presuming to discriminate from the ma.s.s of nominal Christians those who have experienced the conclusive and saving change of Calvinistic conversion, and admitting such only to the full enjoyment of Church privileges and to the Lord"s table. It seems not a little surprising, that not only sagacious individuals but extensive communities should persevere in an attempt which, in the nature of things, can lead only to disappointment; for, the sincerity of that species of conversion which is supposed to be final, of that grace which is said to be irrevocable, can never be decided until the Judge of all has p.r.o.nounced his verdict. In the meantime, the terms of communion _must_ agree in some measure with the actual state of man; and when the matter is quietly examined, it appears that even in Calvinistic communions the terms of membership are reduced to a profession of the received "faith and order," and an a.s.surance, on the part of the initiated, that he believes himself to be a converted person by G.o.d"s special grace. This is all that is required besides evidence of good moral character; more than this is impracticable. The spirit of Calvinism can never be fully embodied in a system of Ecclesiastical polity corresponding exactly with its own nature, and marked by its own exclusiveness; for who shall discern the elect?
This discovery appears to have been made by an eminent Calvinistic clergyman of the present day, who, instead of coming to the legitimate conclusion that Calvinism is therefore untenable, as being an impracticable system, has recourse to a delusive theory of ecclesiastical fellowship, which confounds the visible with the invisible Church, or reduces the former to a mere nullity. According to _his_ view of the subject, the Church of Christ consists, not of the collective body of persons who may happen to be in fellowship with any particular Christian communities, nor of the aggregate of persons who throughout the world make an outward profession of our holy faith, but of those, and those only, who "maintain the doctrines of grace, and uphold the authority of Christ in the world," with whatever denomination of Christians they are in external fellowship. These, being the truly regenerate, are to tolerate each other"s differences on minor questions, to love each other as being one in Christ, and to co-operate in every way for the diffusion of their common principles throughout the world. Mr.
Noel"s theory confirms the statement made in this section, that Calvinism, which it is presumed he means by "the doctrines of grace," denies the claim of any _mixed body_ of professing Christians, such as the Anglican, or the Lutheran, or the Scottish, or any other church, in its aggregate character, to be _a church_, or a distinct branch of the Catholic Church. That is, Calvinism is opposed to the const.i.tution and the purposes of a visible church.
Mr. Noel"s theory is fatal to its existence. For, when it is said of those exclusively, who, in whatever denomination, "maintain the doctrines of grace,"--"_and this one body is_ the church,"--it is clearly proveable, that these persons have no intelligible grounds on which to rest that high and exclusive pretension; _they are not_ the visible church.
These persons may, or may not, be members of the spiritual or _invisible_ Church; _that_ is known only to the Searcher of the heart. They may or may not be the most holy and sincere individuals in the several churches or denominations with which they hold external communion; _that_ also remains to be confirmed or refuted by "the final sentence and unalterable doom." But they do not const.i.tute what is commonly understood by the visible Church of G.o.d.
They have no ministry, no worship, no administration of the sacraments, visibly distinct from the ma.s.s of persons who are of the same external fellowship with themselves; and the error of a.s.signing to them the distinction of being alone the true Church arises from the ambiguity of the word _Church_, on which changes are rung, producing a confusion of ideas--a double confusion of ideas, "confusion worse confounded." What is the mental process by which Mr. Noel arrives at this point? _First_, the invisible Church is tacitly put and mistaken for the visible, the truly spiritual for the nominal, it being a.s.sumed that we can know the hearts of others.
Then, _secondly_, this invisible Church is supposed to become visible, and to be _alone_ visible, in the persons of those who maintain the doctrines of grace; while the really external Church, consisting of the entire body of professing Christians throughout the world, vanishes out of sight, and is declared to have no ecclesiastical existence! The truth is, that Calvinism and a visible Church are incongruous ideas, and that no man, of whatever talent he may be possessed, can make them harmonize. The Calvinist believes, and is consistent in his belief, that the elect only are "the Church," but since it is impossible to discriminate them from others, it is impossible to unite them in an exclusive visible fellowship. And, if it were possible, they would form such a Church as never before existed. Calvinism is irreconcileable with the order which has descended from the apostolic age, by the consent of the Catholic Church, and with any visible const.i.tution.
If Mr. Noel has succeeded in making converts to _his_ theory of a visible Church, from the difficulty they find in detecting its fallacies, it only proves, that
"Sheer no-meaning puzzles more than wit."
