A defence of modern calvinism: containing an examination of the bishop of Lincoln's work...

Preface

e Author's first intention was merely to incorporate a few Strictures on Bishop Tomline's " Refutation" in a new edition of another work, on Divine Equity and Sovereignty, — which he still means to publish. This design was 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 dignitaiy whose work is the subject of it, and to the tribunal of the public.

y KEFACE-

The term " Modern 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 public 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 much haste, or

PREFACE.

V 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 they 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 modern 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*

Chap. I

Avowed Sentiments of the Bishop on Original Sin, Free- Will, and the Operations of the Holy Spirit, examined.

SECTION PACE

I. On Original Sin ... ....... 1

1L On Free -Will 20

III. On Divine Operations . - ; V - - j. — SO

Chap. II

Avowed Sentiments of the Bishop on Regeneration 3 Justification, Faith, and Good Works, examined.

I. On Regeneration . CI

II. On Justification _ _ . . 99

III. On Faith. 139

IF. On Good Works 156

Chap. III

Avowed Sentiments of the Bishop on Redemption and Predestination, examined.

I. On Redemption 171

II. On Predestination 199

III. On the same, continued „ 230

Chap. IV

Some Things ascribed to Calvinists which are not applicable to them.

I. Some things which belong to no existing

Sect of Christians 281

II. Some in a sense which they disown. . 290

HI. Some which are peculiar to other Sects, « » 313 van

COX TEN TS.

CHAP. V. Quotations from the Fathers, ex amined

SECTrO-V PAGE*.

I. Some which have no bearing on the points

in question — 329

II. Some which militate against the Bishop's

avowed principles 346

III. Some doubtful in expression,, but not in

meaning 374

IV. Some unscriptural both in language and

sentiment 422

Chap. VI

An Inquiry 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

II. Assumed principles of Moral Obligation - . 480

III. Erroneous views respecting the Divine Pre-

rogative 492

IV. Wrong notions respecting the ultimate

sources of Virtue and Vice 504

V. The want of requisite acquaintance with

reconciling principles 514

Chap. VII

Concluding Remarks on the Excellency of Religious Knowledge, and on the best way of obtaining it. . 527

* # * The References are made to the second edition of the " Refutation/' the Author having never seen the first.

MODERN CALVINISM,

Chap. I

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

Sect. L

The Bishop's mowed Sentiments on Original Sin^ examined,

h 1. What is a fair mode of enquiry on controverted subjects. § 2. The subject stated*

£ 3, The sentiment that original righteousness is not entirely lost, examined. $ 4. Original righteousness, what. § 5. How understood by the Compilers of the Articles. § 6. How entirely lost. § 7. Even supposing it to mean good qualities and principles indefinitely. § 8, 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. W T hat the Calvinists really hold on this point. § 14. His Lordship's observations on the parable of the sower, considered.

§ 15. That the power 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 " inciineth to evil;" examined. § 20. In what sense Calvinists admit that God gives power to every man.

§ 1. One of the fairest methods of ex= amining his work that an author can desire, is to state in his own words the sentiments he avows, and then to try them by that standard

Modern Calvinism Defended. ch. i.

which the nature of the subject legitimately requires. This is what the 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, he 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 by 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 are 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 which the minor variations are virtually ineluded. Those points on the subject of original sin, may be reduced to three heads, viz. That original righteousness is not entirely lost — that 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.

§ 5. His Lordship's avowal of the first of these positions is full and explicit, in the following words: — e In appealing to the public ' formularies of our church, I shall first notice 6 the article upon Original Sin, in which it is ' said, that " man is very far gone from original

* righteousness :" this expression implies, that 6 original righteousness is not entirely lost ; that 6 all the good qualities and principles, with which ' man was at first created, are not absolutely ' destroyed. That this is the plain and obvious i sense of the passage, is evident from the fol- 6 lowing circumstance : when the Assembly of ' Divines, in the reign of Charles the First,

< undertook to reform, as they called it, our i Articles according to the Calvinistic creed. e they proposed to omit the words, " man is 6 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 senc tences conveyed ideas extremely different ; and

* the proposed alteration was rejected by those

* who wished to maintain the ancient and esta-

Modern Calvinism Defended.

