THE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION.
LECTURE FIRST.
ELECTION SHORTLY DEFINED—SHOULD
BE CANDIDLY EXAMINED—INVOLVES REPROBATION—ULTRA-CALVINISTIC THEORY STATED—QUOTATION
FROM JOHN CALVIN—FROM DR. R. CANDLISH-CONSISTENCY OF CANDLISH WITH THE CONFESSION—THIS
THEORY THE SOURCE OF A FALSE AND DANGEROUS PEACE—IT CONTRADICTS AND SUBVERTS THE
GOSPEL—WHAT IS THE GOSPEL?
ROM. viii. 33.—“Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect?”
EPH. ii. 3.—“In times past, . . . . we were by nature the children of
wrath, even as others.”
MARK, xvi. 15.—“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
creature.”
THE two passages of Scripture which have first been read, refer
to the same individuals at different stages of their spiritual history. These individuals
are styled “God’s elect”) and they are referred to very frequently in the Word of
God, more especially in the New Testament writings. The same idea which is couched
under the term “elect,” is more simply expressed by the word “chosen.” Hence we
have the statement made respecting the individuals referred to, that
God the Father “hath chosen” them—a statement which occurs in various passages of
the apostolic epistles. The choice referred to in one and all of the passages of
Scripture in which the term occurs, is the choice of God, and this choice is called
by the name of ELECTION. Election, then, may be shortly
defined, as God’s choice, or selection, of certain individuals of the human family,
to the possession of eternal life. That God does, in point of fact, exercise such
a choice,—that he does make such a selection,—is a plainly revealed, a well accredited
doctrine of Scripture: There never did exist, and there does not at the present
day exist, any difference of sentiment upon this fundamental point, among those
who are agreed in the recognition of the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments,
as the infallible word of the infallible Jehovah. About this, there is no debate
whatever among professing Christians. And it is well that, in the very outset of
our inquiry into this momentous subject, we should be privileged to meet each other
upon common ground, and to give each other the right hand of fellowship, over the
recognition of the blessed Bible as the Word of God, and the farther recognition
of the great fundamental principle, that in the salvation of sinners God does exercise
a free and sovereign choice. Here, then, we are all of one mind, and we may here
most appropriately breathe forth the united and heartfelt prayer, that we may every
one of us be guided in our investigations by the Holy Spirit, so that we may have
grace to act consistently with our common profession. Let the Word
of God be recognised as the sole and exclusive arbiter in every matter of debate.
Let the opinions of wise men and good men, which we shall have occasion freely and
frequently to examine, be brought to the test of Scripture; and by that only infallible
standard of truth, let them be received, or let them be rejected. Let it not be
for one moment imagined, that any mere man is entitled to the credit of infallibility;
and far less let it be supposed that in freely and strongly disapproving of the
sentiments of any man, or any body of men, we are thereby treating them with any
measure of disrespect, or cherishing for our fellow Christians from whom we may
differ in sentiment, any feeling different from that of Christian affection and
esteem. Let it be our aim, my brethren, to carry with us into this investigation
which lies before us, the spirit and the bearing of a free and enlightened Christianity;
and let me express the hope, that you will, one and all of you, candidly and carefully
examine what may be set before you from this place, and compare it with the Word
of God, and receive it, or reject it, as you may be satisfied from examination,
that it agrees with or differs from that infallible record. Finally, here, let me
remind myself, and remind you, of the apostolic and appropriate injunction, “Laying
aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
as new-born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby”
(1 Peter ii. 1, 2).
In examining the doctrine of Election, we shall include, in our
investigation, the kindred doctrine of Reprobation. It is impossible
indeed to look at the one doctrine without at the same time recognising the other.
They are not so much different doctrines as two different aspects of one and the
same truth. The one involves the other by necessity of nature. The idea of choosing
some, implies the idea of rejecting others. And though it be a truth, that some
writers upon the doctrine make an attempt to separate and divide, so as to hold
the doctrine of election without admitting the opposite doctrine of reprobation,
it is most evident that they are here not more opposed to common sense and Scripture
declaration, than they are to John Calvin himself. In the twenty-third chapter of
the third book of his Institutes, Calvin thus expresses himself upon this subject:
“Many indeed, as though they would drive away the malice from God, do so grant election,
that they deny that any man is reprobated; but this they do too ignorantly and childishly:
forasmuch as election itself could not stand unless it were set contrary to reprobation;
therefore whom God passeth over he rejecteth; and for no other cause, but for that
he will exclude them from the inheritance which he doth predestinate to be his children’s.”
Such is the statement of the great founder of the system which goes by his name.
And we do not see how it is possible for any man to admit, that God makes a selection
of some men from the corrupt mass of humanity, without implying by this admission,
that God rejects, by the same act, the rest of mankind, and thereby consigns them
to misery. It is not as if the Deity were possessed of mere finite
intelligence. It is not as if his omniscience could not, and did not, take in at
a single glance, the entire generations of mankind. It is not as if he were in some
danger of overlooking a great proportion of his creatures, so that while he chooses
some, he might possibly pass by the others, without any definite or well-ordered
design. We submit it as an axiom which may not be disputed, that the great God does
nothing ignorantly nor rashly;—that whatever God does in time, he purposed from
eternity to do;—and therefore, while we might say of ignorant and short-sighted
man, that his choice of any given object does not necessarily involve a deliberate
and final rejection of any other object, which may be placed at his disposal, we
cannot hazard such an assertion, respecting the omniscient and all-wise Jehovah.
Short-sighted and fallible mortals may, and do exercise the power of choice in reference
to many things, without any knowledge whatever of, or any mental reference to, other
objects which lie before them. They may, in other words, choose or select, most
ignorantly and most rashly. But this will not be said of God. And therefore it ought
at once to be admitted, that whatever proves and establishes any given theory of
election, necessarily proves and establishes the corresponding theory of reprobation,
so that the one must, according to the statement of Calvin himself, stand or fall
with the other, and so, that unless a man be prepared to face up in the bold defence
of reprobation, he ought to give his theory of election to the winds, and turn it
adrift as a useless thing.
What then are the conflicting theories or doctrines
of election and reprobation which severally claim the reception of men?
There is, in the first place, that theory which affirms that the
whole human race come into existence, some of them necessarily and irreversibly
destined to eternal life—and others of them, necessarily and irreversibly bound
over to eternal punishment, without any reference whatever to their voluntary reception
of salvation on the one hand, or their voluntary rejection of it on the other. Some
infants are born into the world without any possibility of coming short of eternal
felicity. Other infants come into existence without any possibility of escaping
eternal damnation. And so, men and women come into being, and grow up under the
government of God, simply and exclusively to meet their separate and their final
destinies. The elect are born into the world, possessed of all the privileges, and
entitled to all the blessings, of the children of God, seeing that for them only,
the Son of God shed his blood upon the cross. The reprobate come into existence
under the curse, which cannot possibly be removed, and which has not been removed,
seeing that Jesus did not become a curse for them. In reference to the one class,
it may be said that their salvation is unalterably certain, and their perdition
as impossible as it is to pull down Jesus from his mediatorial throne. In reference
to all the rest of the human race, it may be said, that their damnation is certain,
so that it is as sure that they shall perish eternally as that the devils are reserved
in chains against the judgment of the great day.
Such is the commonly received doctrine of election on the one
hand, and of reprobation on the other. This is called the Calvinistic theory, because
its great originator and patron saint is John Calvin of renowned memory; and such
is the doctrine which comes first before us for examination. It goes under the general
name of predestination, and it is briefly stated by Calvin in the following words,
which we quote from section fifth of the twenty-first chapter of the third book
of his Institutes:—
“Predestination we call the eternal decree of God, whereby he
had it determined with himself what he willed to become of every man. For all men
are not created to like estate: but to some eternal life and to some eternal damnation
is fore-appointed.”
We crave your especial attention to the emphatic words, “All men
are not created to like estate,”—implying, as they do imply, the strange idea, that
some are created,—brought into existence,—for the express and definite purpose of
damnation, and for no other end whatever. And lest any one should imagine that these
words, which we have quoted from Calvin’s writings, embody a sentiment which is
now exploded and departed from, permit me here to add a quotation from the celebrated
Dr. Robert Candlish of Edinburgh. I quote from page seventh of the doctor’s book
upon the Atonement,—a book which is universally commended by Calvinistic divines.
Speaking of the work of the Son of God, this writer says—
“In right of his merit, his service, and his sacrifice, all are
given into his hands, and all are his. All, therefore, may be said
to be bought by him, inasmuch as, by his humiliation, obedience, and death, he has
obtained, as by purchase, a right over all—he has got all under his power. But it
is for very different purposes and ends. The reprobate are his to be judged; the
elect are his to be saved. As to the former, it is no ransom, or redemption, fairly
so called. He has won them—bought them, if you will—but it is that he may so dispose
of them, as to glorify the retributive righteousness of God in their condemnation.”
So you will observe that this eminent and influential writer expresses,
most clearly and distinctly, the idea which Calvin brings out in the memorable words
already quoted—“All men are not created to like estate.” They are brought into existence
“for very different purposes and ends.” The tender-hearted mother, as she nurses
the infant at her breast, and meanwhile listens to the innocent prattle of her firstborn
as he gambols playfully by her side, is here taught, that in all likelihood, these
two children have been brought into being for “very different purposes and ends.”
And when she would prayerfully commit them both to Christ, and rejoice in the thought
that the precious blood of the Lamb of God was shed for them, as well as for herself,
she is told that though it be true that Christ “has bought” them both, it may very
possibly be “for very different purposes and ends.” The younger child may, for aught
she knows, belong to Christ, only that Jesus may acquire the right over that inoffensive
babe to condemn it through eternity; while the elder may, by a possibility, be
purchased for a nobler destiny. One thing is certain, that as “all men are not created
to like estate,” and as no atonement has been made for any save the elect, should
these interesting children not chance to be among the chosen number, the mother
must make up her mind to thank God for bringing them into existence, the heirs of
eternal damnation, and handing them over to his Son, not that his Son may die for
their sins, but that he may consign them to a far more aggravated, and still more
tremendous condemnation, than if he never had died at all.
Let no one turn round upon the eminent and distinguished man from
whom I have quoted such sentiments, and impute any measure of blame to him, as if
he were thereby writing inconsistently with the Confession which the people who
support him compel him in honesty to teach. The people of every Calvinistic church,
who do not relish such sentiments, have no right or title whatever to complain of
their clergy for inculcating them. Every man who throws his influence into the scale
of a Calvinistic church, thereby adds his weight and influence in the support and
perpetuation of the doctrine I have now stated, be it right, or be it wrong. And
God forbid that we should quote such sentiments for the purpose of pandering to,
or in any way excusing, the inconsistencies of those who are prepared at once to
start back from such sentiments, and who nevertheless support their ministers, for
the express purpose of teaching them and perpetuating them, in full force, in the
land. The sentiments I have quoted, are the sentiments of an honourable
and upright man, who consistently expresses, in the quotation I have made, the doctrine
of the Confession of Faith, which the people of Scotland, by their adherence to
that Confession, compel their ministers to teach.
That there may exist no mistake upon this subject, let me here
quote from that venerable Confession. The third chapter of that document contains
the following words:—
“(3.) By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory,
some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained
to everlasting death.
“(4.) These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained,
are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite,
that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
“(5.) Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God,
before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable
purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ
unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight
of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in
the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise
of his glorious grace.
“(6.) As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he,
by the eternal and most free purpose of his
I have quoted enough to serve my purpose, in the present discourse.
My design is, to set before your minds a clear and distinct statement of the theory
which we have engaged to examine. I wish you to know what that doctrine really is,
and to satisfy yourselves, not from my statements merely, but from the published
statements of Calvinists themselves, of the real merits of the system which is all
but universally received,—the system in which the children of our native land are
trained up from their infancy, and to oppose or speak against which, is the most
outrageous heresy. Do not forget, then, I pray you, what I have now read from the
Confession of Faith. We are informed, in the passage last quoted, that every soul
of men who is destined to perdition, if God so willed it, might be saved. This is
not a mere inference; it is a direct and explicit assertion, for the passage speaks
of God withholding his grace, whereby the men, who are destined to hell fire, “might
have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their hearts.”
These words are sufficiently plain and definite. The poor men “might have been enlightened”
and “wrought upon”—they might easily have been saved—but they are deprived, by the
God who made them, of the very thing which alone was needful to win them over to
his service, and place them secure in a position of holiness and happiness for ever.
Let this statement of the Confession of Faith be marked down by every man and woman
in this assembly. But there is more than this to mark down and to remember.
We are informed, that God Almighty exerts his power for the purpose of entrapping
the men into positive iniquity. What is it, my friends, that is ascribed to our
God? He is said not only to withhold what would make men saints, “but” (it is expressly
added) “sometimes” he “withdraweth the gifts which they had, and exposeth them to
such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and withal, gives them over
to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan.” This
is what our holy heavenly Father is said to do, in order to insure the fulfilment
of his purposes and decrees. Again we call upon you to mark, that it is not by a
simple negation—a mere refusal to give to the reprobate who perish what it is said
would be enough to save them—it is more than this. It is by an actual, a positive,
a direct act of his omnipotence, that God is represented as insuring the damnation
of his creatures. They had gifts, but these gifts God withdraweth from them, lest
they should happily repent, and before they die, use such gifts for their salvation.
They were not in the way of sinning with a high hand, but we are told, by this most
orthodox Confession, that God takes special care to expose them to such objects
as will infallibly awaken their corruption and insure their fall. And, as if it
were not enough to give them over to their own lusts, and expose them to such worldly
temptations as God knows will infallibly master them, God is exhibited, as handing
them over to the power of Satan, in order to make assurance doubly sure, and thereby
the more readily secure their ultimate perdition.
The statements which have been quoted will suffice as an exhibition
of the doctrine which we are engaged now in examining. Such quotations might easily
be multiplied from the published writings of sound and orthodox Calvinists, some
of which, it many not be unnecessary to refer to in the course of farther examination.
Meanwhile, it is high time for us to pass from the statement of what the doctrine
is, to an examination of the Scriptural grounds upon which we think it ought to
be rejected.
I.—WE OBJECT, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN, TO THIS THEORY OF ELECTION,
BECAUSE IT LEADS UNCONVERTED SINNERS TO SUPPOSE THAT VERY POSSIBLY THEY MAY BE SAFE
ENOUGH EVEN IN THEIR UNBELIEF.
The words which are contained in the first of those two texts,
to which we have referred you in the outset of this discourse, are very plain and
explicit. The challenge is boldly made—“Who shall lay anything to the charge of
God’s elect?” And it is, as if the apostle had said, that it is impossible to lay
anything to their charge. They are justified by God himself, and no being in the
universe of God may venture to condemn them. Such is the entire strain of the apostle’s
unanswerable reasoning in the eighth chapter of the Romans, where the passage referred
to occurs. It is perfectly plain, therefore, at the very first glance of this text,
that the elect of God, whoever they are and wherever they be, are safe. They are
secure as in a munition of adamantine rock. “It is God that
justifieth; who is he that condemneth?” But the other passage, which we have asked
you to turn up in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, states most
plainly, that the elect of God, to whom the apostle wrote, and among whom Paul included
himself, were not always safe. They were not always in a position in which it could
be said of them, “Who can lay anything to their charge?” They were once condemned.
They were once the children of wrath even as others. They were once in precisely
the same position in the sight of God, if not in the sight of men, which is occupied
by every one of the rebellious generations of mankind. There was no difference whatever
between them and the reprobate, and if they had died while they were yet the children
of wrath, they must have endured the wrath of God throughout a long eternity. The
phrase which the apostle uses in reference to himself and others of the elect, as
descriptive of their state previous to their conversion, can scarcely be mistaken,—“The
children of wrath, even as others.” And we appeal to any man, whether this expression
does not bear us out in the assertion, that between the elect and the reprobate
there really existed no difference whatever, up to the moment when the former believed
the gospel, and entered by faith into the full possession of all the privileges
of the children of God. It seems plain, then, that viewing men as unbelievers, they
all stand upon a common level,—they all occupy the same position,—the position of
rebels against God, children of wrath, and heirs of hell.
But the doctrine which we are examining does make
a difference among sinners of the human family, not only before their conversion,
but previous to their existence in the world. That doctrine informs us, that “all
men are not created to like estate.” Some come into the world the elect children
of God, chosen into his family and enrolled among the number of his children, ages
before they came into being. All the rest come into existence “the children of wrath.”
Now if this be really true in reference to the former, the question may be boldly
proposed in reference to them at any stage of their spiritual history, and during
the entire course of their unbelief and rebellion—“Who shall lay anything to their
charge?” The simple question is this—Are they not among the number of God’s elect?
Are they not among the number of those for whom alone (it is affirmed) the Saviour
shed his blood? On this single ground, may the unconverted sinner boldly and presumptuously
take his stand, and fancy himself safe enough in his sins. Here he may, and here,
alas! too many actually do lay themselves quietly down to rest, saying peace, peace,
unto their souls, while God is saying, there is no peace; and here, in point of
fact, are vast multitudes of men and women making shipwreck of their souls, and
rushing heedlessly into an undone eternity.
And here the question meets us: Is not such conduct as this the
result of a most palpable abuse of the doctrine now under examination? If such a
conclusion as that now indicated, were indeed the effect of the abuse and perversion
of the doctrine of the Calvinist, this simple fact would be enough to turn aside
the entire edge of
the argument we are now pursuing. But this is far from being the case. We have been
stating the natural and necessary result, not of the abuse of this doctrine, but
of its use. It needs only to be received into the understanding of any man, and
believed in as a truth, and consistently followed out, and reduced to practice,
in order to leave its votaries at ease in the midst of their unbelief and their
sin. Let any man believe it, and what is his argument? He either is, or he is not,
one of the elect. If he is, he is safe; for who can lay anything to the charge of
God’s elect? If,. on the other hand, he is not one of the elect, he must needs be
among the number of the reprobate, and on this supposition it is vain for him to
perplex himself, for who can venture to reverse or to alter the course of God’s
unalterable decree? Will any man undertake to find a single flaw in reasoning such
as this? It is such reasoning as presents itself to every mind, on the simple announcement
of the doctrine now under examination. It amounts to nothing less than a very plain
and very simple demonstration. It is a conclusion arising most naturally from the
doctrine of which we speak, so that any child can draw it for himself. And so be
it, that a man can be induced to believe that “all men are not created to like estate,”
but come into existence either the heirs of heaven on the one hand, or destined
to endless misery on the other, we do not see that it is possible for the man, consistently
with his belief, to give himself any concern whatever about his soul’s salvation.
That
is a matter settled and arranged, one way or another, long before he came into existence,
and why should he presume to usurp the place of God by intermeddling with his most
wise and irreversible decree?
