A defence of modern Calvinism : containing an examination of the Bishop of Lincoln's work, entitled a refutation of Calvinism

Preface

± HE Author's first intention was merely to incorporate a few Strictures on Bishop Tomlinf/s '' Refutation" in a new edition of another work, on Divine Equity and Sovereignty, — which he still means to publish. This design Avas accordingly announced ; but finding many of his friends desirous of having the Strictures in a detached form, and containing a professed Reply to his Lordship's attack on modern Calvinists, he has taken their advice ; and now offers his " Examination" to the candid perusal of the dignitary whose work is the subject of it, and to the tribunal of the public.

PREFACE.

The term " ]\Iodern Calvinism," which expresses the Calvinism here '' defended," is adopted for three reasons. First, because this is what his Lordship evidently wishes to oppose, and by the rapid spread of which he appears to be displeased. He is aware that Calvinism is industriously and successfully propagated, — and by some obnoxious passages out of Calvin's Works he endeavours to convince the public mind, that such tenets ought to be exploded. It is therefore proper that the pubhc should be also aware, that the Calvinism of the body of people, attacked indiscriminately by his Lordship, does not include the whole of what he ascribes to them. A second reason is, because the great majority of those who pass under the general denomination, in modern times, regard some of Calvin's positions as mere exceptionable inferences, which he has drawn from parts of his own system with too nmch haste, or

PREFACE.

too little caution. They consider these inferences (especially some deduced from the doctrine of divine decrees,) as injurious excrescences, which deform the general beauty of his theological scheme, and which do not contribute to its real strength. In brief, they consider his fundamental premises, viewed in their proper light, as neither requiring nor admitting some of his conclusions, which have given just offence to a large portion of Christians who still retain his name, — and who are induced to retain it (as a term of distinction) because thc}^ apprehend that no other of the reformers, of whatever country, nor even any of the Christian Fathers, have so beautifully exhibited, or so ably defended the scripture doctrine of Sovereign Grace. A third reason is, because the inodern Calvinists in general, in this country, do not adopt the ecclesiastical discipline which was originally included in

VI PREFACE.

the term Calvinism. These considerations justify, to the Author's own mind, the ground he has taken, as well as the title of his Book.

A'cotced Sentiments of the Bishop on Redanpiion and Predestination, examined.

I, On Redemption 171

II. On Predestination 199

III. Oil the same, continued 230

Chap. IV

Some Things ascribed to Cahinists zchich are not applicable to them.

X. Some things \vhich belong to no existing

Sect of Christians 281

II. Some in a sense which they disown 290

111, .Somc^Tvhich are peculiar to other Sects 313

VIU CONTENTS.

CHAP. V. Quotations from the Fathers, examined

SECrrON PAGE

I. Some which have no bcaiinj^ on tlie poin(s

in question 329

II. Some which militate against the Bishop's

avowed principles 346

III. Some doubtful in expression, but not in

meaning 37 i

IV. Some unscriptural botli in language and

sentiment 422

Chap. VI

An Inqtiiri/ into the Grounds of the Inconsistencies apparent in the Bishop'' s avowed Sentiments, and in his Quotations from the Fathers.

I. The misapplication of terms 467

JI. Assumed principles of Moral Obligation. . 480

III. Erroneous views respecting the Divnie Pre-

rogative 492

IV. Wrong notions respecting the ultimate

sources of Virtue and Vice 501

V. The want of rcqiiisKe acquaintance with

reconciling principles 311

Chap. VII

Concluding Remarks on the Excellenci/ of Religious Knowledge, and on the best waj/ of obtaining it. . 527

*j,t* The References are made to the second edition of the " Refutation," the Author having never seen

MODERN CALVINISM,

Chap. I

AVOWED SENTIMENTS OF THE BISHOP ON ORIGINAL SIN, FREE WILL, AND THE OPEHATIONS OF THE. HOLY SPIRIT, EXAMINED.

Sect. I.

The Bishop's avowed Sentiments on Original SiNy examined.

\ 1 . Wliat is a fair mode of enquiry on controverted subjects- \ 2. The subject stated.

