“Yes, sir; but I throw the responsibility of refusing upon themselves.”
“Let us settle one thing at a time, if you please,” said Mr. Hillston. “We are not talking about where the responsibility belongs; but, at present, we want to get at the facts. I ask you, if God fore-knows that some men will be lost, is not their destiny as much fixed as if it had been decreed? Answer that.”
“I suppose it would be,” replied Ernest hesitatingly, as though he were fearful of admitting too much, “but God’s fore-knowledge has no effect upon human destiny.”
“It does not matter about that just now. People,” continued Mr. Hillston, “frequently ask me the question which you have propounded. What is the use of preaching to men that are certain to be lost? You must not try to make me remove an objection which applies with as much force to your system as to mine. God commands us to preach the gospel to every creature, and that is reason enough. You remember that God commanded Ezekiel to preach to the dry bones in the valley. The prophet might have said, ‘What is the use? These bones have no life and no sense. They cannot hear: it is foolish to talk to them.’ But God said, ‘Preach to them.’ Sinners are in the condition of those dry bones; but God tells me to preach to them. I obey; I know not who are to be lost: my duty is to preach, and God quickens whom He will.”
“I see the unfairness of my question,” said Ernest honestly. “But there is an absurdity in the doctrine of predestination, if I only knew how to point it out.”
“Look here, my boy,” said Mr. Hillston kindly, “how can you call that an ‘absurdity’ which the Bible so clearly teaches?”
“I beg pardon, Mr. Hillston; I will recall the offensive word. I will substitute the word injustice for absurdity.”
“Your apology does not mend the matter,” answered Mr. Hillston, “for are you going to accuse God of injustice?”
“No, sir; but the question is whether it is a doctrine of the Bible.”
“Exactly. We agreed to let the Bible settle it,” said Mr. Hillston. “I have already called your attention to several passages which undoubtedly teach it. I can refer to instances and passages almost without number in the Scriptures. The Bible certainly is not silent on the subject, whether we can understand it or not.”
“I cannot understand,” said Ernest, “how a man can be a free agent, and yet his destiny is already fixed.”
“And yet, the Bible is full of instances which prove clearly that predestination and free agency operate in perfect harmony.”
“Name one,” said Ernest.
“Well, take the case of Judas Iscariot: it was predicted by Isaiah that the Lord Jesus should be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver. Will you not admit that God had Judas in His mind, when this prophecy was made?”
“Certainly,” replied Ernest, “for a betrayal necessarily implies a betrayer.”
“Undoubtedly, because God could not foresee a betrayal disconnected entirely from any individual. You will also admit that after the prediction was made, it must be fulfilled, and Judas must betray Christ?”
“I do not see that I must admit that.”
“But you must, though,” said Mr. Hillston.
“Why must I?” asked Ernest.
“Well, suppose Judas had not betrayed the Lord for thirty pieces of silver, what would have become of Isaiah’s prophecy? Would it not have been falsified?”
“I suppose so,” said Ernest a little doggedly.
“Suppose so!” cried Mr. Hillston. “How can there possibly be any doubt about it? After a prophesy is uttered, and even written down, it must be fulfilled, or God’s word is falsified.”
“Yes; I admit that, for the sake of argument.”
“Well, when the proper time arrived, Judas betrayed the Lord. He evidently performed a part which was predestinated. Was he not a free agent?”
“Not if he was compelled to do as he did,” answered Ernest.
“No, if he was compelled,” replied Mr. Hillston, “but where was the compulsion? He was carrying out his own will and if he was, that makes him a free agent. His conduct afterwards proves that he never felt that he was constrained by any extraneous influence. The crucifixion was foretold with all its attendant prominent circumstances, and to prove that it was predestinated, let us turn to Acts 2:23. ‘Him being delivered by the determinate counsel and fore-knowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.’
“Here it is emphatically declared that Jesus was delivered by the determinate counsel of God. To show that the actors in the disgraceful tragedy were free agents, it is said that they crucified Him with wicked hands. But to put it beyond all dispute, that it was all predestinated, let us turn to Acts 4:27-28: ‘For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, 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.’
“Here, the actors are all clearly specified. They met at a certain place. For what? To do whatsoever God had determined before should be done. You can get no other meaning out of it. Dr. Adam Clarke saw a difficulty here, and he took the liberty to transpose the passage so as to make it read thus: ‘For a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom Thou hast anointed, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.’
“Dr. Clarke thus makes the predestination clause apply to Jesus, instead of Herod, and the others. It seems the Doctor did not mind stripping Jesus of free agency, just so he could preserve it to men. But Mr. Benson, who had no leaning towards predestination, says that such a transposition as Clarke makes is unauthorized and unnecessary.”
“Do you think,” asked Ernest, “that Dr. Clarke was insincere? I mean, do you believe he discovered the doctrine of predestination in that passage, and then deliberately tried to eliminate it?”