It is only when you turn your attention to the text which we have
selected from the epistle to the Ephesians, that you will be able to discover wherein
the palpable fallacy of all such reasoning really consists. The fallacy is detected
in the premises, and not in the conclusion which is deduced therefrom. The foundation
is unstable. It is a sandy foundation; and hence the erection which is fairly enough
built upon it, totters and falls before the slightest examination. What are the
premises from which the false conclusion is legitimately drawn—the foundation on
which the tottering fabric is fairly enough built? This is to be seen in the assertion
of John Calvin, that “all men are not created to like estate.” Here lies the fundamental
error,—the error which the Spirit of God emphatically contradicts, when he informs
us that even the elect, before they believe the gospel, are ranged among the children
of wrath, even as others. So, then, it is most evident that they are not the elect
children of God before they believe. They are the children of wrath, and that is,
in other words, asserting that they are not the children of God. They cannot be
called the children of God and the children of the devil at one and the same moment
of time. They cannot, at one and the same moment, have it truly affirmed concerning
them, that they “are condemned
already, because they believe not,” and yet that “none can lay anything to their
charge,” because they are God’s elected and justified children. The plain and unvarnished
truth must come out, and stand forth in broad and palpable opposition to the assertion
of Calvin,—the assertion which forms the corner-stone of the entire system which.
goes by his name. It must be admitted that all men are born to like estate. They
are every one of them by nature the children of wrath. Jew and Gentile alike, are
every soul of them concluded under sin and unbelief, and consequent condemnation.
In their natural condition, and in their state of unbelief, there is not one elect
child of God among them all. In this state, there is no justification to any one
soul among them. There is laid, and laid justly, to their charge, the most tremendous
crime that can possibly be laid to the charge of any creature. They are not only
standing out rebels against God, but they are making God a liar, so long as they
believe not the record which God hath given of his Son. (1st
John v. 10, 11.)
Such is the estate—the condition, in which all men are, without
exception, placed, before they are actually converted to God. Considering them,
then, in this condition, what is the estate to which they are every moment exposed?
They are the children of wrath, and in this state they are every hour exposed to
the wrath of God and the pains of hell for ever. There is but a step between them
and death. The brittle thread of life, and that alone, suspends every soul of
them over the pit of endless perdition. In this position it is worse than idle—it
is false, utterly false, to say that any single sinner differs from any other sinner
of the human race, by being embraced in an absolute or unconditional decree, which
insures one unbeliever pf heaven, while it destines another unbeliever to hell as
his sure and irreversible destiny. Let the words of the Son of God be yet once more
sounded in the ears of every unbelieving sinner—“HE THAT BELIEVETH
NOT IS CONDEMNED ALREADY.” And before these words let the theory perish for
ever, which would lead any man to suppose, that there are some
UNBELIEVERS against whom no charge can be justly laid, because they happen
to be included among God’s elect.
II.—WE OBJECT TO THAT THEORY OF ELECTION NOW UNDER EXAMINATION,
BECAUSE, IN THE SECOND PLACE, IT FLATLY CONTRADICTS THE SCRIPTURE DECLARATION THAT
THERE IS IN THE GOSPEL A MESSAGE OF SALVATION TO EVERY CREATURE.
It will surely be admitted that the message of the gospel is addressed
to all men on the face of the earth. There is no distinction—no exception here:
“Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” “Behold, I
bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.” These, and such
like statements, with which the Word of God abounds, are sufficiently plain and
intelligible even to the simplest understanding. By them, the banner of peace
is held out to all men. In them, the Holy Spirit is heard addressing the word of
salvation to all. And what are these, in point of fact, but the precise tidings
referred to so distinctly and so eloquently in the apocalyptic vision, where was
seen “another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel
to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and
tongue, and people”? And now, my brethren, will you permit me here to pause in order
to ask you one single question, which you are by this time quite prepared to appreciate—What
are the good tidings of great joy which the ministers of the gospel have to preach
to the reprobate, if the system of Calvinism be true? This is the simple question,
which I beg most earnestly to press upon your attention. Does the system now under
examination admit of any good tidings whatever to those of the human family whom,
it is said, God has determined beforehand eternally to condemn? It is either true,
or it is not true, that all men are not created to the like estate, but that to
some eternal life, and to others eternal death, is foreappointed by the immutable
fiat of the Almighty. If this be true, then let the truth be told, and let it be
honestly announced to men, that there is no gospel—no good tidings of great joy—to
be preached to any, save only to the elect. If this be true, what is the real state
of matters in reference to the great proportion of mankind who do not happen to
be elected? God has been pleased to pass them by, and to include them in his reprobating
decree, and to
bring them into existence for purposes and ends very different (to use the words
of Dr. Candlish) from those for which he has created others, inasmuch as he has
sold them to his son, in order that his Son may get possession of them, soul and
body, for eternal damnation. I wonder not, my friends, that a thrill of horror should
pass through your spirits at the bare and simple repetition of that which we are
called upon to receive as the truth of God. It is said to be truth; and the question
is, whether it be good tidings of great joy. Does it not, on the contrary, exclude
the possibility of any good news from God to those who are not elected? It is not
like the law, which, though it be not the gospel, is useful as a schoolmaster to
lead sinners to Christ, by showing them their need of a Saviour. It is a schoolmaster
this, which drives men away from Christ, assuring them, as it does, that there is
no atonement for them in his death, but that he has bought them for no other purpose
or end, than to exercise his power in tormenting them throughout eternity, unless
they are among the number of the elect. But you tell me, that this is not the way
in which Calvinistic preachers speak unto sinners; they preach freely and fully,
and they assure all men that, whether they be elected or not, they are among those
to whom the gospel comes, and to whom its overtures are most earnestly and sincerely
made. But what is the sum and substance of all such preaching? What is this but
a weekly condemnation of the doctrine which we are now examining—a weekly exposure
of it as a forgery and a lie?
It is not possible for any man to announce, in a single sentence,
a more palpable contradiction than what is embodied in the twofold announcement—that
there is an offer of salvation honestly made to all the reprobated sons of men,
and that God sincerely wills them to be saved, while it is at the same time true
that God has created them for the single purpose of damnation, so that they must
reverse the purpose, and annihilate the decree of God, before they can be saved.
I fearlessly put to you all, whether there be not in such a statement a flat and
palpable contradiction. What would you say to the man who should style himself a
father, and protest over the dead body of his murdered child, that he desired not
and willed not that it should die—and who should, at the same instant, point you
to the cup of sweetened poison which he had put in its way, so that the little one
might be exposed to a temptation which its corruption was not likely to resist,
and which the unnatural wretch knew his child would infallibly partake of, and drinking
of which it sickened and died? And what will you say of the system which teaches
you and your children to believe, that the God of heaven has made a decree from
eternity to destroy many of you, and, in order to carry out his purpose, keeps back
and withholds what he knows would save you, and farther, exposes you to such objects
as he knows will ruin you, and finally gives you over to the power of the devil?—what
do you think of the system which insists upon you swallowing all this as truth,
and at the same time turns round upon you with a smile and
assures you, that there is a sincere offer of salvation to you in the gospel, and
that God does sincerely desire you to be saved? Are we uncharitable when we say,
that all this is a mere mockery of human wretchedness? Is it wonderful that the
men who tell you all this, should at the same time assure you, that you cannot believe
it? The wonder would be if men could believe an announcement which is self-contradictory
and absurd; and the most marvellous thing of all is, that men of common sense should
not only tolerate, but applaud and support and encourage, by their influence and
example, so glaring and so monstrous a mockery of all that is sacred and precious
to souls passing onwards to the judgment-seat of God.
But we are told, in reply to all this, that, in the first place,
men have nothing to do with election in preaching the gospel to sinners; and, in
the second place, that those to whom the gospel comes are not supposed to know whether
they are among the elect or among the reprobate. I crave your attention, very briefly,
to this specious reply. It is said that they to whom the gospel is preached have
nothing to do with the doctrine now under examination. I ask, Why then insist upon
men receiving it? If sinners have nothing to do with it, why place it in the forefront
of your creed, and compel your very children to imbibe it as with their mother’s
milk? But if it be true, it is not right to say that men have nothing to do with
it; for if it be true, it manifests to all men the startling fact, that there is
no gospel at all to any save the elect; and if
there be no gospel to any save the elect, then there should be no preaching to any
except the elect, and it would ultimately come to this, that there would be no congregations
and no preachers at all. In this way, “this our craft is in danger to be set at
nought,” and hence it is necessary and expedient to say to men, that the doctrine
of election is a mystery with which they have nothing whatever to do!
And it does not make matters any better to affirm, in the second
place, that men cannot say whether they are among the elect or among the reprobate.
This state of ignorance does not alter the fact, that, according to this doctrine,
there are no good news whatever to those who are not elected. The fact still stands
out, that there is no gospel to preach to the reprobate. But while the ignorance
of men does not, and cannot, alter this fact, it renders the preaching of the gospel
a dead letter even to the elect. For, with the idea in your minds that there are
many, for example, in this present audience, who cannot possibly be saved, because
Jesus did not make atonement for you all,—and God, for anything you know, has included
many of you in the decree of condemnation, and brought many of you into existence
for the express purpose of damnation,—with this idea in your minds, and without
any means of ascertaining who the persons are who are thus excluded from the very
possibility of salvation, every soul of you must either leave this house careless
about the matter, or go away anxiously inquiring—“Is it I?—Is it I?”
In this case, your very ignorance as to whether you are among
the elect or the reprobate, must needs prevent even the elect among you from ascertaining
and believing that there is really good news this evening announced to you. And
hence, alas! it has come to this pass, that under the direful influence of the doctrine
we have been examining, it has become a mere matter of course for whole congregations
to come and go, week after week and year after year, without any personal appreciation
of the great salvation on the one hand, or any anxious inquiry after it on the other.
But whenever any season of refreshing does arrive, and the gospel is preached and
received with power from on high, sinners are called upon to cast away from their
minds the ideas of election which we have been looking at—to treat them as if they
had no existence—and simply to believe, each man for himself and each woman for
herself, the message of the gospel, as addressed personally to each. All this is
a good confession of the truth of what we now assert, when we ask you to reject
the doctrine of Calvin and the Confession for this reason, that it most glaringly
contradicts the Bible, wherein we are assured that there is a gospel—a true gospel—glad
tidings, indeed, to every soul of man, which we are privileged and commanded to
preach unto you.
What then shall we say to you, in conclusion, but call upon you
to receive, without one moment’s delay, what the Holy Ghost, speaking through his
servant Jude, graciously styles “THE COMMON SALVATION.”
There is no restriction expressed in the Word of God, and most assuredly there is
no restriction implied. The God with whom we have to do is not, like the dark genius
of Calvinism, a deceitful and a deceiving spirit. He is a God of truth, and without
iniquity; just and right is he. He is not only the just God, but also the Saviour;
and in this precise character has he revealed himself unto the guilty sons of men.
“Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth, for I am God, and besides
me there is none else.” (Isaiah xlv. 21, 22.) There is assuredly
a gospel for you all, and this is only another mode of assuring you, that no frowning
decree intercepts between any of you and salvation.
The glorious gospel which we announce to you, does not indeed
say to you that you are pardoned and saved, but it comes with such a message as
this to no single individual on the face of the earth. It does not tell any man
that he is already pardoned and saved. It proceeds upon an assumption the very reverse
of all this. It assumes truly that the sinners to whom it comes, are already condemned
and ruined; and assuredly there is nothing indicated thereby, which is either fitted
or intended to leave any soul among you all, even for a single moment, at peace
in your sins; but you are thereby assured, that now your sins form no reason why
any sinner among you should, even for a single moment, remain without peace with
your God. “Behold the Lamb of God.” “Behold the Lamb of God bearing away the sin
of the world.” (John i.
29, 36.) “He is the propitiation for our sins, and not
-for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1
John ii. 2.) This is the gospel message to every creature, and it forms
the sum and substance of the gospel message to you.
That such is the gospel message, addressed by the Holy Spirit
to condemned and ruined sinners, and to every sinner condemned and ruined on the
face of the earth, is abundantly manifest from the Word of God. Take one single
example from among the multitude of instances which the Bible contains. It is written
in
1 Cor. xv. 1-4: “Moreover, brethren,
I declare unto you THE GOSPEL which I preached unto you,
which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; by which also ye are saved, if
ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain: for
I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that
CHRIST DIED FOR OUR SINS according to the Scriptures; and
that HE WAS BURIED, AND THAT HE ROSE AGAIN the third day
according to the Scriptures.” Here, then, we have the testimony of Inspiration upon
this most momentous of all questions. Here we are informed, by the inspired apostle
himself, what he preached to the heathen Corinthians—“first of all,” before they
believed—when first he made his appearance among them as an ambassador of Christ.
It was not that Christ died for the sins of the elect, or for the sins of believers
only. This would have been sad news indeed to those poor heathens who were at the
time unsaved—who were at the time unbelievers—and who
must have concluded infallibly, from such a message, that seeing they were unbelievers,
Christ did not shed his blood for them. If Jesus died for believers only, and if
this was the gospel which Paul preached unto a company of heathen unbelievers, when
first of all he went among them, you will see at once, that such a gospel as this
was anything but good news TO THEM. It was tantamount to
a message of exclusion to every unbeliever in whose hearing it was announced—exclusion
from the very possibility of salvation; for if Jesus did not die for their sins,
how could any soul among them possibly be saved? They were unbelievers—and to say
to them first of all, that Christ died for believers, was just to announce the very
reverse of gospel-it was just to assure them that for their sins no atonement had
been made, and consequently that for them there existed no possibility of escape
from the wrath to come. To tell a company of unbelievers that Christ died for believers,
is assuredly the most effectual of all possible devices whereby the poor souls may
be shut up in their unbelief—shut out from the very possibility of believing. It
is just another mode of saying to them—“Christ DID NOT die
for you.” But this is “ANOTHER GOSPEL.” This is not the
gospel which Paul declares he was privileged and commanded to preach. His first
message to those heathen men and heathen women was—“Christ died for our sins, and
was buried, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.” This was
the gospel which he preached. This was the gospel which they received
after it was first of all preached unto them, and by the faith of which they were
saved. “Christ died for our sins,” said the inspired preacher, and by this saying
he assured every one of those to whom he spoke, that the blood of the Son of God
was shed for their sins as well as for the sins qf the man who addressed them. There
was SOMETHING here for every one of them to believe, and
that something was—“the gospel”—“good tidings of great joy” to every sinner among
them. Christ died for you and also for me. “The Son of God loved me, and gave himself
for me;” but his love encircled you as well as me, and he died for your sins as
well as for mine. He died for the sins of every one of us. “He died
FOR OUR SINS, according to the Scriptures,” and his death
has been accepted and acknowledged by God as a complete satisfaction for all our
guilt. In testimony of this, God has raised him from the grave, for “he was buried,
and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.” Do you not behold here,
my fellow-sinners, something very different from that undefined and indefinable
system of mysticism and delusion under which the souls of our countrymen have been
bound down and shackled, and before which, thousands and tens of thousands are daily
and hourly perishing? Do you not apprehend, in this inspired narrative of what the
gospel message is, something very plain and very simple and very cheering for you
and me to believe? It is not that Jesus, when he died, did everything for the elect
and nothing at all for the reprobate—everything for
believers and nothing at all for unbelievers—everything for some favoured individuals
and perhaps nothing for you. That is not what you are called upon to believe, for
all that is a delusion and a lie. Neither is it, that there is in the death of Christ
a “special and exclusive reference” to the elect, and a more “general reference”
to the world. This is only another and more specious aspect of the same delusion,
whereby the credit of a tottering system of theology is sought to be upheld at the
expense of the souls of men. This is that delusion whereby men are instructed to
admit, that Jesus died for all, and therefore for each, while a bare
PERADVENTURE is left behind and beneath this gospel-like
admission, and whereby no man is informed whether the Son of God, by his death upon
the cross, made a true and proper satisfaction for his sins. In the face of this
device, whereby every sinner is taught that, in a certain sense, Jesus died
for all, and therefore for him, the man is still left to doubt and hesitate and
conjecture and inquire whether he be among the number of those who are “specially
interested” in the death of the Son of God. You are not, therefore, called upon
by God to believe that Jesus did something for the world and another thing for the
elect when he shed his blood upon the cross. This general and special-reference
device is really a far more dangerous, because a far more subtle delusion, than
is the barefaced falsehood against which we have already guarded you. The truth
of the gospel is, that Jesus died EQUALLY for all men. He
satisfied God for the sins of every man as
truly and properly as for the sins of any man. His love was equal love to all. His
death was a complete and perfect satisfaction to the law and justice of God for
the sins of all men, without distinction and without exception. Rejoice, O sinner,
in the gladsome intelligence, that NOTHING WHATEVER EXCLUSIVE OF
YOU was done upon the cross when the Saviour of the world exclaimed, “IT
IS FINISHED, and bowed his head and gave up the ghost!” The non-elect as
well as the elect-unbelievers as well as believers—have an equal interest in the
great propitiation. Does this announcement startle you?—does it dispose you to inquire,
“Has Jesus shed his blood in vain”?—or, does it incline you to rush on to the conclusion
that, on this supposition, all men must needs be pardoned and justified and redeemed
and saved? Be pleased, then, to mark well the error which lies at the foundation
of this very prevalent misconception. The error lies in confounding the atonement
of the Son of God with its saving and sanctifying results. The atonement is one
thing—the result of the atonement is another and a different thing altogether. When
the Saviour shed his blood upon the cross, the work of atonement was finished—ample
satisfaction was there and then made for the sins of every sinner in whose room
and stead the Saviour died—but it is a mistake to imagine that there and then every
sinner for whom the Saviour died was actually pardoned and justified and redeemed
and sanctified and saved. The death of the Son of God ought not thus to be confounded
with its multiform and
glorious results. This death was the propitiation or atonement for sin. But the
atonement is not pardon nor justification nor redemption nor sanctification nor
complete and ultimate salvation. The atonement, or the death of Christ, forms
THE GROUND of pardon and justification and redemption, and
all the kindred blessings enjoyed by believers; but every man can easily distinguish
between the ground upon which any blessing is bestowed and the blessing itself,
even as it is no difficult task for any one of you to see the distinction between
the foundation and the building which is thereon erected. No man doubts that Jesus,
by his death, made atonement, for example, for the sins of Saul of Tarsus, but few
men will affirm, in so many words, that Saul of Tarsus was justified and sanctified
and saved when the Saviour died.
It is remarkable that even Dr. A. MARSHALL,
of Kirkintilloch, should affirm the death of Christ to be, in itself, “THE
REDEMPTION of his people.” But here lies the fundamental error of the Calvinistic
system.
