to them just as accidental as if no choice had been made. For the above two reasons also, although we know we must die, yet we employ means to preserve life, just as if we would live forever; not knowing what hour it is appointed us to die. The certainty of the decrees does not prevent the use of prayer. Let us pray as often as we will, God foresaw all our prayers at the distance of eternity, determined how to answer those which are acceptable, and each specific answer is stored up, and provided for, in the decrees. But still those answers cannot be given, unless the prayers are actually offered; for, although they are certain, yet their certainty rests upon another certainty, the offering the corresponding prayers. To all the objections against the decrees on account of their certainty, we replied that if any future events be absolutely uncertain even to God himself, then they must result from chance; and whatever objections may in some minds lie against the certainty of all future things, yet the objections against chance are infinitely greater. A case cannot be imagined in which it is not better to trust, to a wise, holy, and good God, than to blind, cruel, and arbitrary chance. As to the partiality of the decrees, there is the noble partiality of a Sovereign, and the unjust partiality of a Judge. As a Sovereign, God made one star to differ from another in glory, gave to rational beings exalted qualities denied to the brutes, made some classes of intelligent creatures more noble than others, passed over fallen angels and sent his gospel to fallen men, passed over heathen nations and sent his gospel to Christian countries, and passod over one portion even of Christendom and gave all the blessings of his gospel to his own chosen ones. His election of a certain number could not be unjust because justice had done and they all were already lost, before mercy could touch them. How could justice damn all mankind for Adam's sin and at the same time require all mankind to be saved? To call this partiality unjust then is preposterous; for justice had nothing to do with it, it was altogether an affair of mercy.

We noticed some abuses connected with the doctrine of predestination, and gave the appropriate corrections, The first class of abuses springs from unwarrantable presumption in prying into the se cret counsels of God, in the case of melancholy persons believing that they are reprobated. The next class mistakes the plan of predestination for the execution, and confounds a future certainty with a present reality, as in the doctrine of eternal justification. The third class mistakes fatalism for predestination, and sets up one part of the decrees against another---decreed ends against decreed means

---for example, it is sometimes said of a deceased person; his time was come, and all the means in the world could not have saved him. The abuse was contrasting the secret and revealed will of God in such a manner that a flat contradiction lies between them; as when it is said to have been the revealed will of God that Pharaoh should let the people of Israel go, and his secret will that the king of Egypt should not let them go.

as

Various important uses of this doctrine have been pointed out---that it displays the unrivalled grandeur of Jehovah even more than tronomy itself---that it upholds the absolute sovereignty of God---that it makes the free and unmerited grace of God the exclusive source of man's salvation---that it stands at the head of those five doctrines in believing which is the largest safety---and that it greatly increases the power of conscience, in consequence of its close connexion with the doctrine of providence.

The great subject on which we have been treating possesses such intrinsic beauty and splendor, is sustained by such powerful evidence and leads to such important practical results, that it will richly bear the nicest scrutiny alone. Still, the candid reader in justice to him. self should weigh it in the balance beside its sole alternative, chance. Yes there is no other alternative than to believe in predestination which makes God the Great First Cause, or in a set of doctrines which as unerringly make blind chance the first cause. The doctrine that Chance is the prime origin of any class of events whatever, is gloomy and dreadful and without one ray of hope to cheer its horrors. To sum up all its odious features in one single portrait, chance is the beginning, the middle, and the end, of Atheism. And what shall we think of a religious system one part of which pretends to rest upon Jehovah and the other upon chance? Yet such is the system of all who either oppose the decrees on account of their infallible certainty, maintain the doctrine of a will self-determining and in exact equipoise between evil and good, or deny the divine foreknowledge on account of the supposed contingency of moral actions. We are surprised that the fatal tendency of anti-predestination towards chance has been suffered to lie so long dormant in this great controversy. It should be proved and charged upon the anti-predestinarian that he is the advocate of chance as the first cause of certain events in opposition to his God. And this single idea fairly explained and persisted in by predestinarians will overawe and confound the boldest opponent; and as soon as it shall have time to become known to all denominations, it will overturn Arminianism to its very foundations.. Let the friends of the truth only try its power.

We conclude by informing our readers that if they have any difficulties on this subject which we have not yet reconciled, we will be happy to use our endeavors to do so, if they will only call upon us through the columns of the Christian Intelligencer, which, we are sure the excellent editor will cheerfully throw open for that purpose. MACEDON.

[From the Charleston Observer.]
LETTER II.

PSALMODY-THE QUESTION.

My Christian Friends,---In my firsr Letter I considered the first negative particular of "Charlestoniensis,” and it is hoped it was made sufficiently obvious that what my brother says in that particular is not the question, is the question, in part at least, especially in a practical point of view. Let us now attend to his second negative particular, which is very much like the first, containing the same general idea, only it is a little more exclusive and uncharitable, and when about to close this particular, he appears to have missed his ink-stand, and dipped his pen into a vinegar cruet. I infer as much from the fact that he speaks of his opponents as "very uncandid and dishonest," because they do not confine the dispute on Psalmody to the Presbyterian Church exclusively; but oppose themselves to all who are opposed to the use of David's Psalms. But let us not detain to find fault with the above delicate epithets. With some people, in such discussions, they come in as a matter of course, and often, as in the present case, are entirely uncalled for.