CH. I-

6 blished doctrine of the church of England, in ' opposition to the peculiar tenets of Calvin/*

§ 4. c Original righteousness is not entirely lost. 1 Let us calmly 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 6 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 common and obvious meaning of the term " righteousness" 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, * Refut. p. 50, in such a connection, they must have been remiss, in point of precision, not to state it. But to suppose this, where precision must have been a leading design, is uncharitable. It is not therefore by any means to be assumed, that the framers of the Articles meant by " righteousness," good qualities, and principles indefinitely, rather than the perfection of them. They speak of a standard from which " man is far 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 entirely 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 sonal disobedience have gone farther than others,

Modern Calvinism Defended. cii. 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 naturally, 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, even 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 of such comparative good qualities and principles may be utterly destitute of a cordial submission to the will of God, — a genuine approbation of his hofy law, or of his blessed gospel: and if these good qualities be absent, is not the being, the very essence of original righteousness, absolutely destroyed, — entirely lost?

§ 8. When the Assembly of Divines, in the reign of Charles the First, 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," how does it appear that their doctrinal view of the subject was materially different from that of the first compilers ? It would be more accurate to say, with due deference to his Lordship, that the two sentences might convey ideas extremely different, 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 God, 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 adopting the alteration. The one mode of expression more strongly represents man as the author of his loss, while the other simply states the extent

8 Modern Calvinism Depended, ch. i,

of that loss, in a mode which might be perverted to a bad use. Considering man as a moral agent, he is " very far gone" from his original state, and as a sufferer he is " wholly 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 wholly 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 sufficiently 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 w r ho is unchanged by gracious influence, has even the nature of true wisdom, much less its 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 with a divine blessing and gracious influence; while a neglect of stating it in a close and searching 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 be, 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 ren^edy. 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 c of distinction between right and wrong was i not obliterated from the human mind, or * every good affection eradicated from the human

Modern Calvinism Defended, ch. i.

' heart.'* — ' The heart was in a liioli decree ' depraved, but every good affection towards God ' and towards man was not totally extinguished.^ — ' Let us next consider the parable of the ' sower, and particularly the explanation of that c seed which fell on good ground, and sprang c up, and bare fruit ; " that on the good ground," 6 says Christ, " are they which in an honest and c good heart, having heard the word, keep it, 6 and bring forth fruit with patience here we ' have again our Saviour's authority for saying, ' that there is some honesty, some goodness of heart * in the human race * and that different men e possess these virtuous qualities in different ' degrees, since of the seed which fell upon good 4 ground, some brought forth " an hundred fold, f some sixty, some thirty."*^

§ 12. £ Every good affection was not eradi- 4 cated — was not totally extinguished — there is 6 some goodness of heart in the human race/ These positions appear to be advanced against the supposed tenets of Calvinists. But in one sense of the terms employed, they are not at all opposed to Calvinism ; for what Calvinist would maintain that affections, — conjugal, parental, fmal, paternal, friendly, patriotic, or loyal, — are not good ? The question is, in what sense are such affections good, . previous to a supernatural influence ? They are, doubtless, comparatively good ; that is, compared with their opposites. 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 depravity. A person may have a sincere and strong affection to another, which is good compared with " envy, hatred, and malice," without possessing what is essential to real virtue and moral goodness.

§ 13. What his Lordship asserts, that c all 6 idea of distinction between right and wrong * was not obliterated from the hunian mind,' might lead the reader to suppose that Calvinists held the contrary opinion. So far however is this from being the case, that they feel no reluctance in extending the assertion to fallen angels, as well as to men ; and are in the habit of reciting these words of their poet with approbation: " The devils know, 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 gratitude to the bountiful Creator and Benefactor,

Modern Calvinism Defended, en. i.

and some kind of love to him, i§ readily granted ; but the question is, whether that love has not in it " the nature of sin," white the object of it is made subservient to selfish ends, — such ends as are 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 God : 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. c There is some e honesty, some goodness of heart in the human 6 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 i human racer' And respecting the fourth part, that bare good fruit in different degrees, what reason is there for concluding that the success

* Rom. viii, 7, 8.

sect* i> On Original Sin, IS

was owing to some native goodness or honesty, rather than to divine grace? Has the Spirit of God no efficiency in preparing the heart, and ensuring success ? The apostle of the Gentiles explicitly ascribes it to God, " I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then, neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth ; but God that giveth the increase."* The Calvinists, therefore, think it more scriptural, and more rational, to ascribe the different deorees 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 fruitfulness be ascribed to native virtuous qualities, and all the human race have some of these qualities; how comes it to pass that so large a proportion of mankind are represented by our Saviour as bringing forth ?io fruit ?