^ 3. The sentiment that original righteousness is not entirely Josf, f'xamined. § 4. Original righteousness, what. ^ 5. How understood by the Compilers of the Articles. (> 6. How entirely losf. ^ 7. Even supposing; it to uitan good qualities and principles indefinitely, ij a, 9. What the intended alteration by the Assembly of Divines. § 10. The practical advantages of insisting on this doctrine.

§ 11. That every good affection is not entirely lost, examined. § 12. The true state of the question. § 13. What the Calvinists really hold on this point. § 14. His Lordship's observations on the parable of the sower, considered.

^ 15. That the prtwer of obeying still remains, examined. The subject stated. § 16. The ambiguity of the term power. ^ 17. The capability of a carnal mind, what, ^ 18. Observations on Cain and Abel. ^ 19. Import of the phrase " inclinetb to evil;" examined. § 20. In what sense Calvinists admit that God gives power to every man.

§ 1. One of the fairest methods of examining his work that an author can desire, is to state in his own words the sentiments he avoYv^s, and then t* try them by that standard

2 Modern Calvinism Defended. tif. i.

which tlie nature of the su])jcct legitimately requires. This is what tlic writer of the following strictures very sincerely desires to do, in the most respectful manner; and if, in any instance he should fail in the attempt, ho hopes it will not be imputed to an ungenerous design, or a cherished principle of disrespect. The hope of this construction he is the more disposed to entertain, as it is not his purpose to defend every expression or unqualified sentiment maintained hy that author whom his Lordship of Lincoln undertakes chiefly to refute, — and as he is not conscious of aiming to serve any party, at all hazards, but rather to promote the cause of truth in the spirit of Christian benevolence.

^ 2. On the different subjects debated, many things are advanced by his Lordship which arc maintained alike by himself, and by those whom he professedly opposes. It would be impertinent to enlarge on those things ; and to dwell minutely on the smaller shades of difference, would lead to a needless prolixity. For every important purpose, I conceive, it will be sufficient to notice the most radical points in wdiich the minor variations are virtually included. Those points on the subject of original sin, may be reduced to three heads, viz. That original righteousness is notjeutirely lost — that

SECT. I. On Original Sin, S

every good affection was not eradicated — and that the power of obeying still remains. These positions constitute a prominent part of his Lordship's avowed sentiments, — as will immediately appear from his own statements.

§ 3. yis Lordship's avov/al of the first of these positions is fidl and explicit, in the following words: — ' In appealing to the public ' formularies of our church, I shall first notice ' the article upon Original Sin, in which it is ' said, that " man is very far gone from original

* righteousness :" this expression implies, that ' origimd righteousness is not entirely lost ; that

* all the good quafities and principles, with which ' man was at first created, are not absolutely

* destroyed. That this is the plain and obvious

* sense of the passage, is evident from the fol- ' lowing circumstance : when the Assembly of ' Divines, in the reign of Charles the First, ' undertook to reform, as they called it, our

* Articles according to the Calvinistic creed, ' they proposed to omit the words, " man is

* very far gone from original righteousness," ' and to substitute for them, " man is wholly ' deprived of original righteousness." It was ' admitted by both parties, that the two sen- / tences conveyed ideas extremel}^ different ; and ' the proposed alteration was rejected by those ' who wislicd to maintain the ancient and esta-

4 Modern Calvinism Defended. cii. i,

* blished doctrine of the church of England, in

* opposition to the pccuhar tenets of Calvin.'*'

§ 4. * Original righteousness is not entirely lost.' Let us cahnly examine this position. While terms are left undefined, upon subjects wherein precision of language is more than ordinarily required, controversy is likely to become progressive and perplexing. If by " original righteousness" one person understands ' good qualities and principles' indefinitely, while another understands the perfection of them, what prospect is there of agreement, however extended the ratiocination? If his -Lordship intend the latter part of the sentence, quoted, to be explanatory of the former, he adopts the first of these meanings. But, abstracted from a peculiar connection, the conmion and obvious meaning of the term " righteoii.s-' ness' is rectitude, or perfect conformity to what is right. And the original righteousness of man, all must allow, consisted in nothing less than such perfect conformity.