But all that Jesus did and suffered—all that Jesus by his death actually accomplished
for Saul of Tarsus, was completely finished upon the cross. The matter of fact is
therefore easily enough ascertained. The man of whom we speak was neither justified
nor sanctified till, on his road to Damascus, he was graciously brought to believe
in Him whom he had, up till that moment, so madly persecuted. This simple statement
involves no difficult or thorny controversy. It is a statement of a fact, which
the plainest mind can easily substantiate. The man was condemned
UNTIL he believed. But Jesus died for his sins
BEFORE he believed. The atonement was finished for him;
but still, in the face of that atonement, he was for many a long year and day under
condemnation,—a child of wrath, even as others. Although his sins were atoned for
by the death of Christ, Saul of Tarsus remained unjustified, unsanctified, unsaved.
It is surely evident, from this simple fact, that there is a mighty difference between
the atonement and justification, or sanctification, or redemption. But if the death
of Christ had indeed been the justification of his people—or if it had been the
sanctification of his people—or, yet once more, if this death had in itself been
the redemption of his people—it would have followed from all this, that Saul of
Tarsus would have been justified and sanctified and redeemed from the moment that
Jesus expired upon the cross. He would have been justified and sanctified and redeemed
at the very time when he himself informs us that he was a child of wrath and an
heir of hell. And so there would have been no need of the Holy Spirit to lead him
to believe, and there would be no need of faith as the instrumental cause of justification
or sanctification or redemption in the case of any sinner for whom the Saviour died.
It is most evident, from such considerations as these, that Christ did not intend,
by the act of dying alone, to justify or sanctify or redeem one single sinner for
whom he died. But he did all that he intended to do. He did not die in vain. He
finished the work given him to do. He made an atonement for sin, and thereby he
opened up
the way through which any, and every sinner, might be pardoned, justified, sanctified,
redeemed, and glorified through the faith of the truth. It is for this reason that
every blessing is traced to the death of Jesus, as when it is said, for example,
in Rom. v. 9, that we are “JUSTIFIED BY HIS
BLOOD.” This statement does not contradict the statement in the first verse
of the same chapter, wherein we are said to be “JUSTIFIED BY FAITH,”
and we are not to infer therefrom that the shedding of the blood of Jesus was the
actual justification of his people, or that any man among them is actually justified
before he believes the gospel. And so for the same reason Christ is said by his
death to have redeemed us from the curse of the law, not as if any man is actually
redeemed from the curse any more than he is actually justified while he remains
in unbelief, but that the ground, the all-sufficient ground, the only meritorious
and God-glorifying and law-magnifying ground of our redemption has been laid in
the obedience unto the death of the Son of God. What then does the Holy Spirit do
when he would impart saving faith to you, by holding up before you the death of
Jesus as the propitiation for your sins? Does he ask you to believe that you are
pardoned already, or that you are already justified? His testimony to you implies
the very reverse. You stand out condemned and lost—on the very brink of eternal
destruction. This is the faithful testimony of Him who earnestly desires you to
flee from the wrath to come. But this is only one-half of his testimony. He tells
you that the great atoning sacrifice, on the ground of which you may, this very
hour, be pardoned and justified and saved, was eighteen hundred years ago offered
up for your sins, and not only offered up, but accepted by God himself as a complete
answer for every one of your transgressions. He points you to God, not relentless
but propitiated, and ready freely to justify you for the sake of what his dear Son
did and suffered in your room and stead. Think, then, my unconverted hearers, of
the awful position which YOU DO OCCUPY. You are on the brink
of hell every moment you remain without a personal appreciation of the Saviour as
all your own. Think again of the position YOU MAY occupy,
even in the twinkling of an eye. There is not one hair’s-breadth between any of
you and salvation. The Son of God has shed his blood for your every sin, and it
needs but THE TURNING OF YOUR MIND—the turning of your mind,
which, like the lightning’s rapid glance, can speed in an instant from hell to heaven,—to
flee from impending wrath, and hide your guilty souls under the covert of your Saviour’s
righteousness. “Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted
out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.” How
long will any of you remain careless and at your ease, as if the thunderbolt of
impending wrath were not hanging over your faithless and Saviour-despising souls!
How long will others of you labour in vain, to justify yourselves in the sight of
your God by your unbelieving efforts, as if an ample ground for your immediate pardon
and justification had not been already furnished by the death of Jesus! To remain
in your present state of mind is to lull yourselves to repose on the brink of a
tremendous precipice, over which, if once you fall, you shall rise no more for ever.
To summon up your most serious and devoted efforts to extricate your souls from
the position which you occupy, is but to insure your destruction. Your safety lies
not in remaining where you are, and far less does it lie in summoning up your energies
to move. You are stretched upon the very brink of destruction, and the arm of Another
alone can save you. Already, O sinner, is that arm outstretched. It is the right
arm of Him who is “MIGHTY TO SAVE.” Why, then, should you
hesitate to trust implicitly in your Saviour’s love, or question for a moment the
perfection or the efficacy of his finished atonement? Why should you, on the one
hand, endeavour to lull your souls into a fatal repose, by greedily imbibing a false
and delusive opiate; or vainly struggle, on the other hand, to move from your present
perilous position, by summoning yourselves to some effort of your own? Why not at
once awake, and open your eyes to a full perception of the awful position in which
you are actually remaining, and, at the same time, behold the gracious Saviour who
has stretched out his arm to save you, and forthwith intrust your souls implicitly
to his hand? I have spoken to you of an opiate, the tendency whereof is only to
lull your spirits into a dangerous repose. That opiate is neither more nor less
than the fatal error which I have
been endeavouring to expose. Let any man imagine that when the Saviour died, he
actually pardoned, justified, or redeemed all for whom he shed his blood, and his
every effort will be to get himself to believe that he is already pardoned, justified,
and redeemed, unless, indeed, he can succeed in banishing the subject entirely from
his mind. I have also spoken to you of an effort to move the soul from the perilous
position in which every unbeliever is placed—an effort which, if successful, is
successful only for destruction. That effort is also the result of fundamental error
on the nature of the atonement. Let any man imagine that, though Jesus died for
his sins, he nevertheless left the man something or other himself to do, before
he can consistently be pardoned or justified or saved, and he will assuredly be
induced to pray in unbelief, or to labour in unbelief, or to wait on in unbelief,
most earnestly desiring to perceive some tokens for THE BETTER
within his soul or about his life, before he will. venture to trust for eternity
in the glorious efficacy of the great propitiation. On either supposition the soul
is lost—lost for ever, solely as the result of culpably misunderstanding the gospel
and “neglecting the great salvation.” There exists but one only safeguard against
such prevalent, and all but universal delusion. That safeguard is to be discovered
in the Word of God alone, as opposed to the erroneous systems of fallible men. In
that only infallible record, every soul of man is faithfully warned of the awful
position in which he is positively placed up to the moment of conversion. And in
that
blessed Bible every sinner of the human race is earnestly and compassionately directed
at once to the converting truth. This is all expressed in the simple announcement,
“Christ died for our sins, and was buried, and rose again the third day.” The moment
any sinner apprehends the true meaning of this one truthful and glorious announcement,
in its gracious bearing towards his guilty and condemned and ruined soul, that moment
is he saved. Yet once more then do we urge, and entreat, and implore you to “Behold
the Lamb of God.” He has taken away the sin of the world, and assuredly, my dear
friends, your sins have not been left behind, as an insuperable barrier to your
immediate escape. They are every one of them away—for ever away. They formed part
and parcel of that tremendous burden, which pressed down the Lord of Glory to the
dust of death. For all our sins, and for the sins of all amongst us, did the Saviour
die, according to the Scriptures. But he is no longer in the grave: “He is risen
as he said.” He rose again on the morning of the third day, according to the Scriptures;
but when he rose again, O sinner, thy sins did not rise along with him, to scare
thee, even for an instant, from the bosom of thy God. O no! Blessed—for ever blessed
be his gracious and glorious name, that bosom of infinite compassion, even while
I speak, upheaves with tender emotion, and swells well-nigh to bursting, in the
full view of thy wretchedness and thy danger. The heart of thy God is filled width
earnest and sincere longings after thy immediate salvation. Can it be, O sinner,
that in the full
view of all this, you yourself have no pity upon your own immortal soul? Or can
it be that, in the view of all this, you will still hesitate, and doubt, and suspect
your Saviour’s love, as if he were frowning you away from him even now, and commanding
you with a stern voice to make yourself somewhat more comely, before he can receive
you? You would “wait till you are better!” You would be somewhat more righteous,
at least in thine own eyes, and then you will venture to assure yourself of acceptance.
And thus it is, vain man, that thou answerest thy Saviour’s tender entreaty; and
thus it is that thou dost venture to give the lie to his gracious declaration, wherein
he says, “I came not to call the RIGHTEOUS, but
SINNERS, to repentance.” But thus it is, that you are up
to this very hour afraid to meet thy God, because, in point of fact, thy sinful,
unbelieving, doubting soul is unprepared to face him at the bar of judgment. Well
mayest thou tremble at the thought of death, judgment, and eternity, seeing that
thou wilt not tremble at the thought of casting behind thee this thy day of gracious,
merciful visitation; trampling under foot thy Saviour’s blood; wasting thy hour
of grace in thoughtless carelessness, or laborious self-righteousness, or damning
doubts. Would to God, sinner, that those salutary fears of thine would rise into
a hurricane of anxiety and alarm, and, ere it be too late, shiver into atoms that
false refuge under which you actually manage to lull your soul to temporary repose.
Would to God that you were driven from every lying refuge, under which
thousands of sober, serious professors are saying, “Peace, peace,” and were led
to betake thyself at once to the only refuge which can shield thee from the coming
storm, the only covert which can shelter thee from the approaching tempest. Abandon,
then, we earnestly beseech you, the false and unscriptural theology—the thing which
men call gospel—all of which any man may believe, and yet have no solid peace in
the prospect of meeting God,—all of which a man may believe, and yet doubt his soul’s
salvation,—all of which a man may believe, and yet remain unsaved. Bring this soul-destroying
delusion to the touchstone of the Bible. Compare it with the glorious gospel which
Paul preached, and behold the contrast!
“O! how unlike the complex works of man,
Heaven’s easy, artless, unencumber’d plan;
No meretricious graces to beguile,
No clustering ornaments to clog the pile;
From ostentation as from weakness free,
It stands, like the cerulean arch we see,
Majestic in its own simplicity.
Inscribed above the portal from afar,
Conspicuous as the brightness of a star,
Legible only by the light they give,
Stand the soul-quickening words—BELIEVE AND LIVE.”
LECTURE SECOND.
THE CALVINIAN DOCTRINE
OPPOSED TO REASON—SUBVERSIVE OF FREE GRACE IN THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE BELIEVER—QUOTATION
FROM DR. PAYNE AND ANDREW FULLER—CALVINISM ALLIED TO SOCINIANISM—CONCLUDING REMARKS.
EPHES. ii.
5:—“By grace ye are saved.”
BEFORE resuming our consideration of the doctrine of election,
as that doctrine is exhibited in Calvinistic creeds, we would here solicit your
attention to a very plain and a very important distinction. We refer to the distinction
which obtains between what is above reason, and what is contrary to reason. There
is very much connected with almost every subject of human investigation, which is
admittedly beyond the reach of human reason. There are heights which the human imagination
in its loftiest soarings cannot reach; there are depths which the soundings of the
human intellect cannot fathom; there is a length and a breadth across which the
mind of man has never dared to travel—a boundless region, in the immensity which
stretches out before the research of the human soul,
which it is impossible for man in the present stage of his existence to examine
and explore. It is plain, therefore, that “here we see through a glass darkly,”
and “know only in part,” so that there are many things we cannot fully understand,
which it is our duty nevertheless to believe on the simple authority of God. We
may specify, by way of example, the doctrine of the trinity in unity—three persons
and yet one God—a plain and manifest truth revealed by God for the belief of man.
This is an example of a doctrine which is above reason, but which, when properly
explained as it is announced in the Scriptures, is in no way contrary to reason.
It involves no contradiction. It lands us in no glaring or palpable absurdity. The
reception of it as a truth, forces us to contradict and explain away not one solitary
declaration contained within the ample range of the revealed word. Thus it is with
many doctrines which we receive without any hesitation. For reason herself chimes
in here with the voice of revelation, and it is fully consistent with the dictates
of the soundest philosophy, to receive with the docility of a little child whatever
is contained in the Word of God, even though the doctrine should be to us enshrouded
in a cloud of mystery. The clearly ascertained and well accredited statements of
the Word of God are to be received without any debate, as so many facts; And the
soundest philosophy and the strongest common sense demand, in behalf of a clearly
ascertained fact, the profoundest homage of the soul. A well accredited fact instantly
takes the place of an axiom, to dispute
which, or to argue inconsistently with which, is to be guilty of a most flagrant
sin against the highest reason, and to subvert the foundations of truth. It matters
not whether a man can account for it or not,—if it be a thing which is ascertained
to be a fact, it must be received. It matters not whether we can explain it or not—there
it is, standing out before our eyes an undisputed fact, and by that every theory
must be tested, and stand or fall as it agrees with, or differs from, what is thus
ascertained to be verily true.
We ought therefore every one of us to understand, that if the
theory now under examination were merely above reason, this would not form of itself
any just ground for its rejection. If it were a doctrine admittedly and indisputably
revealed in the Word of God, that simple circumstance would be itself sufficient
to demand and to secure its immediate reception by every man amongst us, however
strange or mysterious the doctrine might appear, In this case all that could be
said of it would be, that it is above reason, but that would really be saying nothing
whatever which would prejudice a single reasonable man against its reception as
a doctrine from God, and according to godliness.
The case would be entirely altered if it could be affirmed of
any doctrine, that it is contrary to reason. Such, for example, is the Popish doctrine
of transubstantiation. It is contrary to reason to dispute the evidence of our senses,
and when the Papist informs us that the bread and the wine at the Supper of the
Lord are not bread and wine, but form part and parcel
of the real body and blood of Christ, it would be absurd to believe it, because
our senses inform us of the very reverse. Now, it is no less contrary to reason
to admit any theory to be true, which plainly contradicts some of the most obvious
truths which the Word of God contains. As we have already noticed, whatever is plainly
revealed in the Bible must be received as truth; and should any doctrine be brought
before us which is manifestly inconsistent with anything which is thus plainly revealed,
that doctrine would thereby stand out detected and exposed as an imposition and
a falsehood.
It will be readily admitted by you all, that the Bible is not,
and cannot be, in one single item really and truly inconsistent with itself. To
suppose the reverse of this—to suppose that in any one point there exists any contradiction
or inconsistency in the Scriptures, amounts to nothing less than a rejection of
them, as the infallible record of the infallible God. But you will remember that,
in the outset of this investigation, we stated it distinctly as one of those principles
which we take to be admitted on all hands, that the Bible is indeed the book of
God. We are not now engaged in a discussion with men who deny this fundamental point.
And admitting, as we presume you all do, that this blessed volume is indeed a message
from God to man, we now solemnly and affectionately call upon you to act reasonably
and consistently with this admission, and to reject, without any hesitation, whatever
doctrine is seen by you to be evidently opposed to some of the most obvious statements
of divine revelation.
You will require to keep steadily before your minds what the doctrine
is, which we are engaged in examining. As that doctrine is briefly stated by its
founder, John Calvin, himself, it asserts that “all men are not created to like
estate”—some of the human race, according to this brief and emphatic statement,
coming into existence elect infants, unconditionally and irreversibly destined to
eternal happiness; all the rest of mankind coming into existence, unconditionally
doomed to everlasting damnation. The former class are accordingly represented as
being exclusively interested in the death of the Son of God, viewing that sacrifice
as a propitiation or atonement for sin. All the rest of mankind, excepting the elect,
having no interest whatever in the atonement or death of Christ, are said by this
theology to belong to Christ for no other end or purpose than that he may exercise
his power in consigning them to damnation. You will remember that we have been careful
not to misstate or to exaggerate the doctrine which we have engaged to examine,
and therefore we have quoted at some length the very words of the most respectable
and distinguished of its supporters, not forgetting to set before you the words
of the Confession of Faith, wherein it is found. The words of the most eminent man,
perhaps, among the modern advocates of the doctrine, are no less clear and decisive
than those of Calvin himself; Dr. Candlish having very lately published the statement,
that the reprobate belong to Christ to be judged or condemned, while the elect are
his to be saved. The language of this
modern Calvinist is, as we have seen at length in the former lecture, very emphatic
upon the point. He speaks of the death of Christ, and he declares it to be no atonement,
no ransom properly so called for the great majority of mankind, viz., the reprobate.
The words of Dr. Candlish, as you will remember, are the following, in reference
to all men, women, and children excepting the elect:—“He [Christ] has won them—bought
them, if you will—but it is that he may so dispose of them as to glorify the retributive
righteousness of God in their condemnation.”
So far then as our argument has been laid before you for consideration,
we have endeavoured to prove that this doctrine is diametrically opposed to two
of the plainest principles of God’s most holy Word.
It is perfectly plain, from the whole tenor of the Word of God,
that no man is safe for one moment while he remains in unbelief. This we affirm
to be one of the most obvious of all the principles or truths exhibited in the Bible.
And inasmuch as the doctrine of election exhibited by Calvin, Candlish, and the
Confession seems to be directly opposed to this plainly revealed principle of God’s
Word, we have spoken of it as not only false, but ruinous and destructive to the
souls of men.
It is still farther evident from the Word of God, that the gospel
contains good tidings of great joy to every creature, so that there does not now
exist, and there never did exist, and there never can exist, one single sinner on
the face of the earth to whom a message of salvation is not therein exhibited. But
the doctrine
of Calvin directly contradicts this plain and obvious fact, and is once more proved
to be unscriptural and false.
III. THE THIRD OBJECTION WHICH I NOW STATE TO THIS DOCTRINE
IS, THAT IT IS SUBVERSIVE OF THE BIBLE PRINCIPLE OF SALVATION BY FREE GRACE.
If there be one truth more plainly revealed in the Word of God
than another, it is the principle of grace—free grace, in the salvation of all who
believe. “By grace ye are saved.” The assertion of this great truth constituted
the sum and substance of apostolic preaching. This was the alpha and the omega,
the beginning and the ending of all their sermons. This was the great and glorious
announcement around which all their arguments and persuasions revolved, as round
a centre of light and love. This was the burden of all their inspired epistles to
the various churches over which they sedulously and carefully watched, even as they
who were to give an account. “By grace ye are saved, through faith; and that not
of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast.”
This was the truth in which they gloried, and for any man to subvert, or even to
depreciate the great doctrine of salvation by free grace, was to aim a deadly thrust
at the very heart of the glorious gospel of the grace of God.