§ 15. In the next place, his Lordship contends, that the power of obeying still remains. For thus he states and argues : * We are told in * the book of Genesis, that " the Lord had re- L spect unto Abel and to his offering;" and unto ch. is

1 Cain he said/ " If thou docst well, shalt thou c not be accepted? And if thou docst not well, 1 sin lieth at the door."" May we not hence ' infer that the immediate sons of Adam lived ' under a divine law, which they had the pozver 6 of obeying or of disobeying? * — ' They were e capable of obeying it [a rule of life] although in 1 fact their obedience has been very rare, and c always imperfect.' f — The article [on original c sin] does not pronounce with the Calvinists, ' that man of his own nature can perform nothing ( but evil, but that he " inclineth to evil ;" a 6 doctrine fundamentally different, since an incli- ( nation, though strong, may be conquered.' J — « e Those • who saw and heard what Jesus did, 1 were of themselves capable of understanding that < he " was the Christ, the Son of God "||— < God 1 gives to every man, through the means of his c grace, a pacer 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 conf Ibid, p. 9. % Ibid, p. 51. k Ibid, p. 64.

sect. r. On Original Sin. 15

troversy, standing indiscriminately for physical strength, for opportunity of acting, for a sufficient inducement to act, and for moral ability. Now except a writer explain what kind of power he designs, there can be no close reasoning on the subject. I know of no Calvinist who denies that fallen man has power, in the sense of physical strength, to will or to act according to his pleasure, — or of opportunity of acting well if so disposed, — or of a sufficient inducement to act aright The point, therefore, is simply this, Whether man in his native dege nerac} r , irrespective of gracious renewing influence from the Holy Spirit, has that kind of power which consists in a good disposition 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 " holv will and commandments ?"

§ 17. That many carnal men are capable, in different degrees, of investigating the evidences of Christianity, and have power to point out with considerable force the criteria of revealed religion, is not to be denied. They may also perceive a degree of harmony in the divine dispensations, the reasonableness of many commands and obligations, and many wonderful traits of divine goodness and mercy, as well as

IS the equity of many awful judgments. But is this any sufficient proof that their heart is right, witft- God, or that they have the root of sincere piety ? They may be still under condemnation as practical unbelievers, and destitute of that holiness without which no man shall see the Lord : though perceiving, and in some respects approving of better things, they may be the slaves 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 in the flesh, they cannot please God, though possessed of physical powers, opportunities, and sufficient inducements.

§18. The scriptural account we have of Cain and Abel, affords 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 w r as not " of himself, it was the • gift of God," — Tor w r hy should we suppose that it flowed from a source different from that of Christian 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, a favourable opportunity, and a sufficient in^ ducement for offering an acceptable service. The fault of Cain, therefore, was all his own ; but it does not thence follow that the faith of Abel had no higher source than his own native power, or that God by his grace did no more for Abel than for Cain. Should any one be disposed to think that God was bound in justice to do as much for the one as for the other, let him calmly reflect, first, 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 riiore for some of his rational creatures in the matter of salvation than for others; and, thirdly, that to suppose God is bound injustice to exercise mercy , is a contradiction in terms : for what is mercy, what can it be, but a favour beyond the claims of justice?

§ 19- When the article declares that man of his own nature " inclineth to evil," it expresses that very impotence which 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 influence it receives may be called " the spirit of power,'"

c

18 Modern Calvinism Defended. cii. i.

whereby the mind is invigorated for holy obedience. That an inclination to evil may be conquered, is plain from the fact that in many happy instances it is conquered. But is it ever conquered 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 w r e 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 inclineth 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 man, without the Holy Ghost, could say this in a cursory manner, or maintain it as a doctrinal truth, because the contrary is a plain fact. He must therefore 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 c God ' gives to every man, through the means of c his grace, a power to perform the conditions of ' the gospel,' the Calvinists have no controversy with him, except about the meaning of the term. Taking the word " power" for opportunity, or for a sufficient inducement, they admit the assertion as an important truth.- But to suppose that every man., through the means of grace, has a prevailing inclination to perform the condition of the 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 has lost, through original sin, is — an effectual or prevailing inclination to good.