§ 5. What evidence, therefore, is there, that the compilers of the Articles intended by " righteousness," good qualities and principles indefinitely, rather than the perfection of them? If they employed the term in a sense so unusual, * Ilcfut. p. 50.

SECT. I. On Original Sin. 5

ill sucli a connection, tliey must liave been remiss, in point of precision, not to state it. But to suppose this, ^vhere precision must have been a leadin<>- dcsio-n, is uncharitable. It is not therefore by any means to be assumed, tliat the framers of tlie Articles meant by " righteousness," good qualities, and principles indefinitely, rather than the perfection of them. They speak of a standard from which " man is for gone ;" — ■ but an indefinite degree of good qualities and principles can be no standard. This would leave every thing undefined and uncertain. Whereas to say that man is far gone from the perfection of them, avoids an absurd, and establishes an important meaning.

§ 6. This perfection of good qualities and principles was entirely lost. For nothing less can be intended by being " far gone" from it. If men have gone astray from the fold of God, surely they have lost entirelif the privilege of being in that fold. Their " original righteousness" included a complete standing in the divine approbation ; and if that complete standing be now entirely lost, so likewise must that original righteousness by which it was secured. This, however, is not inconsistent with degrees of deviation from righteousness. For though " all we like sheep have gone astray," some by per 6onal disobedience have gone farther than others.

6 Modern Calvinism Defended. ch. i.

And the article assures us, that " man (and there appears no ground of exception) is very far gone from original righteousness." Every man, therefore, has entirely lost the perfection of his nature, — which the term " original righteousness" very natiirall}^, and most properly expresses.

§ 7. But even supposing, for argument' sake, that the term " righteousness," is intended to express ' good qualities and principles' indefinitely, still there is an important sense in which every man has lost it entirely. The same human qualities and principles which are good in one respect, may be bad in another, ev^en in the most important acceptation. There may be in one man, compared with another, a stronger attachment to temperance, chastity, veracity, or honesty: but it would be fallacious to infer, on this account, that he is the subject of these virtues in a primary sense. He has less actual vice than many others, while, at the same time, his qualities and principles, operating another way, may be radically vicious. His virtues are merely negative ;— he is less disposed to intemperance, unchastity, falsehood, or dishonesty. Such partial and comparative virtues may be found in an Atheist; but will any one say, that in such a character " original righteousness" is not entirely lost? Persons possessed siX'T. I. On Ori'^hiaJ Sin. 1

of such comparative good qualities and principles may be utterly destitute of a c-ordial submission to the ^\•ill of God, — a o-cnuine approbation of his holy law, or of liis blessed gospel : and if these good (qualities be absent, is not the being, the very essence of original righteousness, al)Solutely destroyed, — entirely lost?

§ 8. When the Assembly of Divines, in the reign of Charles the First, proposed to omit the words, " man is \Q\-y far gone from original righteousness," and to substitute for them, " man is uhol/j/ ckprivcd of original rigliteousness," how does it appear that their doctrinal view of the subject was materially different from that of the fust compilers? It would be more accurate to sa)^, with due deference to his Lordship, that the two sentences might convey ideas extremely <lifferent, than that they were intended to do so. The phrase " wholly deprived" might be objected to, lest any should infer, that the cause of it was an arbitrary act of Clod, as contradistinguished from a voluntary act of man. It is natural to suppose a predilection in favour of an established formulary, where no important advantage could be proposed by a(loi)ting the alteration. The one mode of expression more stnmgly represents man as the author of _^his loss, while the other simply states the extent

8 MoDERy Calvinism Defended. cm. i.

of that loss, in a mode which might be perverted to a bad use. Considering man as a moral agent, he is " ver}'- far gone" from his original state, and as a sufferer he is " wlioUy deprived" of it. To have gone far, very far, from a given state of mind, must signify, if plain language have any definite meaning, that the state intended was " entirely lost;" and that, regarded as a privilege, man was Avholly deprived of it.

