A very strong presumption of the unsoundness of the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees arises from the fact that its advocates are compelled, in answering objections to it, not only to disguise, but also flatly contradict it, and to substitute for it Arminian positions; thus virtually conceding that it is indefensible. Dr. Musgrave, as we have seen, asserts explicitly that God has foreordained whatsoever comes to pass. He argues that to deny this, would be in effect to deny that God is infinitely wise, benevolent, and powerful. He says: "We have proved, both by reason and revelation, that all things that come to pass are foreordained." He applies this doctrine to sinful actions in the following manner: "Now, that the whole of Pharaoh's conduct had not only been foreknown but foreordained is indisputable." Again, he says: "In connection with the foregoing statements concerning the crucifixion of the Saviour, let us single out the case of one of the individual actors in that awful tragedy, one whose part was the most perfidious and execrable, and see whether his crime was not before ordained, and he the individual predesignated as its perpetrator." He proceeds to the proof of this proposition. But, when it becomes necessary to meet the palpable and irrefutable objections that this doctrine makes God the author of sin, and takes away the responsibility of the creature, he is compelled to change entirely his ground. He substitutes _permission_ for _foreordination_, and defines permission to mean simply not preventing. "And is there no difference," says he, "between God's making, or exciting men to sin, by his power or influence, and his _permitting_, or _not preventing_ them from sinning? Between his determining to produce the evil himself, or to cause others by his power to do it, and his predetermining to _permit_ men to abuse their liberty and to commit the evil by the _unprevented_ exercise of their own voluntary efficiency?" I reply--there is a very great difference. It is nothing less than the difference between Calvinism and Arminianism. He is led to deny his own doctrine, and take refuge in the one he has tried so hard to refute.