In the particular now under review, Mr. C. seems especially anxious to confine the question as to what is right for Presbyterians to do in the matter of Psalmody. He says, "the question is not, is it right for Arians, Socinians, Universalists, &c., to sing hymns adapted to express their unscriptural and erroneous opinions, but whether it is right for Presbyterians to sing those Psalms and Hymns which the Church has authorized as orthodox, devotional, and proper." Now, be it known to Mr. C., that we have no contest with "Arians, Socinians, and Universalists," on the subject of Psalmody. Our dispute is with those denominations who, in the judgment of charity, are entitled to the name christian---even with those whom Mr. C.

"feels a delicacy in designating by name, but includes under the very indefinite term of "&c."

What denominations are included under his and so forth? Why, certainly, all those Christian denominations (his own excepted) that adopt the hymn system. This phrase will include the Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Dutch Reformed, Congregationalists, New School and Cumberland Presbyterians. We are opposed to the course pursued by all these denominations on the subject of Psalmody; but our contest for the truth on this subject has been carried on principally with the Presbyterians, for several reasons--1. Because, instead of the Psalms themselves they have adopted Dr. Watts' imitation of them, a thing more offensive to us than the use of his hymns;---2, because Presbyterians and Seceders, entertaining the same views on Church Government, and the doctrines of religion, ought to be united, but the difference in their opinions and practices on Psalmody keeps up the schism, and hence it is the bone of contention between the two bodies. But while we would rejoice to see this middle wall of partition between us and our Presbyterian brethren broken down and destroyed, we are, at the same time, extremely anxious that the whole Christian world should adopt the inspired Psalter as the matter of their praise; and we feel assured that the Church---the whole Church---must come to this at last: for we look forward with joyous anticipations to that happy day when there will be a union, not only of Presbyterians and Seceders, but of the Church universal---of Jew and Gentile---a union not only of sentiment, but also of song, for the prediction is, (Isaiah lii. 8.) "Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion."

And if "when the Lord shall bring again Zion," there is to be a union of voice in the praise of God, that praise must be taken from David's Psalms. The Church can never settle down upon any other book or books as the standard of praise. The Seceders, and those who coincide with them in opinion, will maintain their ground: and presently the Jews will be restored once more to Divine favor, and will come in to back the advocates of David's Psalms, or to lead the way in defence of truth on this as well as on other subjects, with an invincible and never-dying energy--the people of God will crowd around them from every side---ten men, out of all languages of the nations, shall take hold of the skirt of the Jew, because God is with him, and God himself will lead on his band of invincibles to a glorious and everlasting triumph.

But to return to our Charleston friend. He is not disposed to take such enlarged views on the subject of Psalmody. If he can secure a hymn-book to suit himself, and his own Church, it is enough for him; others may manage the matter as best they can.---Those and so forth denominations alluded to above---those "heretical bodies," as he calls them, must be allowed to pursue their own course;---for he observes, we can no more hinder them from singing heresy, than from praying and preaching, and publishing, heresy. Very charitable indeed! Our friend finds certain Christian denominations guilty of offering up heretical prayers, and preaching heretical serinons, and therefore he would abandon them to "add iniquity to iniquity," and sing heretical songs of praise---for, as we cannot control them in the former, so neither can we in the latter, and all we can do in the matter is to sit down and say, "Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone." How would the Temperance Reformation advance if the Reformers in that good work would say to the guilty inebriate---You "heretic," you are guilty of profanity and vulgarity, of idleness and other crimes, but we cannot compel you to abandon these bad habits, and therefore you must even go on and become intoxicated as much as you please--we leave you to "wax worse and worse."

Experience, however, has shewn that the best way to deal with such characters, is to prevail on them to become sober men, and then they are found to forsake, to some extent, their other evil habits. So, if these "heretical bodies" could be influenced to lay aside their human compositions, and adopt God's authorized book of praises, the probability is strong that they would come right in other things. Why then not admit them as parties in this discussion, and as deeply interested in its ultimate decision? But why this anxiety on the part of our opponent to confine the question as to what Presbyterians ought to sing in the praise of God? Because he knows full well that if all denominations are taken into the account, then the question will be, whether the Church should be confined to David's Psalms, or be left to "sing any thing and every thing," which these different bodies of antipodal principles do at this day employ in the praise of God? Strong as Mr. C. is in the advocation of human compositions, instead of God's Word, he does not feel prepared, as yet, to stand up in defence of that grand assortment of hymns now in use, in which both poetry and sentiment can be found adapted to the taste and faith of the heterogeneous mass that employs them.

The question then is not, what shall the Presbyterian Church sing? No such thing; but the great question is, what ought the Catholic or