§ 9. Upon the whole, therefore, it does not appear that the rejection of the Assembly's proposal implied any disagreement of sentiment, but rather turned upon the most unexceptionable mode of expressing it. The article, however, is sufiiciently explicit in shewing that man has lost his pristine perfection, no less than if it were said, that he is " wholly deprived" of it. No man who is unchanged by gracious influence, has even the nature of true wisdom, much lessits perfection. He is essentially defective as to the end he aims at, and consequently the means he adopts cannot have the nature of righteousness, whatever sagacity, or comparative wisdom, he may discover in the use of them.

§ 10. To insist much on this doctrine has the most salutary effect on the minds and conduct of men, as being very frequently attended

BFXT. I. On Original Sin. 9

with a divine blessing and gracious influence ; while a neglect of stating it in a close and searcliing manner, in a course of Christian instruction, is in fact found to be highly injurious to vital religion. Until men are thoroughly convinced of their deplorable defects, and their mental maladies, there is no probability that they will mourn for their sins, become poor in spirit, or hunger and thirst after righteousness. That unguarded and crude representations have been made of the doctrine is but too true ; yet even this has not been so fatal to the interests of real Christianity as the contrary extreme. Because in the one case, however disgusting or frightful the representation may ])e, an appropriate remedy is held forth ; whereas a picture encouraging self-flattery, tends to eclipse the grace of Christ, or to diminish, in the sinners view, the gospel remedy. Among converts of the latter class, I should expect but' little gratitude to God, or love to Christ, or zeal in propagating his gospel. How far this remark accords with matter of fact, is left with the candid enquirer to determine from observation.

§ 11. His Lordship farther asserts that every good affection was not eradicated. * All idea ' of distinction between right and wrong was • not obliterated from the human mind, or ' everrj good affection eradicated from the human

10 Modern Calvinism DEFExncn, ch. i.

* heart.'* — ' The heart was in a liigh degree

* depraved, but e^cery good affection towards God

* and towards man was not totally cxtinguhhciV\ — ' Let us next consider, the parable of the

* sower, and particularly the explanation of that

* seed which fell on good ground, and sprang ' up, and bare fruit ; " that on the good ground,"

* says Christ, " are they which in an honest and

* good heart, having heard the word, keep it,

* and bring' forth fruit with patience :" here wc

* have again our Saviour's authority for saying,

* that tliere is some honesty, some goodness (>f' heart ' in the human race ; and that different men ' possess these virtuous qualities i;i different

* degrees, since of the seed which fell upon good

* ground, some brought forth " an hundred fold, ^ some sixty, some thirty.'" :[;

^12. ' Every good affection was not eradi-

* catcd — was not totally extinguished — there is

* some goodness of heart in the human race/ These positions appear to be adAanced against the supposed tenets of Calvinists. lint in one sense of the terms employed, they are not at all opposed to Calvinism ; for what Calvinist would maintain that affections, — conjugal, parental, filial, paternal, friendly, patriotic, or loyal, — are not good? The question is, in what sense are

SECT. I. On Original Sill. 11

such affections good, previous to a supernatural influence ? They are, doubtless, coniparatixely good ; that is, compared with their oppositcs. Yet this they may be, while essentially defective compared with the will of God, and the revealed rule of righteousness ; since they are exercised by many persons who are " fast bound with the chains of their sins," and in a very degraded state of moral depra\ity. A })erson may have a sincere and strong affection to another, w hicli is good compared with " envy, hatred, and malice," without possessing what is essential to real virtue and moral "'oodncss.

■<§ 13. What his Lordship asserts, that 'all ^ idea of distinction between riglit and Mrong

* was not obliterated from the human mind,' might lead the reader to suppose that Calvinisls held the contrary opinion. So far however is this from being the case, that they feel no reluctance in extending the asseltion to fallen angels, as well as to men ; and are in the habit of reciting these Avords of their poet with approbation : " The devils hiorv, and tremble too ; but Satan cannot love." — But his Lordship proceeds to say, that ' every good affection towards God —

* was not totally extinguished.' That a carnal mind, under the dominion of sin, and led captive by Satan at his will, may have some sense of gratitj.ide to the bountiful Creator and Benefactor,

^.2 Modern Calvinism DffcvdeDc ch, i.

and some kind of love to him, is readily granted ; but the question is, whether that lo\c has not in it " the nature of sin," while the object of it is made subservient to selfish ends, — such ends as arc opposed to the standard of righteousness ? This is what Calvinists maintain, according to the sacred oracles, which declare that " the carnal mind is enmity against (jod : for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. They that are in the flesh cannot please God."* — " The natural man receive th not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."!

