Kitabı oku: «Calvinistic Controversy», sayfa 6

NUMBER IV.
SKETCH OF THE PAST CHANGES AND PRESENT STATE OF CALVINISM IN THIS COUNTRY

In the former No. it was seen that the indefiniteness and mutability of the Calvinistic system had thrown a kind of irresponsibility around it; which renders this controversy, in many respects, extremely unsatisfactory. This might, at first, lead to the conclusion, that farther discussion would be useless. On farther thought, however, it may appear, that this very circumstance will render the controversy both easier and more promising. This diversity of opinions has produced serious discussion among the predestinarians themselves, and has thrown the system open to public view, and driven its advocates to a clearer statement of their respective opinions. The effervescence, in short, growing out of this excitement, has led to a more distinct analysis of the system, and of course to a clearer discovery of its constituent parts. Their arguments against each other, and the logical consequences which they urge against each other’s views, are, in many cases, precisely the same that we should advance, and have often urged, in opposition to predestination. Much of the work, therefore, is prepared for us, and brought forward in a way to produce an effect among Calvinists themselves, where we could not be heard.

To understand this subject however fully, and to follow out this discussion advantageously, it will be necessary to glance at the different changes and modifications of the Calvinistic system; and to take a brief survey of the present state of the parties.

The religious faith of our puritanical fathers is too well known to need a delineation here. This faith was at an early day defined and formally recognized, in the Cambridge and Saybrook platforms. The first refinement (improvement it can hardly be called) upon this ancient faith, was the metaphysical theory of Dr. Hopkins. The leading dogmas of this theory were, that God was the efficient cause of all moral action, holy and unholy; and that holiness consisted in disinterested benevolence. Insomuch, that the answer to the question, “Are you willing to be damned?” was deemed a very good criterion by which to judge of a religious experience. While the doctrine of predestination was in this manner going to seed, and bearing its legitimate fruits, in one direction, it received a remarkably plausible modification in another. The atonement, which was formerly limited to the elect, was now extended to all; and the invitations of the Gospel, instead of being restrained, as before, to the world of the elect, were extended to the world of mankind. But as it would be useless to hold out invitations to those who could not accept of them, another refinement was introduced, and man was found to possess a natural ability to receive salvation, although he laboured under an invincible moral inability, which would for ever keep him from Christ, until drawn by irresistible grace. This discovery led to other refinements in language, so that a kind of technical nomenclature was formed, out of words in popular use, which words, by an accompanying glossary, were so defined as to correspond with the Calvinistic system. Thus, “You can repent if you will,” meaning, according to the technical definition, “You can repent when God makes you willing,” and so of the rest.

This theory, sustained as it was by Dr. Hopkins, Dr. Emmons, and others, gained many proselytes, and seemed likely, at one time, to become the universal creed. Its metaphysical abstrusities and distinctions gave it an interest for the student; and its plausible and commonsense terms gave it popularity with the people. In the mean time, however, several causes conspired to introduce a great revolution in the religious sentiments of many, which, as it has had a very important influence in modifying Calvinism itself; I must here stop to notice; I allude to the introduction of Unitarianism and Universalism. The proximate causes of the introduction of these sentiments were, among others, probably the following. The Antinomian features of old Calvinism had introduced into the Churches a heartless Christianity and a very lax discipline. It was natural, therefore, when religion had come, in point of fact, to consist chiefly in external performances, for its votaries to seek a theory that would accord with their practice. Unitarianism was precisely such a theory. It is also to be noticed, that the state of formality and spiritual death that prevailed, was greatly increased by the withering alliance which then existed between the Church and civil government. This revolution was undoubtedly hastened also by the ultraism, on the one part, and the technical inconsistencies on the other, of the Hopkinsian theory. The elements had been long in motion, and at length they united in an array of numbers and influence that wrested the fairest portions of their ecclesiastical domain from the orthodox Churches of Mass., and turned them over, together with the richly endowed university of the state, into the hands of the Unitarians.