“O, no,” replied Mr. Hillston, “I think he honestly believed that the doctrine of predestination, as taught by most Baptist ministers and especially by the Presbyterian Church, has no foundation in the Scriptures, and thus believing, he could not admit the plain meaning of what seems to me a plain passage. He, no doubt, thought by transposing a clause, he would make the Bible say what was intended. But what does the Doctor gain by this transposition? If Jesus was not a free agent, we are under no obligation to Him for fulfilling the law in our stead and suffering for us. He was merely undergoing a penalty which He could not avoid. Was it not necessary that Jesus should be a free agent as well as that men should?”
“But according to your view,” said Ernest, “He could be a free agent, and yet His career be fore-ordained.”
“Exactly, but according to Dr. Clarke’s view, if His career was foreordained, He could not be a free agent; that is the difference. These men, Herod, Pilate, and the others, carried out their own will and the Divine will at the same time, and I see no difficulty in it. That is the great advantage the predestinarian has. When he meets with a passage that teaches predestination, he admits it; and when he meets with another that teaches free agency, he admits it. He makes no pause to try to reconcile them, because he sees no inconsistency. But when Dr. Clarke, and those who believe like him, come to one of these passages, ‘hard to be understood,’ as Peter says, they halt and endeavor to harmonize it with their belief. When the Bible, in speaking of Pharaoh, says, “For this purpose have I raised thee up,” we predestinarians at once acknowledge God’s hand, and we read on without stopping to explain. But Dr. Clarke comes to it and finds an obstacle. He must pause and try to determine what is meant by ‘raising up,’ and must explain it so as not to interfere with man’s free agency. We read that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart and in the next passage we read that Pharaoh hardened his own heart. We predestinarians find no difficulty here, for we see the two doctrines working together in perfect harmony, but Dr. Clarke becomes puzzled. ‘How is this?’ he says. ‘If God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, how could Pharaoh have hardened his own heart?’ So the good Doctor must enter into a long explanation of this hardening process.”
“One of the passages you have quoted,” said Ernest, who appeared to be confused by perplexing thoughts, “says, ‘according to the fore-knowledge.’ Could it not have been that God merely fore-saw what Judas and others would do and based the prophecy upon foreknowledge?”
“That only removes the difficulty one step,” replied Mr. Hillston. “For whatever God fore-saw, must take place. But the passage says also ‘determinate counsels.’ What does that mean?”
“I know you think it means predestination.”
“I certainly do,” replied Mr. Hillston. “But I think we have found predestination in at least two instances which prove that there is no conflict between the two principles we are discussing. If fore-ordination and free agency could work in harmony in the case of Judas, why not in the case of every human being. I want to ask you a question right here.”
“I will answer it, if I can,” said Ernest.
“You have already acknowledged that God fore-knows all things, ‘every deed which men will perform and even every thought which will pass through their minds’. Now suppose God should order some Jeremiah to write out the history of every human being: we would have a tremendous book of prophecy which would include every individual of the human race. You will admit that all these prophecies would have to be accomplished or God’s word would be falsified. You will admit, also, that if no one knew anything about this great and enormous book except the writer, men would be free agents? How could merely recording their actions without their knowledge affect their conduct?”
“It could not,” said Ernest.
“Well, then, are men’s actions any the less uncertain because they are not written out in a book? The history of every human being is written out in the Divine Mind. Is that history any the less uncertain because it is not published in a tangible volume? God’s not fore-telling what He fore-knows, does not leave men at liberty to change their conduct. If it did, the Lord could fore-know nothing with certainty. If then God could write out the history of every human being without doing the least violence to his free agency, how can you object to predestination? My history is fixed, and so is yours and every other man’s, and that is predestination.”
Ernest said nothing, and Mr. Hillston continued:
“But let us turn to the Scriptures again. Here is John 15:16: ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.’ Again, 1 Cor. 1:26: ‘For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called,’ etc. I could refer to a great many passages of similar import. Is not election clearly taught in such Scriptures? Then it is said that God did not choose His people on account of their righteous character, but that He might make them righteous. When they were chosen, they were children of wrath even as others. This is proved in the 15th chapter of John, where Jesus, speaking of His people under the similitude of sheep, says: “Other sheep I have which are not of this fold”—that is they were in the world out of the fold; they were sinners and yet were God’s people, to be brought in, when it should please God.
“I do no see how anyone can read the eighth and ninth chapters of Romans without believing in the doctrine of predestination and election. Paul there answers the very objections which are to this day urged against divine fore-ordination. Peter certainly understood Paul to advocate this ‘horrid doctrine,’ for he says it is ‘hard to be understood.’ If Paul was writing about free agency, there was no need to say it was hard to be understood.”
“I have read these chapters,” said Ernest, “and I confess they are mysterious.”
“What makes them mysterious?” asked Mr. Hillston. “Don’t you see if you can eliminate predestination and election out of them, they would not be mysterious? Why do so many people stumble over these chapters especially? It is because their foot strikes against these two hard doctrines.”