The dissenter who, on objecting to a Church rate, said, that "If all Churchmen were like Mr. Noel, neither he nor his brethren would object to join them," does not seem to have been aware that they were already members of Mr. Noel"s Church. Or, what is more probable, it was designed significantly to hint to that reverend gentleman, that he was no more attached than themselves to the Church of which he is a pastor, and whose ordination vows are upon him,--and that with Churchmen who are prepared so to betray or deny their Church, under an erroneous sense of duty, dissenters may without difficulty form an alliance[5].
IV.--CALVINISM IS PRODUCTIVE OF POSITIVELY INJURIOUS EFFECTS ON INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER, AND ON SOCIAL HAPPINESS.
When Lord Chatham taunted the Church with having "a Calvinistic creed, a popish liturgy, and an Arminian clergy," that ill.u.s.trious person was the author of a libel on this holy and apostolical inst.i.tution. Her creed is not Calvinistic, for it says nothing about absolute predestination; her liturgy it not popish, for there is no worship of saints or of the Virgin; her clergy are not Arminian, for their moderation has preserved them, as a body, from all extremes in doctrine, and _that_, as well as their unrivalled erudition and intellectual power, has been the admiration of the most eminent protestant divines and men of letters in Europe. And to her truly scriptural character, especially her rejection of the Calvinistic theology, with its gloomy, turbulent, and intolerant spirit, may be traced the high tone of moral feeling and practical reverence of religion which have honourably distinguished the people of England.
Happily, Calvinism in its palmy days was confined to the Puritanical party, which made comparatively small progress within the pale of the Church; while the most influential of her clergy, and the great majority of her well educated laity, embraced the doctrines of a more generous and scriptural theology. Without falling into Pelagianism, a charge made by Calvinists on all who reject the system improperly called "the doctrines of grace," they held the great evangelic truth that Christ "_died for all_," and its correspondent views of the benevolence of G.o.d, and the moral dignity of human nature, impaired, but not destroyed, by the fall.
The principles of the remonstrants, without being servilely embraced, influenced and modified the religious opinions of the people of England, who were never generally favourable, either to the dogmas or the discipline of the Genevan reformer, and to this circ.u.mstance are we largely indebted for the manly and the moral character of our country.
This statement, founded on the history of the Reformation and the times which followed, is not intended as an indiscriminate attack on the moral character of Calvinists. Many of them are to be cla.s.sed with the holiest of men; not because they are Calvinists, but because their erroneous notions are rendered innoxious, by the prevalence of a sincere piety, and by a secret and practical disbelief of the principles which, in speculation or imagination, they seem to hold.
It would be both unjust and uncharitable to judge any cla.s.s of persons simply by the creed they subscribe, or to impute to them the consequences which might be supposed to follow from a rigid adherence to its doctrines. There are antagonist principles at work; there is the law written on the heart; there is grace to counteract the tendency of false impressions; there is the love of G.o.d and of man to render those who are truly good men superior to any bad principles they have unhappily imbibed. Their Christianity is dominant, and their Calvinism is made harmless.
But evil speculation has a tendency in all minds to lessen or destroy the power of those dictates of conscience which are honourable to us as moral agents; and it will counteract, so far as it goes, the salutary influence of those scriptural truths which still retain their hold upon the judgment or the feelings. In but few instances, comparatively, can Calvinism be altogether harmless; in the ordinary course of things, it is productive of results positively injurious.
In persons of serious religion, it will produce opposite effects, as they may be gentle and timid, or bold and presumptuous. In the former, anxiety, fearful apprehension, deep distress, approaching to despondency, lest the tremendous decree of reprobation should have been recorded against them in the indelible page. In the latter, who can bring a sanguine temperament of mind to the contemplation of the subject, the effect may be, and often is, unbounded confidence, leading to self-complacency and spiritual pride; the very natural result of believing that they are special objects of the love of G.o.d, and that their persuasion is a divine impulse, G.o.d speaking to the heart. Spiritual pride may a.s.sume the aspect of profound humility, and thus impose on its victim by the notion that he is only magnifying the sovereign grace of Heaven in his election to eternal life. But such is the weakness of human nature, that the consciousness of this high distinction needs to be chastened by very lofty views of the moral virtue required by Christianity, and by very humbling conceptions of our own, to prevent a false and dangerous elation of the heart.