In Connecticut, Unitarianism, as that term is commonly understood among us, has not prevailed. There is, I believe, but one Unitarian pastor, properly so called, in the state. This sentiment, however, prevails very extensively in this and all the other New-England states, as well as in many other parts of the union, under the name of Universalism; a sentiment which differs but little from Socinianism, and had its origin doubtless from the same source. About half a century since, a Calvinistic clergyman, as he was supposed to be to the day of his death, left a posthumous work, which was published, entitled, “Calvinism Improved.” It was merely an extension of the doctrines of unconditional election and irresistible grace to all instead of a part. From the premises, the reasoning seemed fair, and the conclusions legitimate. This made many converts. And this idea of universal salvation, when once it is embraced, can easily be moulded into any shape, provided its main feature is retained. – It has finally pretty generally run into the semi infidel sentiments, of no atonement – no Divine Saviour – no Holy Ghost, and no supernatural change of heart; as well as “no hell – no devil – no angry God.” It may be a matter of some surprise, perhaps, to a superficial observer, or to one not personally acquainted with the circumstances of the case, why, in leaving Calvinism, these men should go so far beyond the line of truth. But in this we see the known tendency of the human mind to run into extremes. The repulsive features of the old system drove them far the other way. It ought to be remembered, also, that there were few, if any, who were stationed on the medium line, to arrest and delay the public mind in its fearful recoil from the “horrible decree.” Had Methodism been as well known in New-England fifty years ago, as it now is, it is doubtful whether Universalism or Unitarianism would have gained much influence in this country. Late as it was introduced, and much as it was opposed, it is believed to have done much toward checking the progress of those sentiments. And perhaps it is in part owing to the earlier introduction, and more extensive spread of Methodism, in Connecticut, that Unitarianism has not gained more influence in the state. This is undoubtedly the fact in the states of Vermont, New-Hampshire, and Maine, where Methodism was introduced nearly as early as those other sentiments. The result has shown that the foregoing supposition is corroborated by facts in those cases where the experiment has been tried. These remarks may not now be credited, but the time will come, when the prejudices of the day are worn out, that the candid historian will do the subject justice. But to return – though Unitarianism and Universalism are believed to be dangerous errors, yet, as is often the case, they have contributed much, doubtless, to detect the errors and modify the features of the opposite system. Simultaneously with them, the Methodists have engaged in opposing the Calvinistic dogmas. This close examination and thorough opposition, with such other causes as may have cooperated in the work, have driven some of the peculiarities of the Hopkinsian theory into disrepute, more suddenly even than they rose into credit. The sublimated doctrine of disinterested benevolence was so like “an airy nothing,” that even the speculative minds of the shrewdest metaphysicians could not find for it “a local habitation,” in heaven or on earth; and the almost blasphemous dogma, that God was the efficient cause of sin, was more abhorrent, if possible, than even the horrible decree of reprobation. Both, therefore, with the exceptions hereafter mentioned, disappeared. The former, being of an ethereal character, silently evaporated into “thin air;” but the other, being of a grosser nature, and withal more essential to the system itself, settled to the bottom, and is now rarely visible, except when the hand of controversy shakes up the sediment. The doctrine of universal atonement, however, was retained, and the theological vocabulary was not only retained, but enlarged and improved. So that from that day to this, we hear but little of the doctrine of reprobation, or of the decrees of God, but much is said of God’s “electing love,” his “Divine sovereignty,” and “gracious purposes.” By which is meant, according to the glossary, the doctrine of unconditional election and reprobation, and of absolute predestination. The scriptures, also, which used to be quoted to prove the direct efficiency of God, in producing sin and securing the condemnation of the reprobate, receive a different explanation, varying but little, if any, from the Arminian interpretation of those passages. It cannot be doubted, I think, but there has been quite a change in the views of the great body of the Calvinists – and yet not so great and so thorough a change as appearances and terms might at first view seem to indicate. It is not easy to eradicate old prejudices. And it is often found that the mind will cling to the first principles of a favourite system, even after the other parts are so modified as that the new principles would supplant the old, if suffered to be carried out into a consistent whole. In every such case, much labour and argument will be spent in trying to unite the old with the new; but in every instance the rent becomes worse. This leads to a kind of vacillating policy, and an ambiguous course of argument, accompanied with reiterated complaints, that the opposers of the system misunderstand and misrepresent it. And it would be no wonder if the constant friction in the incongruous machinery should chafe the mind, and lead to a dogmatic and an impatient spirit. How far this corresponds with the existing facts, in the Calvinistic controversy, others can judge. In my own view, the peculiar circumstances of the case, connected with the known character of the human mind, fully account for the apparent tergiversation and changing of argument, in this controversy, without criminating the motives of our predestinarian brethren, as some have unjustly accused me of doing. The different parts of the system have lost, in a measure, their original affinities, and yet they have some partial and irregular attractions, which lead them to unite in unnatural and grotesque forms. And as there is no common consent and settled mode of operating among the many who are experimenting upon the materials, there are various sectional and individual formations, which are inconsistent with each other. And their incongruity is the more apparent from the unanimous effort (which I believe is the only work of union in “the class”) to amalgamate each and every variety with the old substratum of the system, – “God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass.”

