Part 2 (2/2)
The general tenor of the Holy Scriptures is so clearly against it, that it is impossible to account for the facts or the doctrines of the Bible on supposition of the truth of the Calvinistic theology: Nor would it be needful to discuss the subject, however briefly, on scriptural grounds, but for a few particular texts which are cited against the current testimony of the word of G.o.d. It is said that _one_ text, if plain and direct, is evidence enough for the establishment of any doctrine. This may be a sound canon of interpretation, where the one text admits but one meaning, and that meaning is not opposed by conflicting evidence, but not otherwise.
In the present instance, there exists, in addition to the opposing stream of Scripture testimony, the following strong presumption against the Calvinistic view of particular texts. Supposing the doctrine of Calvinistic fatalism to be correct, no explanation can be given of the general tenor of Divine revelation, none which _can_ be made to harmonize with that doctrine. The entire history of providence and redemption, as given in the Bible, proceeds on the principle, not of fate, but of freedom; and if we are not free, we are reduced to the suspicious and unworthy conclusion, that the secret and the revealed will of G.o.d are at variance with each other; that we are deceived by a scheme of things designedly arranged to convey false impressions of truth, and that while G.o.d treats us now as though we were accountable beings, He fixes our final destinies without any regard whatsoever to our imaginary freedom and pretended responsibility.
On the other hand, taking the general tenor of the sacred volume to be the true representation of the moral economy under which we are placed by the infinite wisdom of G.o.d, all the pa.s.sages which are cited by Calvinists, as being favourable to their cause, may be so explained, and that without violence, as to accord with the current testimony of the Scriptures to the freedom and moral agency of man.
A stronger presumptive argument cannot be conceived against the claim of Calvinism to scriptural authority.
Let it be also distinctly observed, that the cause of Calvinism is not served by those pa.s.sages of Scripture which relate to the election of individuals, or of nations, to certain privileges which do not extend to the absolute enjoyment of eternal life. Of this description is the ninth of the Romans. The subject of that celebrated chapter is not the election of individuals to final salvation, but the election of the Jews to the honor of being the visible Church, and their subsequent rejection through open unbelief. Nor does the allusion contained in it to the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red sea, yield an argument in favour of Calvinistic reprobation. The fact that the infatuated monarch was hardened in heart by _the leniency_ which spared him under so many provocations and insults offered by him to the Almighty G.o.d, does not prove, nor was it designed to prove, that he was the fated victim of an eternal decree, whether in regard to his secular or spiritual condition.
Nor can Calvinism plead for itself those texts which are supposed to refer to the election of individuals to final salvation, but which at the same time leave unsettled the important question at issue; whether that election was absolute and irrespective of character, or whether it was founded on the foreknowledge of their faith and obedience. Such for example is the language of St. Paul, 2 Thess.
ii. 13, 14. All such pa.s.sages leave the controversy undetermined, proving only that the doctrine of election is scriptural, but not fixing the sense in which it is to be taken, whether absolute or conditional.
The terms _election_ and _predestination_, with their correlates, are of frequent occurrence in the New Testament, and with various significations, which are to be explained by the particular subjects to which they refer. But the _only_ texts which really bear on the Calvinistic controversy, are those which may seem to represent election as sovereign, arbitrary, and totally irrespective of the faith and obedience of the elect; such are few indeed. Let us review _that_ which is deemed by the advocates of Calvinism among their most conclusive evidences. ”That election,” says Edwards, ”is not from a foresight of works, as depending on the condition of man's will, is evident by 2 Tim. i. 9. 'Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, _not according to our works_, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.'” Edwards was not more remarkable for acuteness and subtlety as a reasoner, than for his lax and indiscriminate citations of Scripture. He appeals to this text with such confidence, that he deems no a.n.a.lysis to be necessary. The bare citation is enough.
But a brief examination of the pa.s.sage will make it clear that it yields no support to Calvinism. The Calvinist affirms ”that G.o.d, by an absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a very small number of men without any regard to their faith and obedience whatsoever.”
That is, the decree which insures the safety of the elect is not founded on G.o.d's foreknowledge of their holiness and of their perseverance in the faith. To show that this doctrine is supported by the pa.s.sage under our consideration, it must be proved, that when the Apostle says, ”not according to _our works_,” he means our _Christian_ good works, our faith, our repentance, our charity, our evangelic obedience to Christ; of this, there is not the shadow of evidence. On the contrary, the _works_ alluded to are those, whether good or bad, which were done in a state of heathen or Jewish depravity, at any rate done before believers exercised faith and repentance, and were called to the privileges of the Christian Church. No other interpretation will hold.
St. Paul states that G.o.d ”hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling.” He then proceeds to trace this happy condition to its sources. He begins with a negation. The antecedent cause of our salvation and calling was _not our works_; we were not treated _according to_ our works; not after the measure, the proportion, the merit or demerit of our works: these might have brought punishment, but could never have procured for us blessings so great and undeserved. The real cause was _the purpose of G.o.d_ and _his grace_ given in Christ before the world began.
