Bill Of Indictments Against Protestants.
First. The idea of total hereditary depravity which never can be correlated with accountability.
Second. The idea of those who were never converted being rewarded according to their own deeds, when they were never upon trial; for a man must have ability to try before he can be tried, and that ability must extend to the accomplishment of that to which the trial relates. Wesley's Discipline says, The condition of man since the fall of Adam is such that he can not, by his own natural strength, turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God, without the grace of God by Christ going before to give him good will, and working with him when he has that good will.
If it is improper to say that a man can by his own natural strength turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God, it is, also, improper to say he is naturally accountable, for where ability ceases, accountability also terminates. But a prop is found in “the grace of God by Christ going before to give a good will, and to work with that good will.” So the grace of God by Christ must go before to displace a bad will by giving “a good one.” But this fails to relieve the doctrine from embarrassment; for if the sinner is unwilling, has a bad will, it is claimed that the Spirit goes away and [pg 236] leaves him to die in his helplessness. Does the Omnipotent Spirit go to a man to give him a good will, and then refuse to give it because the poor man has it not already? Do you say he resisted? Well, well; suppose he did? What, is that in the way of an Omnipotent Spirit? Who can explain such nonsense?
If I had a son laboring under the conviction that the Bible is the source of such teachings, and he was to become disgusted and fall out with it on that account, I should be proud of his common-sense. Is the poor man mocked in that manner? If he dies in his sins, on account of his not being in possession of a good will, can his future reward be according to the deeds done by himself? No! He was never on trial—he had no ability to try. There is just as much sense in the idea that an ape is on trial. Adam, the first, ruined him; and Adam, the second, did not help him. Can a man be justly condemned because he was not what he never had the power to be?
Third. The idea that the Lord would command men to convert themselves, knowing, at the same time, that they could not do it. He commands men to convert. He “commands all men everywhere to repent.” He knows, also, that they can do it; so Protestantism, to the contrary, is an everlasting disgrace to our religion. The original term translated by the word convert is in the imperative active in many places. Our translators put it in the passive in the third chapter of Acts, where it is imperative active in the original. Why they did this no scholar can tell, unless it was to favor their Calvinistic ideas upon conversion. The term occurs forty-seven times in the New Testament, and it is translated thirty-eight times by the words turn and return.
Paul says he “showed to the people that they should turn to God, and do works meet for repentance.”
This great thought harmonizes with all that is taught upon the subject of future rewards. A man can turn, and he is therefore accountable. To make man responsible, it must be shown that he is capable, or able. This is the one great fact [pg 237] that lies at the foundation of future rewards and punishment. Take this fact away and the justice of God is imperiled by the teachings of the Bible upon the subject of the future retribution. I know that men who are under the influence of the traditions of their fathers and mothers turn from the truth upon this question and say hard things against it; but I know, also, that those same men speak the same sentiment when they talk about the future judgment.
Fourth. The idea that the Divine Spirit must convert the man, and that it passes the unwilling soul without giving him ability that he may be tried, for a man must be able to attain the desired object, otherwise trial is mere mockery. So, according to this kind of teaching, justice is mocked, and the sinner is sent to perdition without anything more than a mock trial; i.e., without being tried. If this be not true, the theory of helplessness growing out of Adam's sin is utterly false, and man's salvation, under all dispensations, is presented to us as a matter that was, and is, disposed of by himself, he being able, in his own natural strength, to turn and prepare himself to faith and calling upon God. Again, all men pray. It is instinctive to pray. It is an instinct that defies reason and philosophy. If men have not “natural strength to turn and prepare themselves to faith and calling upon God,” then they are not naturally responsible nor accountable.
Fifth. The idea that the Spirit goes to the unwilling sinner to give him a good will, and then, because the man is not willing already, departs from him, leaving him in his sins to continue in his helpless, wicked condition until, having passed a mock judgment, he is banished to outer darkness, for if the man was never able to do otherwise on account of his helplessness, why should he be condemned? Tell him it is for his own deeds and you mock his good sense.
Sixth. The idea that Christ died for an elect few, and damns all the balance because they don't believe he died for them, when he did not.
Seventh. The idea that Christ died for a few, and commissioned his disciples to preach the fact to all nations—to every [pg 238] creature, as “glad tidings of great joy,” which was “to be unto all people,” when it is, according to the doctrine that he did not die for all, positively no good news to any soul that was passed by.
Eighth. The idea that all who are finally lost, will be in that sad condition because of unbelief, when, if they had believed that Christ died for them they would have believed a falsehood, because Calvinists say no soul for whom Jesus died will be lost.