And as it was in ancient times, so it is now, and so it will ever
be. The grand characteristic of the Bible is, that it is a revelation of grace.
This is the most
striking feature of the blessed gospel; and it is mainly because the doctrine which
we are now examining, is a direct and impious subversion of the grace of God in
the salvation of the sinner, that it eats out the very vitals of the gospel in our
beloved land.
We are anxious in this place not to be misunderstood. We do not
say that this theory of the Calvinist is inconsistent with the grace of God in the
provision of the atonement. We affirm its utter inconsistency with the manifestation
of grace, in the justification and subsequent salvation of the believer. This circumstance
has already induced many distinguished Calvinists to make an attempt so far to modify
their system of theology, as to make a voluntary surrender of the main position
in defence of which the late work of Dr. Candlish was written and published. Some
of the most eminent and pious of the Calvinistic clergy have already very candidly
admitted the truth and force of the grave accusation we have now made against the
system; and, in consistency with this admission, they have very conclusively argued
in favour of the great and glorious truth, that Jesus died for all men, and by his
death made satisfaction for the sins of the entire human race without one single
exception. We shall, in due time, point out to you the inconsistency of this important
admission with those Calvinian tenets which such authors still retain. In the meantime,
we make the two following quotations from the published works of avowed Calvinists,
in order to show you, that the very grave objection now adduced against the theory
we are
examining, is candidly admitted even by men of most orthodox repute.
The theory of an atonement for the elect alone has been rejected
by Dr. Wardlaw, on account of “ITS EXCLUDING EVERY THING OF THE
NATURE OF GRACE from every part of the process of the sinner’s salvation,
excepting the original appointment of the surety, whose payment, in each case, of
the estimated debt, cancels the bond, and renders the liberation of the debtor not
gracious but obligatory.”—Discourses on the Atonement, p. 63.
The same objection has been urged against the theory by Dr. George
Payne of Exeter, in his Ninth Lecture on Sovereignty, &c. At page 148 of his book,
this writer observes:—
“1st, That it renders the deliverance of the elect from punishment
a matter of justice to them. They may claim it as a right. It is, in this point
of view, as if the atonement were the payment of a pecuniary debt, and is not less
incompatible with the notion that grace is exercised in the pardon of sin. There
may, indeed, consistently with this opinion, have been grace in the acceptance and
in the provision of a substitute; but surely, if that substitute endured the precise
amount of punishment which the strong arm of the law would have otherwise laid upon
those whom he represented, there can be no grace in remitting it afterwards to them.”
In concert with the two distinguished writers from whom we have
now quoted, we would raise our
testimony against the doctrine of an election of some men only to an exclusive interest
in the death of the Son of God; and this we do for the most valid of all reasons,—it
is subversive of the grace of God in the justification of believers. What is grace?
It is free, unmerited favour; it is unconstrained, voluntary, generous love to those
who might justly be condemned. That alone is grace. If it be constrained, it is
not grace. If it be merited, it is not grace. If it may not righteously and justly
be withheld, it is not grace.
And what is the all but unanimous voice of Calvinistic Scotland?
It is that God is bound in justice to save all the elect. Mark it well, my beloved
brethren, God is said to be bound in justice to save every soul of man who enters
the paradise above. I put it to yourselves if this be not the all but universal
shout which proceeds from the hosts of the orthodox when they would act valiantly,
and buckle on their armour to do battle against an imaginary heresy. Is not this
the universal cry—the watchword of the party:—“Jesus did not, could not, die for
all men; for, if he did, then all men would infallibly be saved”? And why? Wherefore
is it said to follow, as an obvious conclusion, that all men must be saved if Jesus
did (as we say he did) give himself, and shed his precious blood, a ransom for all?
The answer is at hand, and it is this: “Because God is bound in justice to save
all for whom the Saviour shed his blood, and he would act unjustly if he did not
save them.”
Where, then, I ask, is the GRACE of God
in their
salvation? If God is bound in justice to save those whom he does save, is there
a man or woman in this audience who does not see at once the obvious and palpable
conclusion? The inevitable conclusion is, that they are indebted not to grace, but
to justice, for their salvation. If any one among you is bound in justice to act
in a certain way, and if you would be chargeable with injustice were you to refuse
so to act, who would think of praising or extolling your generosity when the deed
was done? In this case, it is surely evident to you all, that you would be placed
under a necessity of acting, so that no thanks to you for granting what you dare
not honestly and justly und righteously withhold. Will any man deny that if you
were my debtor, and if your debt is paid—if the uttermost farthing has been wrung
from you—and if I seek, in the face of this, to lay bold of you, in order to imprison
you for the debt, you are in a position to defy me to my face? And what would you
think of me, and what would you not say of me, if I were seeking to take credit
to myself for most wonderful generosity and grace, simply because I did not throw
you into prison? You see at once, from this simple case, that what I am bound in
justice to do, so that I would act unjustly if I did not do it, ceases, for that
plain and obvious reason, to be an act of grace. The principle is not altered by
making the supposition that the debt is paid, not by you but by your cautioner.
The simple question between you and me is this: “Is the debt discharged, or is it
not?” If it be discharged, then I
am bound in justice to set you free from all farther obligation. If the debt be
not discharged, and you come to me, saying, “Forgive me my debt,” the fact of your
asking a free forgiveness of it is, on your part, an acknowledgment that you are
dependent upon my grace, and cannot—dare not—appeal to my justice for the discharge.
If you say, “Forgive me my debts,” and I freely forgive you all, though in justice
I be not bound to forgive you aught, then, and then only, may I speak of grace.
Let this very obvious principle be applied to the case in hand.
We may very easily perceive, from the principles of the false and unscriptural theology
of the day, that the grace of God in saving the sinner is thereby denied and subverted.
The system of Calvin, Candlish, and the Confession, speaks plainly out upon this
head. It says in plain and express and definite words, that God cannot, without.
the most glaring injustice, lay a condemning hand upon one soul of the elect. The
elect, accordingly, may defy God to condemn them. They are, according to this theory,
in a position to march up to the gate of heaven and demand admission. They have
no need to say to God, “Father, forgive us our debts;” they have only to remind
him that he dare not exact them without acting unjustly, and thereby shaking the
pillars of his government and subverting the foundations of his throne. If they
were to say, “forgive us our debts,” they would thereby recede from the claim of
justice, and fall back upon the acknowledgment of grace. But this they
cannot do without casting their doctrine of election to the winds; for that doctrine
teaches them, that their sins do not need to be forgiven, seeing that these same
sins are imagined to be real, literal debts, which were eighteen hundred years ago
most fully discharged; and therefore, as an act of common justice, cannot now be
brought up against them!
May I not here, my friends, most earnestly and solemnly press
upon your attention the simple but very striking fact, that our blessed Saviour
has taught all who will take HIM as their teacher, daily
and hourly to pray, “Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”? Are you taught
by Jesus himself to suppose that sin is a literal debt, so that God is by his death
bound in justice to forgive you? Does HE teach you that
your heavenly Father would act unjustly by you if he did not pardon your iniquities?
No verily. The forgiveness which, for Christ’s sake, is free to all—proclaimed in
the gospel to all—pressed most earnestly and sincerely upon the acceptance of all—is
not an act of justice but an act of grace. And when our Saviour taught and encouraged
his disciples daily to pray for it, and daily to appropriate the blessing as their
own he sent them, not to a throne of justice, but to the throne of grace. And, in
this very prayer, the greatest and best of teachers most emphatically contradicts
and condemns the theory, that God would act unjustly if he did not justify every
sinner for whom he died.
There is one other consideration, which I beg, in
this connexion, to submit to your attention. If it would be unjust in God to condemn
any (for whom Jesus died) in eternity, it would be no less unjust to condemn them
in time. If the death of his Son has secured immunity for all for whom he died,
in a future world, so that it would be unjust in God to condemn them there, it must
have secured the same thing for them in this present world, so that it is no less
unjust for him to condemn them here, while they are yet upon the earth. You will
notice, what we are called upon to believe, by this doctrine which we are examining.
We are called upon to believe, that it would be unjust in God to condemn the elect,
simply and exclusively because Jesus bore the condemnation in their room and stead.
Now, the simple question to be solved, is a question relating to a matter of fact.
Does God not, in point of fact, condemn those for whom the Saviour died? If it would
be unjust in God to condemn them because Jesus died for them, we may rest assured
that they would never be condemned during any single stage or period of their existence.
But it is a fact which cannot be denied, that even the elect are condemned before
they believe. It cannot, therefore, be inconsistent with the justice of God to condemn
sinners even though Christ has borne the punishment of their sins. If it would be
unjust in God to condemn those for whom Christ died, how comes it to pass that in
the face of the death of their substitute, they are at any time the children of
wrath even as others? It will not be asserted that the mere circumstance of time
or
place can alter the nature of justice. Neither will it be asserted, that the mere
circumstance of a sinner believing or not believing, can make that act of God an
act of justice to-day which to-morrow would be most glaringly unjust. Take the case
of a debtor and his creditor, as an illustration of this principle to which we now
advert. If the creditor is satisfied by having received ample payment, it would
be unjust in him to imprison his debtor during the whole period of his natural life.
This would be an act of the most palpable injustice. But would the act of imprisonment
become an act of justice if the debtor were, in the face of the payment, sent to
prison even for a single hour? You can, every one of you, understand this, so as
to affirm, without hesitation, that the circumstance of time does not change the
moral character of the act. If it is right to condemn and imprison the man for one
hour, it is not wrong, in the face of the payment, to condemn and imprison him for
life; and, contrariwise, if it be wrong, in the face of the payment of the debt,
to condemn and imprison him during life, it does not become right when the period
of condemnation is indefinitely shortened. The injustice consists in the act of
condemnation and imprisonment in the face of the payment, and not in the time during
which the man has been sent to prison, or the place where he has been confined.
Let this illustration be applied to the case before us. It is
said that God is bound in justice to justify all those for whom Christ died, and
that he would act
unjustly if he were to condemn them. The question is, Does he never condemn them?
The question is not, Where does he condemn? or, How long does he condemn? The simple
question which I press upon your notice is, Does God never at any time condemn them,
in the face of the fact, that his Son has met the condemnation in their room and
stead? Listen to what Jesus says, “He that believeth not is condemned already.”
It cannot, therefore, be unjust in God to condemn those for whom Christ has died.
And hence it follows, as an inevitable conclusion, that their justification is not
an act of justice but an act of grace.
What then becomes of John Calvin’s doctrine of election? That
doctrine, as we have seen, is based upon the assumption, that it is unjust in God,
under any circumstances, to condemn any for whom the Saviour died. I appeal from
Calvin and Candlish and the Confession of Faith, to the Word of God; and I ask you,
with your Bibles, and the judgment-seat of God before you, solemnly to say, whether
the doctrine, now under review, be not opposed to the word of truth and totally
subversive of the grace of God in the salvation of the sinner.
But this is not all the mischief which results from the error
now under consideration. That theory of election not only subverts the doctrine
of free grace, it makes Jesus Christ himself the great agent in the overthrow. By
this, the death of the Son of God is represented as instrumental in robbing the
Father of his glory in the salvation of man. It is said that the
sacrifice of his Son has rendered it imperative upon the Father to save certain
sinners of the human race. This is an obligation binding upon God, in consequence
of the atonement. Had Jesus not shed his blood for them, God would not have been
bound in justice to save those sinners for whom he died. But now that his Son has
died, it would be unjust in God to condemn them. This is what many people are taught
to believe. Let us see to what an awful conclusion this statement conducts us.
It lands us at once in the conclusion, that by his atoning sacrifice,
Jesus Christ has rendered it impossible for God to exercise grace in the justification
of the sinner who believes. You will observe again, that we restrict our observation
to the act of God in justifying the ungodly. We are not speaking of the previous
act of God in giving up his Son to die, for it is but justice to those from whom
we differ again to remind you, that their doctrine is free from the charge now advanced
against it, if we confine ourselves merely to the act of the Father in giving up
his Son to die for sinners. Our friends, from whom we differ, do not deny the grace
of God in the primary act, of giving up his Son even to the death—the cursed death
of the cross. They admit, and constantly do they affirm, that there is here the
most wonderful manifestation of free grace the universe ever witnessed. And they
are ever forward to make this most important and truthful concession. But you are
not to permit your minds to be led off from the point now before us, by this
admission on the part of Calvinists, important as it is. There is a difference between
the act of God in sending his Son, and the act of God in justifying the ungodly
who believe. The two acts of God are separate and distinct. The Son was sent into
the world eighteen hundred years ago. The sinner who trusts to the sacrifice of
the Son is not justified until he believes. You will observe, therefore, what is
the precise charge which we adduce against that theory of election which restricts
the death of Christ to the elect and to them alone. We affirm, that while it does
not fail to exhibit the grace of God in the gift of his Son, it destroys the grace
of God in the justification and salvation of the sinner; and, more especially, it
exhibits the very sacrifice of the Son of God as that which renders it utterly impossible
for God to exercise grace in the act of justification. If justification be of debt,
it is no more of grace, otherwise debt is no more debt,—and if it be of grace, it
is no more of debt, otherwise grace is no more grace. It matters not to whom it
is affirmed, that God is bound, or to whom he is so indebted as to be compelled,
in justice, to justify any sinner, be that sinner who he may. It matters not, though
it should be said, as said it is, that God is bound or indebted, not as an act of
justice to the sinner, but as an act of justice to his Son, to justify every sinner
for whom he died. The merest child will perceive that this attempt to escape the
dreadful conclusion is a mere evasion. For the question before us is not—to whom
is God the Father bound. The simple
query before us relates to the plain matter of fact—Is God bound, or is he free,
to justify? If he be bound so that it would be unjust in him to condemn the sinner,
it does not meet, but rather evades and jinks the difficulty, to turn our attention
to the statement, that it is to his own Son that God is bound. Nothing can be more
evident than this, that whether it be the sinner himself who has brought God under
a debt of justice, or whether it be the sinner’s substitute who has brought God
under a debt of justice to justify the ungodly, the matter of fact is not thereby
altered, but remains unchangeably the same, that on either supposition it is not
justification by free grace, but justification as an act of common and ordinary
justice which this notion of election ascribes to God the Father. What would you
do, if any of you were owing me a debt of one thousand pounds, in order to destroy
the possibility of any exercise of grace on my part? You would pay down the money.
You would count it over to the uttermost farthing, and you would thereby evince
your determination to put it out of my power to show you any favour—to exercise
toward you any grace. And if you could not pay me yourself, in what other way could
I be prevented from exercising toward you the slightest particle of grace? Your
cautioner would pay down the money and forthwith demand your discharge. In this
case, indeed, I would be shut up to the exercise of justice, but just for that,
reason would I be shut out from the barest possibility of exercising the prerogative
of grace. The man would rob me of the honour or the glory of free grace by the self-same
act, whereby he should constrain me to give you a discharge as an act of common
honesty and ordinary justice.
Now it is precisely in this way that the Calvinian theory of election
represents the Son of God as, by his very death, robbing his Father of the glory
of his grace in the act of justifying the sinner who believes. It represents the
Son as placing God under an obligation of strict justice thus to act. According
to this, Jesus by his death left no room or scope whatever for the exercise of grace
in the matter of justification. He thereby rendered the exercise of grace a natural
and total impossibility. Such a representation, or rather misrepresentation, of
the death of the Son of God, ought to be rejected, therefore, on account of “its
excluding”—to quote again the well chosen words of the venerable Dr. Wardlaw—“everything
of the nature of grace from every part of the process of the sinner’s salvation
excepting the original appointment of the surety, whose payment in each case of
the estimated debt cancels the bond, and renders the liberation of the debtor not
gracious but obligatory.” Such is our deliberate assertion in reference to the scheme
of doctrine now under examination. It is a tremendous charge which id substantiated
against it, that it excludes everything of the nature of grace, and renders the
justification of the sinner not gracious but obligatory.
And what renders the blasphemy more striking is the fact to which
we now particularly advert. It
represents the blessed atonement as putting an extinguisher upon the most glorious
manifestation of the divine character. It exhibits the Son of God as playing the
part of an unnatural Absalom, and tearing rudely from his father’s crown the brightest
gem which sparkles there. How widely different from all this is the real state of
matters as exhibited in the Bible! Here we learn, that it was to honour his Father
that the Son of God came down to earth upon his bloody and merciful errand. He came—not
to destroy the possibility of his Father exercising the glorious prerogative of
grace, but to open up a way for its wide and consistent manifestation. He came—not
to shroud the free grace of God in everlasting gloom (a gloom illumined by no other
manifestation save the fiery flash of justice), but to take away the covering which,
but for his death, must ever have intervened between the grace of God and sinful
man. He came—not to force a God of justice to save, but to leave God at liberty
to save, without the slightest violation of one solitary principle of his righteous
and just administration. He came—not for the purpose of fixing down upon his Father’s
character the charge of injustice, should his Father not extend to sinners the sceptre
of mercy, and hold out the olive branch of peace—but to clear at once and for ever
the injured and maligned reputation of God, by causing grace to walk forth over
the sinful world (which the foul calumniator of God had said God did not love) in
glorious harmony with justice and righteousness and truth. He came—not to make God
out to be an unjust God if he should in any case not be received as a Saviour, but
to exhibit God as a just God and yet a Saviour. He came—not to exhibit truth at
the expense of mercy, nor righteousness at the expense of peace, but at his coming,
and around his cross, “Mercy and truth met together, righteousness and peace embraced
each other.” In one single word, the death of Jesus did not render it imperative
on God to save one sinner of the race. What then did it do? It rendered it consistent
with the justice of God to save all who believe. In this way the blessed atonement
did not destroy grace, but on the contrary it opened up a channel for its consistent
exercise, so that now the whole world is under its benignant reign. And thus it
is abundantly manifest, that while the coffin and the funeral and the grave-yard
proclaim through all the earth, in the ears of all earth’s generations, that “sin
hath reigned unto death”—the rain and the sunlight and the healthful breeze, and
above all, the lively hope of a blissful immortality, proclaim aloud to all, that
“grace hath reigned through righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our
Lord.”
“Sin is frequently described as a debt (remarks Dr. Payne), and
the atonement as the payment of this debt; and if we were careful to recollect that
these are symbolical or figurative terms, we should not be misled by the phraseology.
But the misfortune is, that words which are really figurative, and which are employed
for the sole purpose of illustration, have been understood and explained literally.
Sin has been represented
as a real debt, and the atonement as a real payment of that debt; and the unhappy
result is, that darkness of the densest kind has been made to envelope the whole
subject. There are individuals who imagine that Christ rescues his people from the
claims of divine justice in precisely the same way in which a generous friend delivers
a debtor from captivity, by advancing the necessary sum in his behalf. Now I would
not affirm that it is impossible for such persons to be saved by an humble hope
in the mercy of God through Jesus Christ; but I can have no hesitation in expressing
the opinion, that they do not understand the atonement.