§ 14. The observations made on the parable of the sower, will be thought by most readers, I presume, very remarkable- ^ There is some ' honesty, some goodness of heart in the human

* race,' Supposing the four kinds of hearers to represent * the human race,' three parts out of four appear fruitless, — without honesty or goodness of heart. How then can this be an apology in point for the honesty and goodness of ' the

* human racer' And respecting the fourth part, that bare good fruit in different degrees, what reason is there for concluding that the success

» Rom. Tiii. 7, 8. f 1 Cor. ii. 11.

SECT. I. 0?i Original Sin. 15

was owing to some native goodness or honesty, ratlier tlian to divine grace? IJas the Spirit of God no eflicicncy in preparing the lieart, and ensuring success r The a})Ostle of the Gentiles exphcitly ascribes it to God. " I have phmted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he tliat watercth ; but God that giveth the increase."* The Calvinists, therefore, think it more scriptural, and more rational; to ascribe the different degrees of fruitfulncss attending the preached gospel to divine gracious agency, than to ' virtuous qualities' possessed by the human race in different degrees, independently of that agency. Beside, as the truth of the gospel is supposed to be proclaimed in the hearing of all alike, if the cause of fruitfulncss be ascribed to native virtuous qualities, and all the Imman race have so7?ie of these qualities; how comes it to pass that so large a proportion of mankind are represented by our Saviour as bringing forth no fruit?

§ 15. In the next place, his Lordship contends, that the pozeer of obcy'mg still remains. For thus he states and argues : ' We are told in

* the book of Genesis, that " the Lord had re-

* spect mito Abel and to his offering;" and unto

14 MoDEnx Calvinism Defended. en. i.

* Cain he said, " If tliou docst well, shalt thou ' not be accepted? And if thou docst not well,

* sin lieth at the door." j\Iay we not hence

* infer that the immediate sons of Adam lived

* under a divine law, which they had the prnver ^ of oh eying or of disobeying?'* — 'They M^ere

* capable of obeying it .[a rule of life] although in

* fact their obedience has been very rare, and ' always imperfect.'-j" — ' The article [on original ' sin] does not pronounce with the Calvinists, ' that man of his own nature c^;? perform nothing ' but evil, but that he " inclineth to evil ;" a

* doctrine fundamentally different, since an incli-

* nation, though strong, may be conqnered.'J —

* Those who saw and heard what Jesus did, ' were of themselves capable of understanding that ' he " was the Christ, the Son of God.'"||— ' God

* gives to every man, through the means of his ' grace, a porcer to perform the conditions of the

* gospel.' § — These are his Lordship's avowed sentiments on the subject of human power.

§ 16. To every observant reader of moral and theological discussions, it must be very apparent, that ambiguity often attends the use of the word Power. In writers who do not define their terms, we find it, even in con-

tl Ilud, p. 19. § Ibid, p. 6J.

SECT. I. On Original Sin. 1.5

trovcrsy, standing indiscriminately for physical strength, for opportunitv of acting, for a siililicient inducement to act, and for niorul a])inty. Kow except a writer explain what kind of power he designs, there can be no close reasoning on the snl))ect. I know of no Calvinist who denies that fallen man has power, in the sense of pliysical strength, to will or to act: according to his pleasure, — or of opportunity oi acting well if so disposed,— or of a sufficient inducement to act aright. The point, therefore, is simply this, Whether man in his native degeneracy, irrespective of gracious renewing influence from the Holy Spirit, has that kind of power which consists in a good dispf)sition or inclination? and whether it renders a man ' capable, of himself,' to understand the spiritual design of the gospel, to love God supremely, to love the Lord Jesus Christ 'as a holy Saviour, and to approve unreservedly of God's " holy will and commandments?"