The completion of this historical sketch, together with a view of the present state of the Calvinistic parties, may be expected in the next number. After which it is proposed to proceed to an examination of the doctrines in dispute.

NUMBER V.
SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED

One modification of Calvinism remains to be mentioned. It is known by the name of the “New Divinity.” The theological doctors connected with Yale college are the reputed authors of this system. It is evident, however, that the tendency of the Calvinistic theory has been in this direction for a number of years. The “New Divinity,” so alarming to some of the Calvinists, is only the ripe fruits of the very plants which they have long cultivated with assiduous care. And why should they start back at results which they have long laboured to produce? This theory, in the first place, is an attempt to make the doctrine, and the technical terms alluded to, coincide. In the second place, it is designed, by a new philosophy of predestination, to get rid of the “logical consequences” that have always pressed heavily upon the old system. Finally, it is a device to reconcile the doctrine of depravity with the former current sentiment, that man has natural ability to convert himself and get to heaven without grace. The two pillars of the new system are, 1. “Sin is not a propagated property of the human soul, but consists wholly in moral exercise.” 2. “Sin is not the necessary means of the greatest good;” or, in other words, “Sin is not preferable to holiness in its stead.” The Calvinistic opposers of this theory tell us that these sentiments have been held and taught to some extent for the last ten years. They were more fully and more openly announced, however, by Dr. Taylor, of the theological school belonging to Yale College, in a concio ad clerum preached Sept. 10th, 1828. From the time of the publication of this sermon the alarm has been sounded, and the controversy has been carried on. The opposers of the new doctrine call it heresy; and in a late publication they seem to intimate that Dr. T. and his associates are nearly if not quite as heretical as the author of the sermon on predestination and election. The doctor and his friends, on the other hand, strenuously maintain that they are orthodox; and to prove it, they repeat, again and again, “We believe that God did, for his own glory, foreordain whatsoever comes to pass.” The Christian Spectator, an ably conducted quarterly journal, is devoted chiefly to the defence of this theory, aided by the New-York Evangelist, and several other minor periodicals, and by a very respectable body of the clergy. What proportion, however, have embraced this system is not known; but many, both in and out of Connecticut, have espoused the cause with great zeal. The contest waxes warmer each year. Against the theory, Dr. Woods, of the Andover theological seminary, Dr. Griffin, of Williams college, Dr. Tyler, of Portland, the Rev. Mr. Hervey, of Connecticut, and several others have entered the lists of controversy; and last of all, a pamphlet, supposed to be the joint labour of a number of clergymen, has been published, in which the New Divinity is denounced as heresy, a formal separation of the Churches is predicted, and a withdrawal of patronage from Yale college is threatened on the ground that “Yale will become in Connecticut what Harvard is in Massachusetts.” It is uncertain, however, whether those ultra measures will be responded to by the great body of the clergy in New-England. There is a party which still adheres to the old – I may say, perhaps, to the oldest modification of Calvinism in this country. This party are for maintaining the old landmarks at all hazards, rightly judging that these palliations and explanations of the system will ultimate in its destruction. They are not numerous, but still respectable as to numbers and talents. They are sustained in Boston by the Boston Telegraph, so called, a weekly periodical, which does not hesitate to go the whole length —logical consequences and all. Witness the following quotation from a review of my sermon, in the number for Jan. 23d. Speaking of the charge in the sermon, that Calvinism makes God the author of sin, the writer says: – “The word author is sometimes used to mean efficient cause. Now I am willing to admit that those scriptures which teach that God has decreed the sinful conduct of men, do imply that he is the efficient cause of moral evil. For his own glory and the greatest good he said, Let there be sin, and there was sin!!!” The following is another specimen of Calvinism from the same periodical. If any man “affirms that man really chooses, and that his acts of will are caused by his own free, voluntary, and efficient mind, then he is no Calvinist.” In this last quotation, as well as in the preceding, there is the most direct opposition to Dr. Taylor, since he maintains, if I understand him, that man’s is an independent agency – that the human mind is the originator of thought and volition. Thus are these two branches of the Calvinistic family directly at variance with each other. And, in fact, the Telegraph and its supporters are not only at variance with the newest divinity, but with all the different degrees of new, newer, newest, and denounce them all as heresy.