Dr. Payne does not surely suppose that any man can be saved who
does not BELIEVE in the atonement. But Dr. P. has unanswerably
proved that “faith cannot exist where the meaning of the atonement is not understood.”—Lec.
17, pp. 273, 274. How then CAN the persons referred to above
be saved?
A pecuniary satisfaction, and a moral satisfaction differ essentially in their nature,
and proceed on radically different principles. Perhaps no man has set this difference
in a clearer light than the late Mr. Fuller, whose words I quote:—‘I apprehend,’
says this excellent writer, ’that very important mistakes have arisen from considering
the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. The blood of Christ
is, indeed, the price of our redemption, or that for the sake of which we are delivered
from the curse of the law; but this metaphorical language, as well as that of head
and members, may be carried too far, and may lead us into many errors. In cases
of debt and credit
among men, when a surety undertakes to represent the debtor, from the moment his
undertaking is accepted, the debtor is free, and may obtain his liberty, not as
a matter of favour, at least on the part of the creditor, but of strict justice.’
‘But who in his sober senses will imagine this to be analogous to the redemption
of sinners by Jesus Christ? Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense; properly
speaking, it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made, not on pecuniary,
but on moral principles. If Philemon had accepted of that part of Paul’s offer which
respected property, and had placed so much of it to his account as he considered
Onesimus to have owed him, he could not have been said to have remitted his debt,
nor would Onesimus have had to thank him for remitting it. But it is supposed of
Onesimus, that he might not only be in debt to his master, but have wronged him.
Perhaps he had embezzled his goods, corrupted his children, or injured his character.
Now, for Philemon to accept that part of the offer were very different from the
other. In the one case, he would have accepted of a pecuniary representative; in
the other, of a moral one; i. e., of a mediator. The satisfaction, in the
one case, would annihilate the very idea of remission; but not in the other. Whatever
satisfaction Paul might give to Philemon respecting the wound inflicted upon his
character and honour, as the head of a family, it would not supersede the necessity
of pardon being sought by the offender, and freely bestowed by the offended.
“‘The reason of this difference is easily perceived.
Debts are transferable, but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one, but
he can only obliterate the effects of the other; the desert of the criminal remains.
The debtor is accountable to his creditor as a private individual, who has power
to accept of a surety, or, if he please, to remit the whole without any satisfaction.
In the one case he would be just, in the other merciful; but no place is afforded
by either of them for the combination of justice and mercy in the same proceeding.
The criminal, on the other hand, is amenable to the magistrate, or to the head of
a family, as a public person; and who, especially if the offence be capital, cannot
remit the punishment without invading law and justice; nor in the ordinary discharge
of his office, admit of a third person to stand in his place. In extraordinary cases,
however, extraordinary expedients are resorted to. A satisfaction may be made to
law and justice, as to the spirit of them, while the letter is dispensed with. The
well-known story of Zaleuchus, the Grecian lawgiver, who consented to lose one of
his own eyes, to save one of his son’s eyes—who, by transgressing the law, had subjected
himself to the loss of both—is an example. Here, as far as it went, justice and
mercy were combined in the same act; and had the satisfaction been much fuller than
it was—so full that the authority of the law, instead of being weakened, should
have been abundantly magnified and honoured, still it had been perfectly consistent
with free forgiveness. Finally, in the case of the debtor, satisfaction being once
accepted,
justice requires his complete discharge; but m that of the criminal,
where satisfaction is made to the wounded honour of the law and the authority of
the lawgiver, justice, though it admits of his discharge, yet no otherwise requires
it, than as it may have been matter of promise to the substitute.’”—Payne on Sovereignty,
pp. 142-5.
This concluding observation, quoted by Dr. Payne from Andrew Fuller,
unhappily clouds and obscures the whole of the valuable remarks which we have quoted
in illustration of the point we have throughout been considering. It seems to indicate
that the pardon of the sinner may, in one sense, be regarded as founded on a claim
of justice, on the ground of a promise to the, substitute. What is the promise,
on the ground of which pardon is here supposed to be, in any sense, a matter of
justice? and where is it to be found? Can any man point to a single promise made
to our glorious substitute, wherein God binds himself to pardon any sinner as a
matter of right? Where or when did the Father stipulate with the Son to dispense
forgiveness to the believer on the presentation of a claim of justice? This is what
the theory we are now considering, and the mistake against which Fuller was writing,
most erroneously assumes. It assumes that the death of Jesus was of the nature of
a pecuniary transaction—a pounds-shillings-and-pence satisfaction—on the ground
of which, God could not fail to pardon all for whom it was offered, without being
unjust. If this be a. true representation of the death of the Son of God, the promise
to dispense pardon, on the ground of it, could not be anything more or less than
a promise to dispense a pardon which it would be unjust to withhold. But the extract
just quoted points out the radical error which leads to such a view of the atonement;
and our previous observations point out the fact, that the theory of election, which
is based upon it, involves the subversion of free and sovereign grace. Now every
blessing included in the promises of God to believers, God has pledged himself to
communicate, not as an act of justice, but an act of grace. If then the promise
itself involve a pledge to communicate blessings to the believing sinner, under
the distinct provision that they might, every one of them, be righteously and justly
withheld, it seems strange that any man should dream of founding upon such a promise
a claim of justice and of right. We humbly submit, in opposition to the exceptionable
statement on which we now remark, that even in the view of the promise, justice
cannot require the release of the sinner who believeth in Jesus. This fact is certified
by the very nature of the promise itself. It is the promise of pardon from a God,
who, while he promises to pardon, promises also to retain and assert his right to
condemn. It is a promise to dispense grace-free grace; and should any sinner lay
hold of the promise, and seek to convert it into a claim of right, he thereby forfeits
and rejects the very blessing which the Faithful and True Witness has pledged himself
graciously to communicate. In the view of the promises, the sinner may, indeed,
plead the FAITHFULNESS
of a promise-loving and a promise-keeping God; but woe be to the man who perverts
the grace of God, and the gracious promises of God, so as to imagine that, in any
case, strict JUSTICE demands his release.
It is worthy of passing observation, that the doctrine we are
engaged in examining is, in its bearing upon the grace of God, the twin sister of
Socinianism. The Socinian denies altogether the necessity of a satisfaction for
sin in order to warrant God to show mercy and extend his grace to the sinner. He
leaves no room for the exercise of grace, because he points the sinner to no atonement
for the satisfaction of the justice and the vindication of the righteousness of
Jehovah. He thereby renders the exercise of grace an utter impossibility. But extremes
meet. And so the system of Calvin and Candlish, by pursuing a different route around
the circle of error, lands men in the self-same unscriptural and false conclusion.
The latter system destroys grace by ascribing to justice the justification of the
sinner; while the former system destroys grace by leaving no room for its consistent
development. The Calvinist exclaims, that God would act unjustly if he did not justify.
The Socinian rejoins, that no satisfaction has ever been made at all to divine justice.
The one sets aside grace by ascribing the result to justice; the other sets aside
grace, by leaving the sword of justice still unsheathed, so as still to guard and
barup the way against the possibility of a free—a gracious salvation. Both systems
agree in denying the free
grace of God, and, therefore, both are proved to be utterly at variance with the
Scriptures of truth.
Here, again, therefore, you perceive the application of the great
principle exhibited at the outset of this discourse. And remembering the important
distinction between what is above reason, and what is contrary to reason, you will
be able, each one of you, freely to investigate, and candidly to decide. You will
see that it is not with something plainly and distinctly revealed, but which is
mysterious and concealed in its nature and bearings, that you have here to do. It
is not with something above and beyond the reach of human reason to comprehend.
We have here to do with a doctrine which is evidently absurd and false, because
it is at once self-contradictory, and opposed to, and condemned by, the plainest
doctrines of God’s Word. It is utterly impossible for any man to believe two opposing
statements at one and the same instant of time. He must cease to exercise his reason,
and his common sense, if he can possibly be prevailed upon so to do. He must become
a Papist, and hand over his conscience and his right of private judgment to the
infallible Church, before he can possibly receive two contradictory statements as
truth. The question, therefore, is level to the meanest capacity, and it is right
that I should press it: Are you, my brethren, prepared to deny, and to cast aside,
and to trample under foot, the free grace of God, and to perpetuate, as far as in
you lies, the reign of error in our land, rather than cast
away the doctrine which we have proved to be totally subversive of free grace? This
is the simple question which we leave you to answer, every one of you, according
to your responsibility to God, and not to man.
But ere I close my present address, suffer me, beloved friends,
to approach a little more closely to the personal experience of each individual
sinner in this assembly. May I not speak to each man amongst you, even as one friend
addresses another, in sweet and familiar intercourse, and inquire of each of you,
personally and individually—Hast thou tasted that the Lord is gracious? Canst thou
not, my brother, honestly trust the heart of thy God? Wouldst thou bind
HIM down with covenants and bonds, so that thou canst not
feel thyself safe in his hands, unless thou canst defy him to hurt a hair of thine
head by a desperate appeal to iron-handed justice? Wilt thou not trust his grace?
Is it not enough, that the justice of God is fully and for ever satisfied for all
thy sins, so that justice no longer bars the door against thy speedy, instant return
to thy forsaken home of everlasting safety, and thy Father’s bosom of infinite compassion?
Wilt thou not think thyself safe enough in His presence, unless thou art assured
that his hand is bound down by justice, so that he dare not smite thee for thy sins?
Whence arises all this doubt? Whence all this fearful suspicion and trembling dread?
Whence the anxious surmise that thy guilty soul is Lost for ever, unless the God
against whom thou hast
rebelled, be bound in justice and in equity to save thee? Ah, my brother, seest
thou not that all this is the work of the slanderer of thy God? “He loves thee not.
He is a stern, relentless, heartless spirit. And withal he is omnipotent, and it
is not safe for thee to trust him, unless thou seest him bound and shackled so that
he cannot, dare not strike thee down.” These are the suggestions of Satan, wherewith
he would fill thy soul, O sinner, with unbelieving doubts and dark suspicions. “Behold
the Lamb of God.” Why did God give up his Son to die for all the world, and for
thee? It was because he “so loved the world.” His love, then, was not won or purchased
by the wondrous sacrifice. His love to thy soul procured the sacrifice, and did
not grudge the mighty cost whereby the flaming sword of angry justice might be averted
from the gate which leads back to life and happiness for ever. Canst thou not, then,
in the view of all this, trust the grace—the heart of thy God? Canst thou not trust
that heart which loved thee so as to spare not his own Son? Canst thou not trust
that heart which was pierced for thy sins upon the cross? Thy sins are all atoned
for now. They form no reason why thou shouldst perish for ever. Thy Saviour’s blood
has washed them all away. But if in the face of all this, thou wilt still nourish
thy damning unbelief, and hug to thy bosom a dark suspicion of thy God,—if thou
wilt not cast aside thy doubts and fears until thou canst prevail upon thy trembling
soul to think that thy God is bound, by an invincible necessity of justice and
rectitude, to save thee,—if thou wilt not enter into heaven itself until thou canst
read thy warrant, inscribed by the hand of justice over its shining portals—never—never—never
canst thou enter in.
“Man, on the dubious waves of error toss’d,
His ship half-founder’d and his compass lost,
Sees, far as human optics may command,
A sleeping fog, and fancies it dry land;
Spreads all his canvas, every sinew plies;
Pants for’t, aims at it, enters it, and dies!
Then farewell all self-satisfying schemes,
His well-built systems, philosophic dreams;
Deceitful views of future bliss, farewell!—He reads
his sentence at the flames of hell.
Hard lot of man-to toil for the reward
Of virtue, and yet lose it! Wherefore hard?
He that would win the race must guide his horse
Obedient to the customs of the course;
Else, though unequall’d to the goal he flies,
A meaner than himself shall gain the prize.
GRACE LEADS THE RIGHT WAY: if you choose the
wrong,
Take it and perish; but restrain your tongue;
Charge not, with light sufficient and LEFT FREE,
Your wilful suicide on GOD’S DECREE.”
LECTURE THIRD.
CALVINISM AN INSIDIOUS
SYSTEM—INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOREKNOWLEDGE, OPPOSED TO THE WISDOM, AND SUBVERSIVE
OF THE HOLINESS OF JEHOVAH—DESTRUCTIVE OF HUMAN RESPONSIBILITY.
ISAIAH xlii.
9.—“Behold, the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare:
before they spring forth I tell you of them.”
ISAIAH vi.
3.—“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts.”
JAMES
i. 13.—“Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God.
THE system which we are engaged now in examining, like every other
system of error, is, in many respects, very like the truth. But for this circumstance,
it is impossible to conceive how it could meet with any countenance at all from
Christian men. It is not, however, without very high-sounding professions of consistency
with, and attachment to, the Word of God; and it adapts itself so cunningly and
artfully to the language of Scripture, that it seems at first sight, and without
a very careful and sifting examination, to be in no respect whatever inconsistent
with the revealed mind of God. You will accordingly observe that the leading abettors
of this system begin to wax very furious and indignant whenever we venture to intimate
the slightest suspicion of the soundness of their creed. It is thus, however, with
every counterfeit. The base
coin would not pass current at all unless it bore a very striking resemblance to
the genuine gold. The forgery would never answer its end unless it was very like
the real signature. And were it not for the single fact, that the system of theology
which we oppose does retain in plentiful abundance, and exhibit in bold relief,
much of THE PHRASEOLOGY of Scripture, its real character
would be instantly detected, and it would stand out exposed before the eyes of men.
It is in the shape of an angel of light that the destroyer of the souls of men for
the most part appears. And it is under the character and pretensions of a system
of Bible truth that Calvinism makes its advances among the children of men. There
is, accordingly, a wonderful TALKING about free grace and
gospel tidings and divine sovereignty and human depravity, and such like important
doctrines, among the abettors of this system. So manifest is this fact, that the
simple and guileless multitude of men and women who are imposed upon by mere appearances,
are very naturally shocked and disgusted whenever they hear it faithfully announced,
that the system whereby they are verily deceived and imposed upon is really and
truly a subverter of those precious truths which it professes to respect. The name
of truth is, indeed, retained, but the thing signified by the name, even Truth herself,
has been banished from the system. And were it not that the lovers of truth delight
in listening to the very mention of her name, and never dream of suspecting, or
so much as examining minutely into the real character of the Confession of Faith,
and
do find in THE BIBLE what they would never discover in
THE CREED, it would not be possible to find one solitary
Christian man prepared to stake his Christian reputation, side by side, with the
system of which we speak. It is a relief to the mind which contemplates this horrid
system of delusion to reflect, even for an instant, upon the circumstance to which
we now advert. Many of the abettors of Calvinism are really ignorant of the system
which they unhappily patronize: “they know not what they do;” “they themselves are
saved, so as by fire.” But while such persons are really angry with us when they
listen for the first time to the grave and heavy charges which we advance against
their system, “they do not well to be angry.” And we should do no better if we were
deterred, either by the disapprobation of good men, who are imposed upon by the
mere pretensions of a theology which they have never examined, or by the impotent
rage and calumnious aspersions of bad men, who know full well that the system cannot
stand examination, and spend their strength in deceitful attempts to patch and paint
the idol whereby precious souls are ruined: if either by the frown of the one or
the fury of the other, we were deterred from faithfully and affectionately warning
you and your children of your danger, we should be verily guilty of our brother’s
blood. We do not calumniate the system we oppose; we ourselves were many a long
year deceived by it, and at the expense of the disruption of many a tie dear to
flesh and blood, we have come out from its fatal
and contaminating influence. We call upon you, our brethren, to “come out and be
separate, and touch not the unclean thing.” He is the calumniator who lifts his
voice and wields his influence against a truth which he has never examined or brought
to the test of the Word of God, but which he ignorantly stigmatizes by the name
of heresy. We ask no more from any man among you than an examination of what is
said to be true. If it be truth, it cannot suffer from the most searching scrutiny.
And whoever he be who would dissuade or deter you, or himself shrink back from openly
and honestly bringing his system of theology to the test of the Word of God, thereby
betrays an innate consciousness of its weakness. While it is, therefore, a relief
to the mind to believe that many of the adherents of this system are the children
of God, it is unspeakably painful to think that any of the children of God should
continue to countenance the system. They are betrayed, as we have said, by ignorance
of the true character of what they sinfully uphold. They are seduced by mere pretensions.
They are charmed away by a pleasing sound. No phrase is more frequently exhibited
by this theology than FREE GRACE; but we have seen in our
former Lecture that while the name is not taken away, the system we oppose destroys
the thing itself, and really subverts the grace of God in the justification of the
sinner who believes.
We are about to call your attention this evening to another example
of the perfidiousness and treachery of Calvinism. This system professes to be very
zealous
for the character of God, and more particularly does it profess to vindicate and
uphold the great Bible doctrine respecting the FOREKNOWLEDGE,
the WISDOM, and the HOLINESS of
Jehovah. If it failed to exhibit this profession, the eyes of good men would at
once be open to its true character, and it would instantly lose the influence which
it exerts by virtue of its Christian name and its high religious pretensions. But
we hope this evening to convince you, that the doctrine of Calvin and the Confession
is really subversive of the divine foreknowledge as well as inconsistent with the
wisdom and holiness of the Godhead.
IV. THE FOURTH OBJECTION WHICH WE NOW ADDUCE AGAINST THE THEORY
UNDER CONSIDERATION, ARISES FROM ITS INCONSISTENCY WITH THE DIVINE FOREKNOWLEDGE.
When we speak of foreknowledge, we use a word which is familiar
to you all. It may not be unnecessary, however, to anticipate and guard against
prevalent misconceptions, by calling your attention, in this place, to one or two
simple explanations. It will be observed, therefore, (1,) that foreknowledge implies,
in every instance, the FUTURE and CERTAIN
existence of the object known or apprehended by the mind. It is not
FORE or before-hand knowledge if the object known or apprehended
have a present or a past existence; and it is not KNOWLEDGE
at all if there be any doubt or uncertainty in reference to the existence
of the object apprehended, whether we conceive that object to be
past or present or future in relation to the intelligence which apprehends it. There
may be conjecture or guesswork where there is something less than positive certainty,
but without certainty there can be no knowledge. You will notice, farther, in this
connexion, (2,) that knowledge is something which is necessarily and invariably
present in relation to the intelligence of whom such knowledge can be truthfully
and invariably predicated. If it can be truly and invariably said of any being that
“HE KNOWS,” it is evident that the knowledge is invariably
present whether the object of knowledge or the thing known be removed from him by
space or by time—whether it be distant or future or past. The knowledge or act of
the mind in knowing is always a present act, wherever the knowledge exists and by
whomsoever it is possessed. My friend may be far distant from me, but the
knowledge which I possess of his excellences is present; distance of time
or place does not and cannot affect the knowledge itself, which can neither be past
nor future nor distant, but, wherever it exists at all, exists necessarily as a
PRESENT KNOWLEDGE. You will notice, (3,) that it is not
the knowledge which originates the certainty, but the reverse. An event is not certain
because it is known; it comes within the sphere of knowledge because it is certain.