Here, _our works_ are put in distinct opposition to the purpose and grace of G.o.d.
They could not, therefore, be our Christian works, done in a state of salvation and subsequent to our obeying the holy calling. _These_ are the practical results, the _moral effects_, of our holy calling according to the gracious purpose of G.o.d. These could never have been done but for that holy calling. They could not therefore in any sense be the _antecedent cause_ of that holy calling. In the order both of nature and of time, both the gracious purpose and the holy calling must have preceded these works. To tell any man of common sense, that they were not the procuring cause of the grace from whence they were themselves derived, was needless.
To one so intelligent as Timothy, such instruction was worse than superfluous. Works could not hold the twofold relation of cause and effect to G.o.d's grace. Nor can it be supposed that St. Paul was the author of a solecism so obvious, as that of formally setting in opposition to the _purpose_ and the _grace_ of G.o.d those evangelic works, which were the moral effects of the influence of that grace and of the execution of that purpose. The works alluded to were those which might be done before men were partakers of the Christian salvation, or independently of the dispensation of grace, and according to _such_ works no man could be ent.i.tled to the blessings of eternal redemption.
This important text lends no support to the Calvinist. It cannot be cited in proof, that the election of G.o.d is arbitrary and uninfluenced by his foreknowledge of the faith and obedience of his chosen people, for the works here intended are _not Christian good works_ done in faith. Edwards did wisely in not a.n.a.lyzing this text.
The same principle of interpretation is applicable to t.i.tus iii. 5.
”_Not by works of righteousness_ which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the was.h.i.+ng of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” These _works_ are not those of the truly regenerate, which being the _effects_ of the grace of Christ, cannot be mistaken for the meritorious cause of the communication of that grace. It is rather to be taken as a broad a.s.sertion, that the blessings of the Christian covenant, are not the result or the reward of human deserts; that apart from the redemption of Christ, there are _no_ works of righteousness by which we can be saved; and that while Christians are made really holy and good, their sanctification is to be traced to the grace of G.o.d in Christ Jesus.
In neither pa.s.sage is there any statement on which to rest an argument for the arbitrary and unconditional decree of the Calvinist, nor for depreciating the intrinsic value of those really good works which the Christian performs in faith. Calvinism has no foundation in the word of G.o.d. It is in direct collision with that sacred authority. St. Paul rests the divine election on the foreknowledge of the Deity, and let his decision be final. ”Whom he did _foreknow_, he also did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son.”
The seventeenth Article of the Church accords with the Scriptures, and its doctrinal statements are made almost entirely in the language of the sacred writers, and of those eminent divines of the Reformation who abjured Calvinism and adhered to the Bible. It is drawn up with great moderation, says nothing of absolute decrees and unconditional election, and it treats the subject practically. The concluding paragraph relating to ”curious and carnal persons” shows that the venerable compilers of the Article rejected extreme views of this doctrine, since these only could lead to ”a most dangerous downfall.” But if the article itself be at all equivocal, it must be interpreted by the formularies of the Church and by the Scriptures, since no dogma is to be imputed to this holy branch of Christ's Catholic Church, that is at variance with the attributes of G.o.d, the moral const.i.tution of man, the testimony of the Bible, and the obligations of practical religion.
If Calvinism be the doctrine of our Church, then are the _Catechism_, and the Order for the Ministration of _Baptism_, the most absurd and delusive compositions by which the minds of men were ever led astray.
VI.--CALVINISM HAS LED TO THE CORRUPTION OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, THAT THE SCRIPTURES MAY BE ACCOMMODATED TO EXTREME VIEWS OF THE DIVINE DECREES.
It was not in the nature of things, that Calvinistic predestination should be received as truth, without producing such a modification of the entire system of divine revelation, as would impress on it a new and completely different character. Christianity, in its unadulterated simplicity, is distinguished by the consolatory views it imparts of the benignity and grace of G.o.d, and by the direct and cogent motives it suggests for holiness and righteousness of life.
But the first article of the Calvinistic creed throws a veil of awful and suspicious mystery over the divine goodness, and represents it ”as the sun shorn of his beams.” Having determined that G.o.d is not the universal Father, nor ”the Saviour of all men,”
but the projector of a scheme which predetermines the ruin of the great ma.s.s of his creatures, Calvinism models to its own purpose all those doctrines of Christianity which are in beautiful accordance with the truth that ”G.o.d is love.” It denies that the atonement of Christ was intended to make satisfaction for ”the sins of the _whole_ world.” It announces that the non-elect are laid under an irresistible necessity of sinning to destruction, and that no spiritual grace is imparted to rescue them from the dominion of native, incurable, uncontrolled depravity.
The gracious invitations and promises of the Gospel are reduced to unmeaning terms, so far as the many are concerned. And while Calvinism is denominated by its admirers ”the doctrines of grace,”
it obliterates from the Scriptures every trace of sincere mercy, and robs the diadem of heaven of its purest and brightest gem.
_Calvinism_ and _grace_ are heterogeneous terms, representing discordant ideas.
<script>