And, in how many instances this consciousness is mere delusion, it would seem almost needless to suggest. It is often professed under suspicious circ.u.mstances by doubtful characters. Nothing can be more groundless than the persuasion so commonly entertained by persons of this creed, that to be fully convinced of the truth of the doctrine is a sufficient ground of confidence that _they_ are therefore of the number of the chosen people. The strongest conviction may be deceptive. The firmest a.s.surance may be the result of ignorant or fanatical presumption. And whatever may be the readiness of this cla.s.s of persons to say, "My mountain standeth firm--I shall never be moved," it cannot but be feared respecting many of them, that they have yet to learn the very "first principles of the oracles of G.o.d." The remarkable absence of humility and charity in these "children of special grace" is alone enough to render their Christianity questionable, exposes the dangerous nature of their delusion, and proves the practical inutility of their scheme; since, after all, without the evidence of a truly evangelical temper and life, no inward a.s.surance would satisfy a reflecting mind; and in the possession of such evidence, no other a.s.surance is needed.
The self-righteousness of the Pharisee is scarcely more to be dreaded than the spiritual pride of the Calvinist, when it has pa.s.sed from under the control of holy wisdom. It a.s.sumes the character of selfishness, bigotry, and the l.u.s.t of intolerant dominion.
The same spirit of exclusiveness and domination, which pervades in general their ecclesiastical polity, affects their allegiance to the state. Under cover of abolishing episcopacy, the doctrinal Puritans were the princ.i.p.al authors of that revolution which introduced the Commonwealth after the fall of the monarchy; and their aim was the exclusive _dominion of the saints_, that by political power they might establish their own forms of Church government. Religion was really their object, and they were not hypocritical in professing it; but to accomplish their spiritual projects, they considered themselves ent.i.tled to secular dominion; and their tyranny in Church and State was so overbearing, that the nation, after the death of Cromwell, eagerly threw itself into the arms of the Stuarts, almost without a compact, rather than endure the sanctimonious intolerance of Calvinistic patriots and republican saints[6].
The same leaven is still at work. The doctrinal Puritans of the present day have the same lordly consciousness of a right to dominion. They have declared their resolution to "stagger senates, and smash cabinets" until their points are carried. They have given to the nation a significant announcement of their claims to power, by their politico-religious synod of Manchester. The imperial parliament of these realms is, in future, it seems, to make its fiscal arrangements, and legislate on points of purely political economy, under the dictation of the Calvinistic divines of the nineteenth century[7]. Doubtless, our future Chancellors of the Exchequer will be selected from this body of sacred financiers.
While it produces effects so remote from those of true Christianity in the _religious_ professors of Calvinism, on the ma.s.s of ignorant, sordid, unreflecting, and worldly-minded persons, who are taught these doctrines, its worst influences are seen to operate; and, as the country was notoriously demoralized at the close of the Cromwellian dictatorship, when Calvinistic divines had enjoyed a long and signal triumph, so is the present age marked by a degeneracy in the public morals, which has kept pace with the progress of opinions of similar character and tendency. The rude mult.i.tude is taught that there is no grace but _special_ grace, and this produces recklessness and indifference, since no efforts will avail if they are not to be partakers of these, to them, forbidden streams of the river of the water of life. Or, perhaps, this gloomy doctrine produces a sullen suspicion, vague and undefined, of the rect.i.tude of G.o.d, and thus alienates still more those hearts which are already adverse to the Divine government.
Of all the mischievous extravagances of opinion, none has produced more fatal consequences, than the notion, that G.o.d takes particular delight in selecting the vilest of men for the object of his electing love; and that the gross sinner is better prepared for the grace of Christ, than they who have walked in the paths of virtue.
It is a melancholy but instructive fact, that in Calvinistic families, the puritanical order and discipline which are often highly commendable, have proved insufficient to counteract the malignant effects of the doctrines inculcated on the minds of the young. Instead of being taught that grace is given to all, and that all are responsible for its use, they are instructed that this blessing may perhaps be withholden. And no families have sent forth into the world more affecting examples of worthless and unprincipled young men, who have brought down the grey hairs of their excellent but mistaken parents with sorrow to the grave!
If the unguarded preaching of "the doctrines of grace," and the scanty instruction given on the great duties of practical religion, have contributed to the demoralized state of the people, let it not be supposed that other causes have been wanting to swell the tide of corruption. From the Revolution, toleration has been gradually enlarged, until all salutary restraints have been swept away, and the glorious liberties of our country have degenerated, by a fatal abuse, into unbridled licentiousness. The press is daily infusing poison into the public mind. What once would have been punished as _profaneness_ and _blasphemy_, is no longer noticed by the gentle guardians of the law, and _treason_ has almost ceased to be a crime.
Liberalism has trampled over law, and the reigning evils have been unhappily aggravated by those whose position in the state ought to have dictated other conduct than that of making anarchical principles the road to dominion.
V.--CALVINISM IS NOT THE DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE OR OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
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 washing 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.