The knowledge of any event, whether past, present, or future, does not affect its
certainty: it is known because it is certain. The cause of its existence must be
sought elsewhere than in the knowledge whether fore or after. Foreknowledge does
not, any more than after knowledge,
define or certify anything as to THE CAUSE OR ORIGIN
OF THE OBJECT apprehended by the mind.
You will observe the importance of such explanations, the oversight
of which lies at the foundation of much error and misconception on the subject now
under consideration. Of this you may be convinced by a mere passing reference to
a very popular and threadbare story, which is, no doubt, regarded as a conclusive
demonstration by modern Calvinistic divines. It is related in the form of a conversation
which is said to have taken place between a certain Independent minister and a fellow-traveller
who strongly objected to the Calvinistic decrees.
“I would ask,” said the minister, “is the great God under any
necessity of waiting till the last day in order to determine who are the righteous
that are to be saved, and the wicked who are to perish?”
“By no means,” said the other, “for he certainly knows already.”
“When do you imagine,” asked the minister, “that he first attained
this knowledge?” Here the gentleman paused, and hesitated a little; but soon answered,
“He must have known from all eternity.”
“Then,” said the minister, “it must have been fixed from all eternity.”
“That by no means follows,” replied the other.
“Then it follows,” added the minister, “that he did not know
from all eternity, but only guessed, and happened to guess right; for how
can Omniscience know what is yet uncertain?”
Here the gentleman began to perceive his difficulty, and, after
a short debate, confessed it should seem it must have been fixed from eternity.
“Now,” said the minister, “one question more will prove that you
believe in predestination as well as I. You have acknowledged what can never be
disproved, that God could not know from eternity who shall be saved unless it had
been fixed from eternity. If then, it was fixed, be pleased, sir, to inform me who
fixed it?”—Quoted in Bonar’s “Truth and Error,” pp. 61, 62.
The gentleman is here said, as the story goes, to have acknowledged
he had never taken this view of the subject before, and to have promised on the
spot never more to speak against John Calvin or his decrees.
You have here a specimen of a class of very ignorant or very crafty
ministers on the one hand, and of very simple and very thoughtless gentlemen on
the other. Both parties evidently overlooked the fact, that KNOWLEDGE
defines nothing whatever respecting THE CAUSE of
the event known. Knowledge, whether of a past or of a future event, apprehends the
certain existence of whatever it apprehends at all, but it does not cause or originate
the existence of anything whatever. But both the minister and the gentleman failed
to observe this fact, and so they erroneously concluded that God’s infallible knowledge
of all events, involves, on his part,. the necessary causation of all events, as
if nothing whatever could be certainly foreknown unless it were certainly and absolutely
decreed, or “fixed,” by God himself. The gentleman was, therefore, confused
and mystified by the gratuitous and false assumption, that unless God had himself
unconditionally or absolutely “fixed” or decreed whatsoever comes to pass, he could
not foreknow the certain existence of anything future, but “ONLY
GUESSED, and happened to guess right.” But if this gentleman had only considered
what he unfortunately overlooked and misapprehended, he would have seen at once
that the knowledge of any object, past, present, or future, does not call that object
into existence, or render its existence certain. He would have seen the very opposite
to be true. Ho would have seen that the knowledge of anything future presupposes
and apprehends its certain future existence, no less evidently than the knowledge
of any present or past event presupposes and apprehends its present or past existence,
altogether independently of, or (it may even be) altogether opposed to, the will
of the being who knows it. When our Saviour was upon the earth, he compassionately
sought to convince his crafty antagonists by wisely saying unto them, “I also will
ask of you one question” (Mark xi. 29), instead of replying
directly to their leading queries, which were purposely framed to entrap and to
ensnare him. And if this Christian gentleman had followed the example of his master,
he would have replied to the very first question of the minister who led him into
the snare, by proposing a question which would have “fixed” his reverend adversary.
When the minister asked him, “Is the great God under any necessity of waiting till
the last day IN ORDER TO KNOW who will be saved and who
will
be lost?” the gentleman would have done well to have said, “I also will ask of you
one question—Is the great God under any necessity of himself causing and necessitating
the, commission of sin, ‘IN ORDER TO KNOW’ the sinful actions
which shall be committed by devils and by wicked men?” Had such a question been
kindly and respectfully proposed, we should very probably have heard nothing at
all from Calvinists of the threadbare narrative which it has become fashionable
to retail. Such a question as this would certainly have brought the minister to
a stand, even as our Saviour’s question “fixed” the Pharisees when he asked them,
“The baptism of John, was it from heaven or of men?” The minister would very probably
have paused and argued thus within himself:—“If I shall say that God is the primary
cause of sinful actions, I fear the people, because they believe that ‘THE
LORD OUR GOD IS HOLY;’ and if I shall say that God can foreknow any thing
which he has not himself determined to bring to pass, he will say, ‘Why then do
you believe John Calvin’s unscriptural creed?’”—and so, in all likelihood, the debate
would have terminated.
But it is at this point that the inquiry ought to begin. The question
is, whether it be not a blasphemy against God to maintain a creed which affirms
plainly that, “for his own glory, God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass.”
Our opponents in this argument, have no right to hold that this question is to be
decided simply on the faith of their false and blundering assertions. They have
no right to assert and to take
it for granted, without even an attempt at proof, that OMNISCIENCE
is capable of doing no more than “GUESSING” after an event,
unless OMNIPOTENCE be pledged to bring that event into being.
We are entitled to demand the strongest PROOF in support
of this important statement, and our friends who oppose us are not entitled to give
us no more than bare ASSERTION in its support, as from the
time of their sainted Augustine they have invariably done. We demand the evidence
in support of the assertion on which Calvinism and Fatalism and Socialism are all
of them based—the assertion that God himself is incapable of foreknowing things
future, without previously resolving, by his Omnipotence, to bring them into existence.
On this point we have been absolutely deluged with assertion,
but we look in vain for one particle of proof. It has been assumed, as if it were
even an axiom, that whatever is UNDECREED by God is for
that simple reason a thing UNCERTAIN, and to be fathered
upon a nonentity which men call “CHANCE.” You will notice
therefore the importance of the simple facts which have been. already submitted
to your attention, and you will more particularly remember that the very idea of
foreknowledge implies the idea of certainty, but the question remains still to be
disposed of, whether it be true, as Calvinists assert, that God cannot foreknow
future events, without first of all decreeing their certain existence, and then
apprehending them through the medium of his own decree.
That such is the position maintained by Calvinists, is,
evident from all their writings, from some of which I select now one
or two quotations.
I call your attention, in the first place, to a single statement
from their great master himself. John Calvin writes as follows, in the twenty-third
chapter of the third book of his Institutes:—
“Since he [God] DOTH NOT OTHERWISE FORESEE
the things that shall come to pass, than because he hath decreed that they should
so come to pass, it is vain to move a controversy about foreknowledge where it is
certain that all things do happen rather by ordinance and commandment. . . . . No
man shall be able to deny but that God foreknew what end man should have, ere he
created him, and THEREFORE FOREKNEW IT BECAUSE he had so
ordained by his decree.”—Sec. 6, 7.
Such are Calvin’s own words, and you will notice that there are
two separate and distinct statements contained therein, the first of which is admitted
to be true, but the second of which is altogether false and unsupported in any place
by the smallest shadow of evidence. The first statement asserts what no man denies—the
foreknowledge of God. The second statement assumes what cannot be proved, and what
no Calvinist, so far as we know, has ever attempted to establish by anything like
proof, viz., that God does not foreknow anything he has not himself fixed by his
own absolute and irreversible decree. But, unfortunately for Calvinism, it so happens
that the very point which is universally taken for granted, is the precise point
which needs to be unanswerably proved.
Jerom Zanchius, another distinguished Calvinist; writes as follows:—“God’s
foreknowledge, taken abstractedly, is not the sole cause of beings and events; but
his will and foreknowledge together. Hence we find, Acts ii. 23,
that his determinate council and foreknowledge act in concert;
THE LATTER RESULTING FROM, AND BEING FOUNDED ON, THE FORMER. . . . . Consequently
it is his free pleasure to permit sin, since, without his permission, neither
men nor devils can do anything. Now, to permit, is, at least, the same as
not to hinder, though it be in our power to hinder if we please; and this
permission or non-hindrance is certainly an act of the Divine will. Hence, Austin
says, ‘Those things which seemingly thwart the Divine will are nevertheless agreeable
to it; for if God did not permit them, they could not be done; and whatever God
permits he permits freely and willingly. He does nothing, neither suffers anything
to be done against his own will.’ And Luther observes that ‘God permitted Adam to
fall into sin, because he willed that he should so fall.’”—The Doctrine of Absolute
Predestination, translated from the Latin of Zanchius, by Augustus Topladly, with
Prefatory Essay by the late Dr. Pringle of the Secession Church, Perth, pp.
39, 40.
This quotation proves not only that foreknowledge is held by the
Calvinist to be founded on God’s absolute decree, but it evinces still farther the
important fact, that according to this theology the foreknowledge is really confounded
with the decree altogether, inasmuch as it is in plain words spoken. of as in connexion
with the the decree, “THE POSITIVE CAUSE of all beings and
events.”
This wonderful mixture of truth and error is exhibited by Mr.
Bonar of the Free Church, in his appropriately-named book. I quote the following
extract from the fiftieth page of “TRUTH AND ERROR.”
“It is of some importance [says Mr. Bonar] that we should settle
the nature of these two things, predestination and foreknowledge, and ascertain
which of the two is first. The question, is ‘Does God fix a thing simply because
he foreknows it, or does he foreknow it because he has fixed it?’ . . . . I answer
unhesitatingly, That PREDESTINATION MUST BE THE FOUNDATION
of foreknowledge. God foreknows EVERYTHING THAT TAKES PLACE BECAUSE
HE HAS FIXED IT.”
We pause again to call your attention to the absurdity which Calvinists
incessantly perpetrate by a sheer forgetfulness of the plain explanations to which
we have formerly adverted. Mr. Bonar writes as if anything foreknown needed to
be subsequently fixed by a decree of God, and he accordingly proposes the ridiculous
question, “Does God fix a thing simply because he foreknows it?” He cannot conceive
of anything as certain or foreseen as certain, unless it has been fixed unalterably
by the almighty will of God! And so you will observe, that this writer gives us
the benefit of his own simple assurance in common with that of his fellow Calvinists,
that God first fixes and decrees to bring everything to pass; and then, and only
then, is it possible for God to know beforehand anything that shall afterwards happen!
The only other quotation which I shall now make, is from the Lectures
on Theology, which were delivered to the students of the Secession Church (now United
Presbyterian), by the late Dr. Dick of Glasgow.
“No effect can be viewed as future [says this Professor], or,
in human language, can be the object of certain expectation, but when considered
in relation to its efficient cause; and the cause of all things which ever shall
exist is the purpose of God, ‘who worketh all things after the counsel of his own
will.’ As the knowledge of God does not depend upon the actual existence of objects—for
this would limit it to the present and the past—so it does not depend upon any conditions
attached to their existence. He does not know that such things shall happen, if
such other things shall go before; but the whole series of events was planned by
his infinite understanding, the ends as well as the means: and he foresees the ends,
not through the medium of the means, but THROUGH THE MEDIUM OF
HIS OWN DECREE, in which they have a certain future existence. They will
not take place without the means, but THE PROPER cause of
them is not the means, but his almighty will.”—Vol. i. p. 384, first edition.
We add no more in this place in the shape of quotation, and we
have detained you with such extracts, from ancient and modern authors, simply with
the view of anticipating the charge of misrepresentation, which Calvinists are not
slow to make whenever their dogmas happen to be subjected to a fair examination.
It is better therefore to leave our friends to speak for themselves.
What then do you think of their creed? What is its evident bearing
upon the foreknowledge of the Deity? Does it not reduce the attribute of omniscience
to a mere name, and resolve it into a thing which is dependent upon, and subordinate
to, the omnipotence of the Godhead? Does it not strip God of his peculiarly glorious
distinction, as an ALL-SEEING Jehovah? And while this theology
does retain the name, does it not set aside the reality, and represent God himself
as reduced to the necessity of learning or acquiring the knowledge of futurity,
exclusively from his present existing determinations and his present existing power?
And is not this, properly speaking, a knowledge of something PRESENT,
as much as of any thing future? When we speak of knowledge as INTUITIVE,
we surely mean to express something very different from knowledge
ACQUIRED through any medium whatever. And when we ascribe
omniscience to the Deity, we surely mean to intimate something more than the possession,
on his part, of a mere perception of what is his present will at any future time
to bring assuredly to pass. Such a knowledge as this is possessed by the meanest
of created intelligences. The question, therefore, resolves itself simply into this—“Whether
the knowledge of God be, or be not, distinguished from that even of the highest
of his creatures, by virtue not only of its extent, but more especially of its independence—its
absolute independence, even of his own decrees.” We humbly submit that this question
must be answered in the affirmative, from the
three following considerations:—Consider (1) the innate and infinite perfection
of the Divine intelligence, and say whether omniscience needs to derive its information
through any conceivable medium. Consider (2) the infinite purity of the Divine nature,
and say whether sin and every abominable thing which exists, could possibly find
its origin and cause in the mind of a holy God—a supposition involved necessarily
in the hypothesis, that God needed first to decree in order that he might be able
to foreknow whatsoever comes to pass. Consider (3) the direct and explicit language
of Scripture, wherein the decree of God is exhibited as consequent upon his foreknowledge,
which is a plain contradiction of the theory that his foreknowledge is dependent
upon his decree. It is written, for example, in Rom. viii. 29,
“Whom he did FOREKNOW, he also did PREDESTINATE;”
and in 1 Peter i. 2, “Elect
ACCORDING TO the foreknowledge of God.” In such like statements
of the inspired record, the foreknowledge is in the order of nature prior to the
decree.
We say not only that Calvinism is UN-scriptural,
based as it is upon a gratuitous assumption which derives no warrant from the Word
of God; but we are entitled to denounce this figment of man’s imagination as
ANTI-scriptural, inasmuch as it is founded entirely upon
the monstrous conception, that nothing whatever could possibly be certainly apprehended,
even by the Divine mind, save through the medium of a horrible and demon-like decree.
And more especially do we now call your attention to the fact, that the true and
proper
foreknowledge of the Deity (by which we mean his independent and intuitive apprehension
of all things actual and all things possible—of all things future as well as of
all that is past or present) is blasphemously denied by the theory now under consideration.
This theory degrades the Godhead beneath the level of many of his creatures. Whatever
any sinful creature possesses the power to do, and resolves to carry into execution,
the creature must of necessity foreknow. Grant ye that he has the will to act, and
that he possesses in addition to the will, the power to carry his purpose into execution,
and the basest of the fallen intelligences must needs be able, with infallible certainty,
to predict the result. But there is nothing peculiar—nothing wonderful in any sinful
mortal claiming and possessing an attribute such as this. You may wonder at the
man’s power, or you may be astounded at the man’s purpose to employ his power in
any given direction, but you cannot wonder at the man’s knowledge. He merely predicts
or foretells what he has himself determined to carry into effect in the exercise,
it may be, of his astonishing powers. Suppose that it is a deed of darkness which
the man contemplates. He comes to you announcing, for example, that on some future
day, and at a given hour, your friend will certainly die. You are astonished at
the man’s intelligence. You ask eagerly and anxiously how he happens to know the
very day and hour when his fellow-mortal is to be ushered into eternity. But what
if, at the hour and day appointed, you come. to learn that the pretended
prophet did himself determine to murder your friend with his own hand, and did acquire
his foreknowledge through the medium of his own decree? Would you, in such a case,
laud your informant as a very wonderful prophet? Would you not rather proclaim him
a murderer—a cool, deliberate murderer—whose dire prediction was founded solely
on his dire decree? In such a case the murderer has no claim whatever to the character
of the prophet. It is not his foreknowledge, but his villany, of which you would
speak. And in such A case it might well be questioned, if it be not an abuse of
language to ascribe to him the attribute of foreknowledge at all. The reason is,
that in such a case what the man knew was, properly speaking, his own dark and villanous
intention, and his own abused and perverted power. But these were
PRESENT at the time when the prediction was first announced,
and it was through the medium of these alone that the murderer pried into the future,
and so, strictly speaking, it was not so much the knowledge of the future event,
as the knowledge of a present determination or purpose, which was intimated to you
in the form of a prophecy. This is a revelation of a purpose already formed, which
depends for its fulfilment merely on the will and power of the executioner, and
forms of itself no proper exhibition of foreknowledge on the part of the individual
who utters it.
Let this illustration be applied to the question now before us.,
It is said that the decree of God is the exclusive foundation of his foreknowledge.
He is said to foreknow whatever shall come to pass, simply because
he has himself resolved, by an act of his almighty will, to bring about whatsoever
comes to pass. His knowledge, therefore, of the events of futurity is not anything
more than a necessary existing consciousness of his present determination, coupled
with a consciousness of his resistless power. It amounts to nothing more than a
consciousness of what he himself has purposed, in the exercise of omnipotence, to
bring about. And while it cannot be denied that all this may exalt the power of
God, we hold it to be self-evident, that it strikes at the root of his omniscience,
which involves, on his part, the independent or intuitive perception of all the
thoughts and words and deeds of his free and intelligent and responsible creatures,
and that too from the unbeginning ages of eternity.
This is the peculiar glory of God as an omniscient being. His
peculiar glory consists in his knowing infallibly from all eternity the free volitions
and actions of free and responsible agents who exist in time. This is what is fitted
to strike the human mind with wonder and adoration. That God should know, with infallible
certainty, all the thoughts and intents—all the purposes and doings, of all the
generations of men before men came into being! That is the wonder. And that forms
the grand and striking peculiarity of the prophetic announcements contained in the
blessed Bible, which being fulfilled to the very letter, in the history of the human
race, have, in every age, manifested the book wherein they are contained, to be
emphatically THE BOOK OF GOD.