The present advocates of predestination and particular election may be divided into four classes: – 1. The old school Calvinists. 2. Hopkinsians. 3. Reformed Hopkinsians. 4. Advocates of the New Divinity. By the reformed Hopkinsians I mean those who have left out of their creed Dr. Hopkins’ doctrine of disinterested benevolence, Divine efficiency in producing sin, &c, and yet hold to a general atonement, natural ability, &c. These constitute, doubtless, the largest division in the “class” in New-England. Next, as to numbers, probably, are the new school, then Hopkinsians, and last, the old school. These subdivisions doubtless run into each other in various combinations; but the outlines of these four sub-classes are, I think, distinctly marked.

The preceding sketch has been confined mostly to the theological changes in New-England; but it will apply, to a considerable extent, to other parts of the nation. The Presbyterian Church, by reason of its ecclesiastical government, is more consolidated, and of course less liable to change than the independent Congregational Churches of the eastern states. But the Presbyterian Church has felt the changes of the east, and is coming more and more under their influence. It is now a number of years since the “triangle,” as it was called, was published in New-York. This was a most severe and witty allegory, against the dogmas and bigotry of old Calvinism. From this work this old theory has obtained the epithet of “triangular.” Whenever a man advocates the doctrine of limited atonement, imputed sin, and imputed righteousness, he is said to be “triangular.” These old triangular notions are giving place very rapidly to modern improvements. And although the most strenuous opposition has been made in the General Assembly, in different publications, and elsewhere, yet the votes in the last General Assembly show, I think, that the whole Church is yielding herself up to the resistless march of innovation. It may be doubted whether the state of New-York is not emphatically the strong hold of the New Divinity, so far as popular sentiment is concerned; and whether, indeed, with the exception of New-Haven, there is not the greatest moral influence enlisted there, for the propagation of the new theory.

Thus have I endeavoured to glance over the various modifications and present characteristics of that mode of Christian doctrines called Calvinism. Here a few suggestions present themselves, which, from their relation to the present controversy, I will now set down.