§ ] 7. That many carnal men are capable, in different degrees, of investigating the evidences of Christianity, and have power to point out with considerable tbrce the criteria of revealed religion, is not to be denied. They may iilso perceive a degree of harmony in the divine dispensations, the reasonableness of many commands and obligations, and many wonderful traits^ of divine goodness and mercv, as wtU as

16 MoDERx Calvinism Depended. ch. i,

the equity of many awful judgments. But is tliis aii}^ sufficient proof that tlicir heart is right with God, or that they have the root of sincere piety ? They may be still under condemnation as practical imbclievers, and destitute of that holiness without which no man shall soe the Lord : though perceiving, and in some respects approving of better things, they may be the blaves of sin, totally averse from the yoke of Christ, and prevailingly actuated by *' the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life :" they may habitually be making " the pleasures of sin" their chief good; and, being thus ill the flesh, they cannot please God, though possessed of physical powers, opportunities, aiid sufhcient inducements.

§ 18. The scriptural account we have of Cain and Abel, aftords no good evidence that either of them possessed a native moral ability to please God. Saint Paul explains the passage, and assures us, that " by faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." But that faith was not " of himself, it was the gift of God," — for why sliould we suppose that it flowed from a source different from that of Cliristian faith? And again, what Calvinist would say, that Cain would not have been accepted, if he came to God with right ends and motives? They both had physical power,

SECT. t. O?} Orighia! Sii2. 17

a fiivoiiicil)lc opportunity, and a sufficient inducement for oftering an accc))table service. The fault of Cain, therefore, was all his o\\'n ; but it does not thence follow that the faith of Abel had no higher source than his own native power, or that God byliis grace did no more for Abel than for Cain. Should anyone be disposed to think that God was bound m justice to do as much for the one as for the other, let him calmly reflect, lirst, that it is degrading to the divine freedom, to suppose that he is obliged to do all the good that he can; secondly, that it is a reflection on the character of God, since it is evident in fact that he does more for some of his rational creatures in the matter of salvation than for others; and, thirdly, tliat to suppose God is bound 'injustice to exercise vierci/, is a contradiction in terms : for what is mercy, what can it be, but a fa\our beyond the claims of justicej

§ 19. AVhen the article declares that man of his own nature " inclineth to evil," it expresses that very impotence whicli Calvinists ascribe to man in his fallen state. And that this is their meaning, is plain from their constant avowal, that a spiritual change confers upon the soul no new physical power, but only a different inclination towards God and holiness. The intiuence it receives may be called " the spirit of power,"

c

IS Modern Calvinism DEFrNDEB. cir. i.

whereby tlic mind is invin-oiatecl for holy ol)edience. That an inclination to evil 7)iai/ be conquered, is plain from the fact that in many happy instances it is conquered. But is it ever conqueitd without divine assistance? If the aid of grace be necessary, why should it be ascribed to mans native goodness of heart? If not necessary, why should we be exhorted to pray for it with importunity? And if Saint Paul testified that he was not " of himself" sufficient to think a good thought, with what propriety can it be asserted that an unconverted man, who " of his own nature inchneth to evil," is " of himself capable" of understanding, savingly, that Jesus is " the Christ, the Son of God?" Our Lord tells Peter that such knowledge was revealed to him by his heavenly Father. And Saint John affirms, that no man can say, that is, to saving purpose, " that Jesus is the Christ, but by the Holy Ghost." The apostle could not mean that no map, without the Holy Ghost, coukl say this in a cursory manner, or maintain it as a doctrinal truth, because the contrary is a plain fact. lie must tlierefore intend to inculcate, that a just knowledge and cordial approbation of Jesus as the Christ, is from the Holy Spirit.

§ 20. When his Lordship asserts, that ' God * gives to every man, through the means of

^ECT. ». On On'ghuil Sin. 19

' his grace, a power to pci-forin tlic conditions of * the gospel,' the Calvinists have no controversy with him, except about the meaning of the tenn. Taking the word " power" for opportunity, or for a sufficient inducement, they a(hnit the assertion as an important truth. But to suppose that every man, through the means of grace, has a prevaihng inchnation to perform the condition of tlic gospel, is contrary to indisputable fact : since the means of grace are to great numbers, through their own fault, " a savour of death unto death." In short, what we maintain is, that the power which man lias lost, through original sin, is — an effectual cu prevailing inclination to good.