While, therefore, there exists not a creature, however ignorant
or vile, who does not know, of necessity, beforehand, whatever he has the will and
the power himself to execute, and who may not, in every such case, predict the result
with infallible certainty,—while the most debased of created intelligences is possessed
of foreknowledge such as this, where is the man or the angel, however exalted in
intellect or knowledge, who can predict, with infallible certainty, what shall be
the volitions and actions of moral and intelligent agents, upon whose minds no irresistible
force is exercised, but WHO ARE FREE to think and act, to
choose or to refuse, as each shall independently determine? This is something which
the Bible assures us belongs only to God. This is an achievement so truly marvellous,
and so far beyond the reach of men, that no man can tell how it comes to pass. Here
is something ABOVE reason, and here we have an apt illustration
and example of the principle adverted to at the outset of our last Sabbath evening
lecture, in reference to what is above reason as distinguished from what is contrary
to reason. There is nothing here to shock our reason. There are no such palpable
contradictions as are to be found everywhere in Calvinism for men to gulp down—there
is no contradiction at all in this glorious truth. And though it be far above the
reach of the human mind to scrutinize the HOW and the
WHEREFORE—though no man nor angel can say, how it is or
wherefore it is—we have here something which exalts the Godhead in our conceptions,
and which constrains us to wonder and to adore. “’ Canst thou by searching find
out God? Canst thou find out the Almighty un.to perfection? It is high as heaven,
what canst thou do? deeper than hell, what canst thou know? The measure thereof
is longer than the earth, and broader than the sea.” Job xi. 7-9.
The disciple of Calvin tells us that HE, forsooth! cannot
understand how God can possibly foreknow whatsoever comes to pass, unless it be
that God has fixed, by his decree, every abomination that takes place under the
sun, and has determined himself to bring it about. And what does the self-blinded
devotee presume to do? He presumes to measure the mind of God by his own puny intellect,
and to affirm that God must have infallibly and unconditionally “foreordained whatsoever
comes to pass.” And why? Because short-sighted mortals cannot understand how God
can foreknow anything as certain, or can do more than “GUESS”
the existence of anything which God has not himself determined to bring into being!
This is not only most unfair and inconclusive reasoning, if reasoning indeed it
can be called, it is the framing of a man-made, arbitrary theory; it is pure speculation,
and that, too, in direct opposition to the Word of God. What said the sweet singer
of Israel? Did he deny such knowledge as this, because it was peculiar to God, and
far too wonderful for his finite comprehension? Did he attempt to bring the subject
of the Divine foreknowledge down to the level of his capacity by approaching
the blundering, blasphemous conclusion, that GOD MUST have
first resolved to exert his power in determining his downsitting and his uprising,
and giving birth to his every wicked thought, and chalking out his every devious
course—and then, and thus only, was enabled to know all that concerned him long
before his thoughts came into existence? Such was not the mind of the inspired psalmist.
“O Lord, thou hast searched me, and known me. Thou knowest my downsitting and mine
uprising; thou understandest my thought afar off. Thou compassest my path, and my
lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways. For there is not a word in my tongue,
but, lo, O Lord, thou knowest it altogether. Thou hast beset me behind and before,
and laid thine hand upon me.” Psalm cxxxix. 1-5.
What, then, was the conclusion at which the psalmist arrived?
Did he account for the circumstance, that God knew his thought afar off, on the
Socialist principle, that God had decreed the existence of his every thought? Did
he console himself under his iniquity by falling back upon the decree of God as
the ultimate cause of it? Did he say that he could easily account for the foreknowledge
of God by tracing that knowledge to a previous decree? No such thing. He immediately
adds (verse 6), “SUCH
KNOWLEDGE IS TOO WONDERFUL FOR ME; IT IS HIGH, I CANNOT ATTAIN UNTO IT.”
But such knowledge is not too high for the follower of Calvin! He can explain it
all! He has a ready-made theory, whereby he can easily account
for knowledge such as this! It is such knowledge as any creature can attain unto,
even as every creature must necessarily foreknow the existence of what he has himself
decreed! The Calvinist will not condescend to stoop down to the position occupied
by the psalmist, but he at once rushes onward, in the pride of his system of theology,
to the impious DENIAL of the Divine foreknowledge of every
thought, word, and deed of men and devils, which God has not originated and foreordained!
Horrible conclusion! Away with the theology which inculcates it! Such a theology
is a wild dream of pagan philosophy, a delusion, and a falsehood from the father
of lies, wherewith he practises a foul deception upon the souls of men!
We have already quoted an extract from Jerom Zanchius, translated
by Toplady, and recommended by Dr. Pringle of the Secession, to the Scottish public.
And as we have distinctly asserted that the doctrine of Calvin and the Confession
of Faith is part and parcel of pagan philosophy, we here read to you the reply which
Toplady gives to this very grave accusation, which has been long ago advanced against
the theory now under review. In the fifteenth page of his preface, this writer meets
the charge by indirectly admitting it:—
“But does not this doctrine tend [says he] to the establishment
of FATALITY? Supposing it even did, were it not better to
be a CHRISTIAN FATALIST than to avow a set of loose Arminian
principles, which, if pushed to their natural extent, inevitably terminate
in the rankest Atheism? For, without predestination there can be no Providence,
and, without Providence, no God.
“After all, what do you mean by FATE?
If you mean a regular succession of determined events, from the beginning
to the end of time; an uninterrupted chain, without a single chasm; all
depending on the eternal will and continued influence of the
GREAT FIRST CAUSE; if this is Fate, it must be owned.
. . .
“It having been not unusual, with the Arminian writers, to tax
us with adopting THE FATE OF THE ANCIENT STOICS, 1 thought
it might not be unacceptable to the English reader to subjoin a brief view
of what those philosophers generally held (for they were not all exactly
of a mind) as to this particular. It will appear to every competent reader, from
what is there given, how far the doctrine of FATE,
as believed and taught by the STOICS, may be admitted upon
CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.
We also take the liberty of quoting, in our Appendix, this precious
morsel of heathenism, from which the reader will see whence Calvinism has sprung—not
from the Bible, but from the schools of pagan philosophy, Toplady himself being
witness. See Appendix.
. . .
“For my own particular part [adds Toplady] I frankly confess that,
as far as the coincidence of the STOICAL FATE with the Bible
predestination holds good, I see no reason why we should be ashamed to acknowledge
it. St. Austin, and many other great and excellent men, have not scrupled
to admit both the word
(viz., the word FATE) and THE THING,
properly understood. I am quite of LIPSIUS’S mind, ‘Et
vero non aversabor STOICI nomen; sed
STOICI CHRISTIANI,’ i. e., I have no objection
to be called a STOIC, so you but prefix the word
CHRISTIAN to it.”—Preface to Zanchius on Predestination,
by Toplady, pp. 15-17.
Such, then, is an honest confession of a disciple of Calvin of
no mean name. The system speaks for itself, and no man who looks it in the face
but must see more of the pagan than of the Christian pervading its every feature.
But as we live now in an age and country where many Calvinistic divines labour not
to defend, but to conceal and hide, the abominable system from the eyes of the multitude,
who still, in tears, follow it onward to the scaffold, it is necessary to hold it
up before you as it has been stated and defended by a generation of less temporizing
and more honest men. There is no need for weeping and bewailing the approaching
destruction of this monstrous system. Let every Christian man and woman in this
audience rejoice and give thanks to God, that the time has arrived when the great
majority of professed Calvinists are ashamed of their idol, and are tacitly, at
least, even now, consenting to its too tardy execution.
V. WE OBJECT TO THIS THEORY OF ELECTION, BECAUSE IT SUBVERTS
THE WISDOM OF GOD IN HIS DECREES.
We take Dr. Dick’s own definition of wisdom, as found in the Twenty-Second
Lecture of his course. This author very truly says, “Wisdom cannot exist
without knowledge, but knowledge may exist without wisdom; and accordingly there
are men possessing very extensive information who, in their conduct, give many proofs
of thoughtlessness and folly. In an all-perfect being, they are necessarily conjoined,
omniscience supplies the materials of infinite wisdom. As God knows all his creatures,
all their powers and qualities, all the purposes to which they may be rendered subservient,
all the relations in which they may be placed, and all the possible consequences
of all possible events, he is able infallibly to determine what are the most proper
ends to be pursued, and what are the fittest means of effecting them.”
With these sentiments every one must agree. But you will observe
their bearing upon the system now tinder review.
There can be no wisdom without knowledge going before it. And
thus it is that WE argue out the wisdom of all God’s purposes
and decrees. They are most wise, because they are founded upon the foreknowledge
of all the future volitions and actions of free agents who shall exist in time.
But Calvinism says that the foreknowledge of God is founded on
his decrees. God knows whatever shall come to pass, in consequence of having already
decreed whatever shall come to pass.
The decree of God is accordingly represented as independent of,
and in the order of nature before, his knowledge.
Seeing, therefore, that there can be no wisdom without
knowledge, the decrees of God cannot possibly be wise! Themselves the foundation
of all knowledge in the mind of the Deity, they preceded all knowledge, and were
formed ignorantly and blindly! Such is the predestination of Calvin. It is nothing
more nor less than blind necessity—unadulterated fatalism. We proceed to notice,
VI. THAT THIS THEORY OF ELECTION DESTROYS ALL MORAL DISTINCTIONS
BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG, GOOD AND EVIL; AND THEREBY STANDS OPPOSED TO THE HOLINESS
OF GOD.
We have already seen that it traces every thing which takes place
in the universe to the almighty will of God, as the efficient and primary cause
of all. It is very often said, in so many words, by the supporters of Calvin, that
God is not the cause of sin; but such a true saying, proceeding from Calvinists,
is nothing more nor less than an idle and unmeaning and heartless compliment. Such
a truthful announcement is contradicted by the system, and is a mere word of course.
It reminds one of the traitor Judas, when he went up to Jesus and said, “Hail, Master,
and kissed him.” It is verily true that God is not the author of sin, but why should
men cleave to a system of theology which represents God as the only originator and
cause of all iniquity—a system which forces men to the conclusion that, in asserting
the holiness of God, the Holy Spirit is studiously hiding and concealing the truth—a
system which makes God the author of every
abomination that ever was perpetrated among men? Does the Shorter Catechism make
any exception when it says, that “God has foreordained WHATSOEVER
comes to pass”? Does it not here trace everything, without exception, to
the decree of God? Does it not teach babes and sucklings to say, that God has decreed
every sinful action; and, in connexion with this, that “God executeth his decrees
in the works of creation and providence”? Here is, first of all, every abomination
fathered upon the decree of God and here is, in the second place, God pointed out
as the active executioner of the whole array of wickedness that comes to pass in
the history of devils and of men Here is, surely, “THE MYSTERY
OF INIQUITY,” which, even in apostolic times, had already begun to do its
deadly work, and to emit its horrid blasphemies. Listen to another statement from
Zanchius, from whom I have already quoted: “I would infer [says this writer, p.
63] that if we would maintain the doctrine of God’s OMNIPOTENCE,
we must insist upon that of his UNIVERSAL AGENCY; the
latter cannot be denied without giving up the former. Disprove that he
is almighty, and then we will grant that his influence and operations are limited
and circumscribed. Luther says that God would not be a RESPECTABLE
BEING, if he were not almighty, and THE DOER OF ALL THINGS
THAT ARE DONE; or if anything could come to pass in which he had no hand.”
In accordance with this doctrine, Mr. Bonar of the Free Church
says, in “Truth and Error,”—“Nothing
in the universe takes place without the will of God. This is admitted. But it is
asked, Is this will first in everything? I answer, Yes. The will of God goes
before all other wills. It does not depend on them, but they depend on it.
ITS MOVEMENTS REGULATE THEM. The ‘I will’ of Jehovah is
that which sets in motion everything in heaven and in earth. The ‘I will’ of Jehovah
is the spring and origin of all that is done throughout the universe, great or small,
among things animate or inanimate.” P. 24.
It follows, naturally and necessarily, from this doctrine, that
there is no distinction between good and evil, right and wrong, truth and error,
sin and holiness! Everything is in accordance with the “I will” of Jehovah! His
will must be right; and whatever is, is accordingly RIGHT—seeing
that everything is in accordance with the will of God, who “would not be a respectable
being,” if he were not himself “the doer of all things that are done,”—devils and
wicked men being only the passive tools in his almighty hand!!!
Said we not truly that we have here the full development of “the
mystery of iniquity,” bellowing forth her horrid blasphemies against God; and by
her loud and specious pretensions of attachment to the Word of God, deceiving, “if
it were possible, the very elect”? The upholders of this system make an attempt
to wrench from the hand of the Spirit his own “sword,” by the perversion or abuse
of which they all the more effectually slay the souls of men. It is not for us to
say one word about their motives. For
these they are responsible to God, and God alone can see their hearts. Let God be
the judge of their motives. We say not that the men MEAN
to destroy souls by perverting the Word of God, and wresting Scripture itself in
support of their blasphemy. We speak not of what they intend to do, but of what
they persist in doing. And we affirm, that they not only charge home upon a holy
God all the iniquity which takes place among devils and men, but they wrest the
very Scripture, and pervert its blessed truths in order to gain currency for their
false philosophy, whereby God is dishonoured, and merchandise is made of the souls
of men. In order to prove that God has foreordained all iniquity, the author of
“Truth and Error” singles out the most awful crime upon record, and fathers it directly
upon God’s decree, and refers to the Bible itself in support of his theory. “Everything
in this world [says Mr. Bonar] happens according to God’s eternal arrangements.
Nothing takes place except what God causes to be, or permits to be; and whatever
happens in time, is decreed from eternity. EVEN THE WICKED DEED
of those who crucified the Lord of Glory is said, by the apostle, to be determined
before by the hand and counsel of God. Acts iv. 27, 28; also
ii. 23.”—Truth and Error, p. 37.
Here, then, is a very plain and distinct statement, on the part
of our Free Church writer, and if this statement be true, we must admit that God
is the author of all iniquity. But we are prepared most emphatically to deny the
statement which this writer has made.
The passages of Scripture referred to DO NOT ascribe to
God “THE WICKED DEED” of those who crucified the Lord of
Glory. God determined beforehand to do whatever HE HIMSELF DID
in the transactions of Calvary, but he never decreed any part of the wickedness
which was perpetrated there, or which has been perpetrated elsewhere by devils or
by wicked men. But as this assertion commits us to a full examination of the two
Scripture passages which have been perverted in the quotations we have just read,
we reserve such examination as the subject of our next discourse.
LECTURE FOURTH.
PRECEDENCY OF GOD’S
WILL TO MAN’S WILL—“WHATSOEVER COMES TO PASS” NOT FOREORDAINED—GOD HAS NOT DECREED
WICKEDNESS—MAN ALONE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS SOUL’S SALVATION.
JAMES i.
13.—“Let no man say, when he is tempted, I am tempted of God:: for God
cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.”
ACTS ii.
23.—“Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge
of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain.”
ACTS iv.
27.—“’Of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed,
both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were
gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before
to be done.”
JOHN x.
18.—“No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself:
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.”
“NOTHING in the universe [says Mr. Bonar,
in the extracts quoted in our last Lecture] takes place without the will of God.
This is admitted. But it is asked, Is this will FIRST IN EVERYTHING?
I answer, Yes. The will of God goes before all other wills. It does not depend on
them, but they depend on it. Its movements regulate them. The ‘I will’ of Jehovah
is that which sets in motion EVERYTHING in heaven and in
earth. The ‘I will’ of Jehovah is the SPRING AND ORIGIN OF ALL
THAT IS DONE throughout the universe, great or small, among things animate
and
inanimate. EVERYTHING in this world happens according to
God’s eternal arrangements. Nothing takes place except what God causes to be or
permits to be; and whatever happens in time is decreed from eternity.
EVEN THE WICKED DEED of those who crucified the Lord of
Glory is said, by the apostle, to, be determined before by the hand and counsel
of God.”
It will be observed, therefore, what the great question before
us really is:—“Is the will of God FIRST IN EVERYTHING.”
That is the real question, we might almost say the ONLY
question, to be disposed of. It is necessary that this point should be well understood
and steadily kept in view. This is necessary, because the writer from whom we have
now again quoted, in common with all his brethren, is constantly forgetting the
question under discussion, and very generally writes and speaks and acts as if the
real question were—“Is the will of God first in ANYTHING.”
These divines are ever and anon engaged in directing their anathemas against us,
as if we denied the precedency of the Divine will in the conversion and ultimate
salvation of the sinner. It is, therefore, necessary for you to understand distinctly
that there is no question upon this point between us and the brethren whose doctrine
we oppose. That the will of God is first in the salvation of every sinner who is
saved—that this will goes before every other will, and is the spring or origin of
all that is holy or excellent or fair or good in the wide universe—that whatever
is good or happy in creation or providence is to be traced to the will of God as
its ultimate
origin or source—all this we rejoice to admit, and do constantly affirm, and stand
prepared, from reason and from Scripture, unanswerably to demonstrate. It will be
observed, therefore, that our opponents in argument only manifest the weakness of
their cause, and the miserable position of their system of theology, when they indulge
in slanderous and false assertions against the truth which they oppose and revile
as heresy. It is vain for them to misrepresent and slander the sentiments of their
opponents, by asserting, as they do, that our system makes the will of man to be
supreme, and undeifies the Deity—that we make the sinner his own Saviour—that we
deny the sovereignty and grace of God, and reduce all things to mere chance work.
Such assertions as these may indeed deceive the ignorant, and impose upon indolent
or prejudiced minds, who will not take the trouble to inquire for themselves; but
as the progress of inquiry goes forward, and men begin to THINK
and to investigate, such assertions as these will be detected in their true character,
and will only expose the falsehood and the delusiveness of that system of theology
which NEEDS such crutches in order to prevent its instant
prostration. We have once more given prominence to the statements of a Free Church
minister, in order to set the question in its true and proper position. We take
it as Mr. Bonar has correctly enough stated it. It is not whether the will of God
be first in ANYTHING, but, “Is this will first in
EVERYTHING?” To this question the theology we oppose answers,
“Yes;” while we
affirm that the Word of God, and common sense itself, answers, “No.” God’s will
is NOT first in everything; it is NOT
the spring and origin of wickedness. We affirm that all that is good and excellent
and blessed has been originated by God. We affirm that God’s will has already set
in motion the entire mechanism of redemption, and has already prepared all things
necessary for the present and everlasting happiness of sinners of mankind, and has
already moved downwards to earth’s guilty population, and finished the work of atonement
for every man’s sins, and has already provided the influence of the Blessed Spirit
for every man’s conversion, so that “ALL THINGS ARE NOW READY,”
and so that every sinner who voluntarily accepts of the provision thus graciously
made, is justified and sanctified and saved solely and exclusively as the result
of God’s will taking the precedency of his will, and bringing to his very door a
free and unmerited salvation. But we do not affirm, with Mr. Bonar, that the will
of God takes the precedency of the wills of devils and of men in the introduction
of sin and misery into the universe. The origin of evil is not left by this writer,
or by his system of theology, as anything mysterious. It is by him accounted for
most fully! It is by him traced back directly to God himself! And every word, therefore,
which is uttered from the pulpit, and every sentence that is emitted from the press,
by Calvinistic divines, which does not father all iniquity upon a holy God, is neither
more nor less nor else than a denial and condemnation of their own unscriptural
and false theology—a theology whose days are numbered, and which ought,
long ere now, to have been for ever exploded.