It seems singular that, differing as they profess to, so materially, on many points, each individual of each sub-class should feel himself injured whenever Calvinism, under this common name, is opposed in any of its features. The sermon on predestination was against Calvinism, and lo! all parties rise up against the sermon. And yet, whether it object to Calvinistic policy or to Calvinistic doctrine, the different parties accuse their opponents of being guilty of the charge, but they themselves are clear. I cannot think of a single important position assumed by the sermon against predestination and election, which is not sustained by Calvinists themselves in opposition to some of their brethren; nor yet of a single charge against their policy, for their changes and ambiguous methods of stating and defending their doctrines, which has not been reiterated by professed Calvinists themselves against their brethren. Thus the sermon is sustained by the Calvinists themselves, and yet they all condemn it! If some Calvinists think that the objections of the sermon lie against some modifications of their system, is it not possible that these objections have a more general application than any of them seem willing to acknowledge? For example: it is objected to predestination that it “makes God the author of sin, destroys free agency, arrays God’s decrees against his revealed word, mars his moral attributes, puts an excuse into the mouth of the impenitent sinner, implies unconditional reprobation, makes God partial and a respecter of persons, necessarily limits the atonement,” &c. These charges, say the Calvinists, are very unjust, ungenerous – in fact, they bear false witness against our neighbours. This is said by Mr. Metcalf, and by others of the New-Haven school. And yet what says the Spectator, the organ and oracle of that school? It says of Dr. Tyler, and of others who oppose the peculiar views of Dr. Taylor, comprising, as we have seen, the great majority of Calvinists, that their views “limit God in power and goodness” – “make the worst kind of moral action the best” – “if carried out in their legitimate consequences, would lead to universalism, to infidelity, to atheism” – “they confound right and wrong, and subvert all moral distinctions” – “according to these views, mankind are bound to believe that they shall please and glorify God more by sin than by obedience, and therefore to act accordingly” – “nothing worse can be imputed to the worst of men than this theory imputes to God”!!!⁴ Has the author of the sermon said more than this, and worse than this, of Calvinism? And shall he be accused by these very men of bearing false witness against his brethren? And let it be observed farther, in justification of the sermon, that these charges in the Spectator are made by men who have been brought up at the feet of the Calvinistic doctors, and have themselves grown up to the character and rank of doctors in theology. They know the system thoroughly; they have made it the study of their lives, and have they testified to the truth respecting this theory? So then has the author of the sermon. Such is the testimony on the one side; and on the other we have decided predestinarians acknowledging, as an article of their creed, what in the sermon was urged as only a logical consequence. According to this system, says the sermon, “the fiat of God brought forth sin as certainly as it made the world.” Hear the Boston Telegraph: – “God, for his own glory and for the good of the world, said, Let there be sin, and there was sin!” Now I beg the reader to look at this subject for a moment. For brevity’s sake we will call the Boston Telegraph and its supporters No. 1; the Andover theological seminary and its supporters, which constitute by far the larger body of predestinarians in New-England, No. 2; and the New-Haven divines and their supporters No. 3. The sermon charges predestination with making God the author of sin. No. 2 says this is false: I neither believe it, nor is it to be inferred from my premises. It is true, says No. 1: I am willing to admit that God is the efficient cause of sin. He said, Let there be sin, and there was sin. It is true, responds № 3, that all who hold and explain predestination as Nos. 1 and 2 explain it, are exposed to the full force of the objections in the sermon – against such views “the arguments of the sermon are unanswerable.” No. 2, in vindication, says that No. 1 is on the old plan – very few hold with him in these days. And as for No. 3, he is already a rank Arminian; and if he would be consistent, he must give up unconditional election, and embrace the whole Arminian theory. Thus do they destroy each other, and confirm the doctrine of the sermon. And shall we still be told that we do not understand this doctrine? Have anti-predestinarians misunderstood this from John Calvin’s day to the present? Does honest No. 1 misunderstand it? Does well instructed No. 3 misunderstand it? What then is Calvinism, that cannot, through the lapse of centuries, make itself understood either by friend or foe? Is not this, of itself, a suspicious trait in its character? Let us quote a Calvinistic writer, whose sentiments are much in point, though aimed at the New Divinity: – “It is a serious ground of suspicion,” says this writer, “that Dr. Taylor has failed, according to his own repeated declarations, to render his speculations intelligible to others. It must be granted that a man of sense, who is acquainted with the power of language, can, if he is disposed, make himself understood.” “Some of the most intelligent men in the country have utterly failed to compass Dr. T.‘s meaning in argument: so that he declares again and again, I am not understood – I am misrepresented. Who under such circumstances can refrain from suspicion?” “Another suspicious circumstance in the case is, that Dr. Taylor expresses himself in ambiguous terms and phrases, which, though they are designed to influence the mind of a reader, afford him the opportunity to avoid responsibility.” See pamphlet by Edwardian, pp. 28 and 29. If this is justly said of Dr. Taylor’s recent theory, what shall we say of a system the advocates of which, “according to their repeated declarations, have not been able to render their speculations intelligible,” after the theory has had exhausted upon it the highly cultivated intellects of hosts of expositors through successive generations? “Who, under such circumstances, can refrain from suspicion?” especially since these advocates have learned “to express themselves in ambiguous terms and phrases which, though they are designed to influence the mind of a reader, afford them an opportunity to avoid responsibility.” To Calvinism it may truly be said, “Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee.” Let not the author of the sermon then be accused of bearing false witness, when his testimony is predicated on principles which Calvinists have laid down, and is also corroborated by men of their “own class.”

Will it be said, All this is not argument. I answer, The sermon, it is supposed, contains arguments – arguments which professed predestinarians themselves tell us are unanswerable against the prevailing modes of stating and explaining the doctrine. Now let them be answered, if they can be. Let them be answered, not by giving up predestination, in the Calvinistic sense, and still professing to hold it – not by attempting to avoid the logical consequences, by giving the system the thousandth explanation, when the nine hundred and ninety-nine already given have made it no plainer, nor evaded at all the just consequences, so often charged upon it; and when these are answered, it will then be time enough to call for new arguments.

Having prepared the way, as I hope, by the preceding numbers, for the proper understanding of the controversy; and having, by the remarks just made, attempted (with what success the reader must judge) to repel the charges of misrepresentation and bearing false witness, made against me, as the author of the sermon which gave rise to the controversy, I am now prepared, in my next number to commence an examination of some of the questions of doctrine, connected with this discussion. In doing which, my object will be, to let “Greek with Greek contend” so far as to show, if possible, the inconsistency of both, and then present the doctrine which we believe to be the true system, and show how it stands untouched by the conflicting elements around it as the immovable foundation of the Church of God. I shall begin with the Divine purposes including foreknowledge; then take up human agency and responsibility; and last, regeneration, connected with the doctrine of human depravity, Divine and human agency, &c. May He that said, “Let light be, and light was,” “shine in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, in the face of Jesus Christ.”