divided on the question as to what constitutes the peculiarity of the Reformed [Calvinistic] church."1 Much in this chapter that is styled Calvinistic or Augustinian might with equal propriety be labelled "evangelical." The most distinctive point of Calvinism relates to the divine "purposes." As it is desirable to draw comparisons between that distinctive trait and the bent of modern science we retain the word "Calvinistic," instead of the less explicit and intensive word "evangelical. We fear that those who are merely evangelical will not get the full benefit of some of our analogies. We may further premise that in this discussion we have nothing to do with the mere minutiae of the doctrines either of science or of theology. It is only in their broader aspects, in which distinguished men have become representative teachers, that we are viewing the subject. We therefore shall use the word "Calvinism" interchangeably with "Augustinianism," and shall be careful not to make Darwinism responsible for everything Mr. Darwin and his coadjutors have written.

The scientific theory under consideration has already been presented with sufficient fulness. The theological system is familiar, but for present purposes may be epitomized as follows: God Translated by C. W.

1 Hagenbach's History of Doctrines. Buch (New York, 1862), Vol. ii. p. 160.

only is self-existent. The universe is his work, and is the embodiment and unfolding of his eternal ideas. The foreknowledge of God comprehends all things. "Known unto God are all his ways from the beginning." Not only is the providence of God concerned in the sparrow's fall and in the fate of each particular hair of our heads, but, paradoxical as it seems, the fore-ordaining providence of God has also comprehended the actions of the free-will of man. And furthermore, notwithstanding the knowledge of all the parts of the universe and the fore-ordination of the system as a whole (and in logical consequence of this fore-ordination, foreknowledge of all), the goodness of God is held to be consistent with the creation of a condition of things in which sin enters in such degree and extent that some of its subjects will be consigned thereby to endless punishment; so that the Author of all things himself can say of some persons, when considered with reference to themselves, it had been better for them if they had never been born.

According to this system, also, the scheme of the universe is so vast that it is unsafe to assume that the happiness of particular individuals, or generations even, much less of animals, is a prominent object of the existing order of things. Calvinism is opposed to utilitarianism as a theory of virtue. The chief end of man is not to seek his own happiness, but the glory of God. The

authority of obligation to particular duties is not the perceived bearing of our actions upon the happiness of being, but the perceived evidence that God enjoins the course of action. God's ways, though not absolutely unknown, are often inscrutable, compelling man to walk by faith, and not by sight.

III. The Ground of Opposition to Calvinism.

This system of theology is vigorously opposed in many quarters with the objections that it narrows to the smallest sphere, if it does not wholly obliterate, the self-determining power of man's will; that it belittles the true dignity of human nature; that it leaves no ground for the intervention of mercy; that it represents God as at once unfeeling, unjust, and remote from the world and its affairs.

.....

A popular preacher of the radical school exclaims: "The faults [of Calvinism] come from its peculiar doctrine. It makes God dark and awful. ..... He is the Draco of the universe, the author of sin. ..... This system degrades man. It deprives him of freedom. It does not tell of God now near at hand, but a long while ago."

A leading defender of Arminian theology thus addresses a select audience of Sabbath-school

1 Theodore Parker. A Discourse of Matters Pertaining to Religion. (Boston, 1842), pp. 455, 456.

teachers: "Calvin, in whose mind the logical faculty was predominant, and who never hesitated to follow out his own accepted premises to their legitimate conclusion, at length developed a complete system of philosophical theology, which so exalted the divine sovereignty in grace and providence as to leave no room for the action of any creature, except as moved and actuated by the power of God. Whatever might occur must, therefore, be interpreted as the outcome of the will of God, whether of righteousness or of sin, eternal life or eternal death. The only possible laws in the universe were the divine decrees, from which there could be no departure; the actions of all creatures were subject to his hands, in both their inception and their execution; and the whole universe, physical and spiritual, was subject to a complete order of predestination. As a piece of machinery, the system was organically complete and sublimely effective; but, at the same time, to ordinary minds it seemed utterly heartless and cruel as destiny itself. . . . . . This system proceeds upon the assumption of such a real and practical or administrative sovereignty in God over every man and his eternal destiny that the whole thing admits of neither conditions nor qualifications. The ordering of the affairs of the universe is an eternal and unalterable decree, complete in the divine mind from eternity, and unfolding in part

in the form of events within the realms of time. ..... It is in its logical outcome simply fatalism, substituting the name of its God for the mythological Jupiter or Zeus, or the philosopher's fate or chance or destiny-names that designate the unknown force that sustains and directs the course of affairs in lofty disregard of the weal or woe of the intelligent and sensitive beings that are evolved in its resistless movement. But its God is not that "Father of the spirits of all flesh,' of whom and of whose abounding mercies the Bible tells us."1

Now if the Darwinian can show that his theory of the origin of species is, from a theological point of view, open only to these same and analogous objections, then he may shelter himself behind Calvinism from charges of infidelity. The student of natural history who falls into the modern habits of speculation upon his favorite subject may safely leave Calvinistic theologians to defend his religious faith. All the philosophical difficulties which he will ever encounter, and a great many more, have already been bravely met in the region of speculative theology. The man of science need not live in fear of opprobrious epithets; for there are none left in the repertory of theological disputants which can be specially aimed at the Darwinian advocate of continuity in nature. The Arminian, the Universalist, and the Transcenden1 Rev. Daniel Curry,D.D.,Chautauqua Address, Aug. 12, 1879.