“You have used the word ‘election,’” said Ernest, “but do not some people say that it applies only to the election of classes or nations to temporal privileges, and not to the election of individuals to eternal salvation?”
“Yes; but let us settle that point by the Scriptures. Turn to Acts 13:48: ‘And when the Gentiles heard this they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord; and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.’ Some people have wished that the last clause could be transposed so as to read: ‘As many as believed were ordained to eternal life.’ But it is too plain to be tampered with in this way. Again, in second Thessalonians 2:13: ‘But we are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.’ Again, Hebrews 12:23: ‘To the general assembly and Church of the first-born which are written in heaven.’ Again, Philippians 4:3: ‘Whose names are in the book of life.’ I could go on, and cite I know not how many more passages, all proving that there is an election of individuals unto eternal salvation.”
“There is evidently an election of individuals,” said Ernest, “but why could it not be based upon men’s foreseen repentance and faith. I could accept that doctrine.”
“No doubt,” answered the preacher, “for that is more agreeable to the carnal heart. Men like so much to deserve salvation by their own works—their own faith and repentance. According to the Scriptures, this election is based upon God’s will. But if you will modify your position a little, I think we can agree. If you will say that this election is based upon faith and repentance brought about by the Holy Spirit, we need not have any further discussion.”
“But I do not mean that. I mean that men perceive the truth and act upon it.”
“Of themselves, do you mean?”
“Well, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit.”
“But men,” said Mr. Hillston, “are represented in the Scriptures as dead in trespasses and sins. Lazarus is a fit type of the sinner. Could Lazarus have raised himself from the grave without the assistance of the Lord? Is it not evident that he could do nothing till he was actually restored to life? So it was with the man who had the diseased arm. He could not make an effort till the limb was healed. ‘By grace are ye saved,’ says the Scripture, ‘through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God.’ Are not all these passages sufficient to convince and satisfy you?”
“Of course, I must believe what the Bible says,” replied Ernest, “but it does appear strange to me how a man can be a free agent, and yet his destiny is fixed.”
“No one ever denied that it is strange. Indeed, it is incomprehensible; but we are not to reject it on that account. All we have to do is to ascertain whether it is contained in God’s Word or not. But after all, what do we mean by predestination? Why just this, that God had a purpose in view in the creation of the world. He surely was not trying experiments. He did not put men in the world, and turn them loose, to see what they would do. You will not deny that He fore-knew who would be saved and who would be lost?”
“No, I do not deny that.”
“Well, there is no power in mere fore knowledge. Would not God, then, have to exercise power in order to accomplish what He fore-knew?”
“It seems that He would, sir.”
“Well, that is predestination. It is the execution of the divine purpose. So you see that, without predestination, God could not have made the world—could not have created man. Notwithstanding that He fore-saw some would be lost, He determined to create them, and that determination on the part of God, is predestination. Then, eliminate predestination, and you represent God in the attitude of a sort of empiricist. He creates men without any particular purpose in view. Besides, there is another difficulty. When there was nothing in existence, how could God foresee anything except what He had determined upon? Would not God have to determine that things should be, before He could fore-see them? I cannot imagine how the Lord could have made the world without predestination. Man, with his limited wisdom, never undertakes enterprises without determining something in regard to them. Do you suppose that God put men here without any purpose?”
“No, sir; of course, He had a purpose.”
“Really, when you admit that, there is no use of discussion, for that purpose is predestination. We can ascertain what God’s purposes are, only by what takes place. We see that some men are lost and some are saved, and all this must be in accordance with God’s purpose, and that is what we mean by predestination.”
“You can beat me in argument,” suddenly exclaimed Ernest. “I have not studied the question sufficiently.”
“The more you study it,” said Mr. Hillston, “the more you will be convinced that it is the doctrine of the Bible.”
“Whenever I am convinced,” replied Ernest, “you may rest assured that I will accept it. But I am not satisfied. What you have said appears reasonable; but I know there is something to be said on the other side, if I knew how to get at it.”
“I don’t know,” answered Mr. Hillston; “you have mentioned the usual objections that men urge against it. But when you find any good argument on your side, let me know what it is. Let me caution you on one point, though. Do not seek out those passages of Scripture which teach free agency, and put them against the passages that favor predestination. For that is only fighting Scripture with Scripture. You must not make the Bible contradict itself, but you must try to reconcile these seemingly antagonistic passages. In the meantime, try to apply this doctrine to your own case. Your steps are ordered by the Lord. Recognize God’s hand in your affairs, and thus predestination becomes a practical, comforting doctrine, instead of that ‘horrid thing’ which some people call it.”
Ernest took his leave. He was almost convinced by the arguments of Mr. Hillston, but he was not yet prepared to acknowledge it.
Men pride themselves upon consistency, and some will even cling to an error rather than appear fickle-minded. Away, we say, with such absurd and false consistency! It is morally degrading.