Wilbur Fisk opens his Calvinistic Controversy with an unusual admission: the volume was never intended as a book. The advertisement, dated April 28, 1835, from Wesleyan University, explains that the contents were written at different times, often at distant intervals, and in the midst of other pressing duties. Fisk apologizes for any want of connection or uniformity of style, and notes that he has been able to do little more than correct typographical errors. The work goes forth, he says, “with all its imperfections on its head.” This frank, almost reluctant preface sets the tone for a series of polemical writings that are earnest, occasionally digressive, and rooted in the conviction that the doctrines he defends “will stand the test of reason and Scripture.”

A Self-Conscious Collection

The advertisement reveals that the numbers following the sermon were written at different times and at quite distant intervals. Fisk offers this as an apology for any want of connection or uniformity of style. He also states that the work was originally not meant for book form; the publishers insisted it was called for, and he consented. This background explains the structure: the sermon on predestination and election stands first, followed by a series of numbered replies and essays. Fisk notes that he originally planned to add one or two numbers on election but concluded that enough had been said in the sermon. He rests the entire question between Methodists and Calvinists on the points of Calvinian predestination, moral agency, and regeneration.

The Sermon’s Argumentative Core

The sermon opens with the epigraph from Ephesians 1:4: “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.” Fisk then proceeds to argue against what he calls Calvinistic views of predestination. In the excerpt provided, he critiques the Calvinist notion of motive influence, comparing it to the law of gravitation. He uses a thought experiment: if a stream were given consciousness, it would feel free to flow downhill, yet it could not reverse course without an inversion of gravitating power. Fisk contends that this analogy leads to materialism, destroying the idea of intellectual power. He asserts that mental action is not the cause of the motive; rather, the motive is the cause of mental action.

The Stream Analogy and Its Implications

Fisk’s extended analogy of the conscious stream is a central piece of his argument. He imagines Omnipotence imparting consciousness to the particles of a flowing current; the stream would then perceive its own motion and feel free, yet it could not change its course unless the slope were inverted. Fisk uses this to illustrate what he sees as the Calvinist position: the mind is conscious of freedom but cannot move against its inclinations, which are determined by God. He then asks pointedly: if the attractive power of motives over the mind is different from gravity, what is that difference? He suggests that the Arminian conception of freedom is precisely that difference. The passage shows Fisk’s method of pressing Calvinist definitions to their logical conclusions.

Motive, Power, and Divine Agency

In the same excerpt, Fisk turns to the concept of power in nature. He argues that what we call the power of attraction or repulsion is nothing more than the uniformity of Divine agency. The earth does not inherently attract; God acts by a uniform law. Fisk then applies this to mental action: if motive is the cause of choice, then the motive—not the mind—holds the power. He insists that the term “power” should be applied to the antecedent, not the consequent. This philosophical move is designed to show that Calvinist doctrine reduces human agency to a passive role, making God the sole efficient cause. The argument is dense and relies on distinctions between cause and effect, antecedent and consequent, that Fisk expects his readers to follow closely.

Readers approaching Calvinistic Controversy for the first time should note that the work is best read as a series of discrete but thematically linked arguments. The sermon provides the theological foundation, while the subsequent numbers develop specific points. Fisk’s willingness to admit imperfections in his own arguments invites a critical reading: he expects his doctrines to stand scrutiny even if his presentation is occasionally rough. Pay attention to his use of analogies and his habit of pressing definitions to expose what he sees as inconsistencies in Calvinist thought.