The question, therefore, is, Whether the will of God takes the
precedency of created wills in EVERYTHING? and more particularly,
Whether the apostle inculcates this doctrine in the Acts of the Apostles, by ascribing
even THE WICKEDNESS of those who crucified the Lord of Glory
to God’s unalterable decree? This is the question which presents itself for our
consideration this evening. In reply to the question, we solicit your patient attention
to three observations.
1. We submit, in the first place, that the apostle, in
the passage referred to, ascribes to THE FOREKNOWLEDGE of
God what has been improperly traced by Calvin and his followers to God’s decree.
We have seen, in our former discourse, that the system of Calvinism
does not admit the possibility of God’s foreknowledge of anything which he has not
himself previously decreed. It teaches men to believe that nothing which God has
not himself fixed by his decree can be certain, and, as a matter of course, that
nothing which is uncertain can be foreknown. According to this system, God stands
in need of a decree to enlighten his mind as to the events which are hid and concealed
in the womb of futurity. Short-sighted men cannot understand how anything can be
foreknown as certain, unless the almighty will of God be previously pledged to bring
it into existence. And because the proud mortal cannot understand this, he presumes,
as we have formerly seen, bluntly to deny the reality, and even the possibility
of it.
We humbly submit, that such a conclusion as this, is dictated
by the most unreasonable vanity and pride. It is most unreasonable to deny the reality
of a plainly revealed fact, simply because our limited capacities cannot apprehend
the how and the wherefore of its existence, Presumption such as this,
is happily no longer tolerated in our researches into the philosophy of matter,
and the wonder is, that it should be tolerated and patronized, by intelligent men,
when we come to investigate the philosophy of mind. And surely when we approach
a theme so lofty as the philosophy of the infinite mind of the infinite Jehovah,
it becomes us to lie low in the dust, and receive, like little children, the plainest
statements of a well-accredited revelation. But this becoming spirit of humility
seems to have been entirely cast aside by those who have hazarded the assertion,
that the wickedness of our Saviour’s murderers is said, by an inspired apostle,
in the verses under consideration, to have been originated and decreed by God. They
who discover in these verses any such statement as this, have come to the Bible
with their preconceived notions, and, instead of testing their theory by the Word
of God, they have interpreted the Word of God so as to suit their theory. They have
come to these Scripture passages, not for the purpose of accommodating their system
of theology to the Bible, but manifestly for the purpose of squaring and explaining
the statements of the Bible so as to tally with their system of theology, and make
the Word of God speak the language, and inculcate the most
absurd and blasphemous tenets of Calvinism. Have these theologians not laid it down
as an indisputable truth, that nothing can be foreseen as certain which does not
happen to have been foreordained? Have they not taken it for granted, without any
proof, that if anything can be said to depend on the will of man, or any created
will, it is impossible even for Omniscience to apprehend its future certainty? Do
they not freely speak even of GUESS WORK in connexion with
omniscience, unless they are permitted to assume, and take it for granted, that
everything which comes to pass has been decreed? This is what we call by the name
of presumption. But it forms the source and origin of the false and erroneous interpretation,
according to which “even the wicked deed of those who crucified the Lord of Glory”
is said to have been “determined before by the hand and counsel of God.” This is
indeed the evident import of those two passages in the Acts of the Apostles, provided
a man be entitled to take it for granted, that foreknowledge necessarily presupposes
the existence of a foregone decree. But let this gratuitous assumption be called
in question, and the verses under consideration utter no such response as that which
falls upon Calvinistic ears. Deny the assumption, that whatever is foreknown must
needs have been decreed, and look at the two passages of Scripture as they stand
before you, and you find a very important distinction existing between the foreknowledge
of God and the determinate counsel or decree of God; and then the inquiry remains,
“WHAT did God
FOREKNOW?” But this does not exhaust the inquiry,
for another question presents itself, and it is this—“WHAT
did God DECREE in connexion with the transactions
of Calvary?”
There is but one question, indeed, suggested by these verses,
if any man may reasonably and justly confound the foreknowledge with the decree
of God, and look upon them as embracing the self-same events. But if there exist
an important distinction between foreknowledge and foreordination, so that anything
may be certainly foreknown without having been absolutely decreed by an infinitely
perfect God—if you grant the existence of such an important distinction as this,
you must admit that there are two separate and distinct inquiries involved
in the texts now under review. That such a distinction exists, is evident from the
nature of the two things—the one involving no more than certain and simple apprehension,
the other involving absolute and necessary causation; the one pointing to something
which God knows, the other pointing to something which God causes and originates;
and, as foreknowledge and decree are, in their own nature, separate and distinct,
so they are distinctly and separately mentioned in the Scripture passages themselves.
What, then, did God foreknow connected with the death of his only-begotten
and well-beloved Son? In reply to this question, we call your attention to two observations.
(1.) God foreknew, from eternity, with infallible
certainty, all the wickedness which was exhibited by that ungodly generation.
(2.) God foreknew, from eternity, with infallible certainty,
the possibility of the men who acted wickedly refraining from their wickedness,
and thinking and speaking and acting otherwise than they actually and certainly
did.
He foreknew, for example, that Judas would betray Christ, and
that Peter would deny him; but he also foreknew that Judas might not have
betrayed his Master, and that Peter might not have denied him. But, on the
supposition that the wickedness which was exhibited in connexion with the sufferings
and death of Jesus had been decreed or foreordained by God, it would not be true
that such wickedness was foreknown otherwise than as absolutely and necessarily
certain, and so it would not be true that God could foreknow the possibility of
its non-existence. To recur to the familiar examples which we have selected for
the sake of illustration, it would not be true that Judas might not have betrayed
Christ, or that Peter might not have denied him, if these deeds of wickedness had
been unconditionally decreed. It may here be said that God might have decreed otherwise
than he did decree, and so that Judas might not have betrayed and that Peter might
not have denied the Saviour. But you will not fail to observe, that this assertion
is made, by those who make it, for the purpose of leading our minds away from the
question which
now faces us. That question relates not to the decree, but to the foreknowledge
of God. We inquire not, whether it was possible for God to decree otherwise than
it is said he did decree; the question is, Did God foreknow the possibility of the
non-existence of the wickedness of which we speak? Did he foreknow the possibility
of Judas not betraying, and of Peter confessing instead of denying his Lord? To
this question, Calvinism has a ready answer. “He did not foreknow any such possibility.”
This reply is quite consistent with the theory. It springs necessarily out of the
theory. The theory is that the decree is the foundation of the foreknowledge, so
that God foreknows a thing because he has decreed it. But we are told that God decreed
the wickedness—he fixed, by his decree, that Judas and Peter would certainly act
precisely as they did act. But it was not possible for the decree of God to fail,
therefore it was not possible for Judas not to betray or for Peter not to deny the
Saviour. And if it was not possible for Judas and Peter to act otherwise than they
did act, God could not, of course, foreknow it to be possible.
When it is asserted, therefore, that both Judas and Peter might
have acted differently, if God had been pleased to decree differently, you will
see at once that this is saying nothing to the purpose. This is merely asserting
the free agency of God for the purpose of evading the blunt and unequivocal denial
of the free agency of man. We beg leave to hold our friends sternly to the point.
When a man sins, they say truly
that the man is verily blameworthy, because it was possible for him to have acted
differently. We want no more of them than this good confession, and we merely insist
upon their standing honestly by the obvious meaning of the words. They avow that
it was possible for the man to have abstained from sinning. We press the question.
What do these theologians mean when they avow the existence of such a possibility?
Mark well, my friends, what is the reply which this theology affords to this plain
and simple question: “It was quite possible for the man to have refrained from sin,
because it is quite conceivable that God, if he had so chosen, might not have
decreed that the main should commit iniquity”!! What is this but asserting the
free agency of God, and at the same time denying the free agency of man? But the
question is not whether God be a free agent;—the question relates
to the free agency of men, The question is, “Is it possible for men to act
differently than they do act when they choose to act wickedly?” And surely it is
only a crafty and cowardly and dishonest evasion of this question to inform
us, that “it was possible for God to have decreed differently”! Do we speak uncharitably,
or do we speak honestly, when we say that this theology is a deception, and that
its doctors and expounders practise a deception upon the minds and consciences of
the people who follow in their wake? Speak they not daily as if they believed that
man is a free and responsible agent? And, in saying this, do they not speak truly?
But, under the guise
of truth, do they not conceal a palpable falsehood? What is their meaning?
They mean to say what their theology inculcates. They mean to assert the necessary
dependence of man’s will upon God’s will “in everything, great or small,”
in this wicked world. They say to the sinner, that he might have refrained from
sin, and that he ought to have refrained from it, but their meaning is, that,
according to God’s eternal arrangements, it was not possible for the man to have
acted differently!
When we, therefore, propose the question, “What did God
foreknow in accordance with the statement embodied in the Acts of the Apostles?”
our friends inform us that God foreknew what he himself decreed; but they tell us
farther, that God decreed the wickedness. He could not, therefore, decree the
possibility of the non-existence of the wickedness. He could not decree it to
be quite possible that his own decree should fail. Surely not. Seeing, therefore,
that God foreknew neither more nor less nor else than what he himself decreed, it
follows that God, according to this theology, did not and could not possibly foreknow
the possibility of the wicked men, who wickedly persecuted and blasphemed
and crucified the Lord of Glory, acting differently in one single point, or refraining
from one single act of sin. To recur, again, to our illustrations, God decreed that
Judas and Peter should act as they did act, and he foreknew that they should so
act, through the medium of his decree (which is said to be the foundation of his
foreknowledge), and he did not and
could not foreknow that Judas or Peter might have acted differently, for
differently it was not possible for either of them to act without frustrating God’s
decree.
Our appeal is now made to a host of witnesses. We appeal to every
man, woman, and child on the face of the earth, not excluding our opponents themselves.
We appeal confidently to every man’s own consciousness. We ask every man
to say, whether he is not conscious within himself that, when he sins, he might
have refrained from sinning. Is it not upon this assumption that laws
are framed? Does not the very existence of all law, human as well as divine, proceed
upon the assumption, that it is quite possible for the subjects to obey them? And
do not the pains and penalties appended to the transgression of every law, assume
the existence of the possibility of the transgressor acting differently? Is it not
every man’s duty to obey a just and righteous administration, just because it is
quite possible for him to obey it?—and is it not for this very reason that the transgression
of a just law is justly punishable?
Let the false philosophy which has been engrafted by Calvin upon
the Word of God become dominant in society, and where are the safeguards of peace
and good order and morality and liberty herself! They are overthrown and demolished
by the rude hand of revolutionary ignorance. And who are the men who have trampled
upon all law, human and divine, and waded through seas of blood to attain their
revolutionary purposes? They have been those who have
cast aside the Bible, and bad their minds poisoned and their consciences seared
by the philosophy of Calvin. What is Socialism but Calvinism without a Bible?
And what is Calvinism? What is it which characterizes this system and marks it out
as a theology different from the system which we seek to advance? The Free Church
minister, from whom we have quoted, has himself stated the question between this
theology and the system which opposes it, by asking, “Is God’s will first in
everything?”
But against this system of error we have our appeal. We have our
appeal, as we have said, to the unsophisticated consciousness of universal humanity.
The most hardened criminal carries along with him to the jail and to the scaffold
the consciousness of blameworthiness, and this consciousness is based upon the innate
conviction of the fact that HE MIGHT HAVE acted otherwise,
and that it was quite POSSIBLE to have refrained from committing
the crimes which have hurried him to an ignominious end. And does not the whole
Bible, from beginning to end, proceed upon the principle for which we now contend?
Does not every command and promise and threatening and blessed invitation of the
Word of God proceed upon the great principle which universal consciousness attests,
and demonstrate the truthfulness of our position, when we now maintain that every
man who acts wickedly MIGHT act in consistency with conscience
and the will of God?
It is, therefore, a question which affects every man’s interest
for time as well as for eternity. Are you disposed, my friends, to be juggled out
of all that is dear
to you in time, and precious throughout eternity, by this false and juggling theology?
See ye not to what an awful conclusion it conducts you? Perceive ye not the false
philosophy on which this system of error is avowedly based? It is based upon the
denial of the freedom of man’s will, save in the sense that the will of man is necessarily
dependent upon and regulated by the antecedent will of God “in everything.”
It informs a wicked and godless generation, as they pursue their downward course
to hell, that “everything in this world happens according to God’s eternal arrangements.
Nothing takes place except what God causes to be, or permits to be, and whatever
happens in time, is decreed from eternity. Even the wicked deed of those who crucified
the Lord of Glory is said by the apostle to be determined before by the hand and
counsel of God”!!
But we confidently submit that the Apostle says no such thing.
And it is, perhaps, necessary that we should in this connexion call your attention
to the apparent discrepancy between the two passages in the Acts of the Apostles,
on which this assertion is avowedly based. There is no obscurity hanging over the
verse which is quoted from the second chapter of the Acts. That verse plainly
refers to the foreknowledge, as separate and distinct from the decree of God. But
the verse quoted from the fourth chapter refers not to foreknowledge at all,
and is said to trace every wickedness to “the hand and the counsel of God.” I need
not inform you, however, that the translation of that verse is not inspired—that
is to say, the Calvinists
who translated the New Testament Greek into the English language, laid no claim
to infallibility, even in their translation. The Greek Testament is as patent and
open to us as it was to the translators. We therefore state what no man can truthfully
deny, when we here affirm, that the verse quoted from the fourth chapter
of the Acts is susceptible of a very different rendering, by a very simple and legitimate
transposition of the words. We read it as we apprehend it ought to have been translated,
when we read as follows:—“Of a truth, against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast
anointed for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be
done, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel,
were gathered together.” The verse, as thus rendered, does not ascribe to God’s
decree all that wicked men did, or any wicked thing that was done. It does not ascribe
the execution of God’s decree to men, but to the “holy child Jesus.” He it was who
was anointed for the express purpose of working out whatsoever the hand and counsel
of God had determined before to be done. But should any of you prefer the translation
as it stands, we submit that it does not affirm what Mr. Bonar says it affirms,
even as it is read in our received translation. It does not say that God decreed
“everything” which our Saviour’s murderers chose to do, but it says that
those wicked murderers were actually made instrumental in carrying into effect God’s
designs. They did not frustrate the great and gracious design of God in one single
point, but even their undecreed
wickedness was made subservient, not only to the frustration of what they
wickedly hoped to effect, but even to the development of God’s most wise and holy
purposes. This we shall have occasion afterwards to remark upon more fully. In the
mean time we have said enough to make good our position. We have endeavoured to
convince you that the wickedness was not decreed, but simply foreknown. And that
this wickedness was foreknown, not in the sense in which alone Calvinists admit
anything to be foreknown,—not in the sense of having been absolutely and unconditionally
decreed, and therefore foreknown. It was foreknown as undecreed and
unoriginated and uncaused by a holy God. It was foreknown not only as certain, but
as the certain result of free and responsible agents, who were not bound by any
foregone decree to enact their wickedness, but who might have refrained their hands
from wickedness, and their mouths from speaking guile. Herein, therefore, consists
the error of this Free Church interpretation. This interpretation takes for granted
what is not merely unproved, but what is actually disproved by every man’s consciousness.
It takes for granted that wickedness has been decreed by God, and therefore that
its existence is necessary, so that it was not possible that it might not have been
committed. And taking this for granted, this false system leads its abettors to
pervert the Word of God, by ascribing to his wise and holy decree what the apostle,
in the passages referred to, ascribes to his foreknowledge, and his foreknowledge
alone.
We need only further to remind you now, that foreknowledge,
like afterknowledge, does not cause the existence of the object apprehended
by the mind. It apprehends the certainty of the object, but it does not originate
the certainty. You perceive the absurdity of imagining that your knowledge of the
existence of the flood, or of the destruction of the cities of the plain, or of
any other ascertained event which might be taken as a specimen, could possibly exercise
any influence in bringing these events into existence. From the very Nature of the
case, whatever is the object of knowledge, becomes known because it is certain.
It is not rendered certain because it is known. You do not say, “I know it, and
therefore it exists.” You rather say, “It exists, and therefore I know it.” But
if you had the power and the will to bring anything into existence, and forthwith
were to decree it—on this supposition you would say, “I decreed it, and therefore
it came to pass.” In this case, your decree would be the cause of its existence.
It is evident, therefore, that whatever is known is no less certain than if it were
decreed. But it is plain, for this very reason, that a thing does not need
to be decreed in order to be certain. And if a thing may be certain without being
decreed, the simple question remains—“Was it not possible for the divine mind
to apprehend beforehand the free and independent and undecreed volitions of
all his intelligent and responsible creatures?”
There exists an important distinction between human
actions simply foreknown, and the same actions apprehended after they have come
to pass, which will, perhaps, serve to illustrate and confirm the position in support
of which we have been arguing. The wickedness which is already past is apprehended,
not merely as certain, but as something whose existence is now unavoidable, and,
in that sense, necessary. But every past sin is known by the sinner himself
to have been undecreed, because the sinner says truly in reference to his sin, “I
might have avoided it.” This is attested by every man’s consciousness. He knows
that he has sinned, but he knows too that he might have resisted the temptation
whereby he was seduced. The sins, however, which are past and gone, possess a positive
necessary being. It is not possible for Omnipotence itself to blot out the fact
of their actual and ascertained existence. They are in this sense necessary or unavoidable,
inasmuch as after they are committed, they cannot possibly be recalled. But it is
not more easy for you to certify this fact, than it is to certify the other fact
to which we have adverted—the fact that such sins might have been avoided. If the
sinner could only know assuredly that he was necessarily and unavoidably impelled
forward to the commission of sin, he could not possibly be the subject of remorse.
Would not such a plea, if well substantiated, relieve him also from punishment?
But what forms the gall and bitterness of the sinner’s reflection upon his folly,
is the consciousness that he might have acted otherwise. Will any sophistry erase
from any
man’s mind the consciousness of the truth which I now state? It is impossible. Here,
then, is certainty—infallible certainty; no “’mere guesswork,” but absolute
certainty—certainty converted into a positive necessity, by the actual existence
of the object which is known. But here is something which might have been avoided,
and which, therefore, was not necessary before it came into existence. It could
not, therefore, be absolutely or unconditionally and eternally necessary; it could
not be unconditionally and eternally decreed or foreordained.
If, then, we speak of the actions of free and responsible agents
before they come into actual existence, we must say of them that they may not come
to pass, or, in other words, that their future existence is not necessary or unavoidable.
But when we say this, we do not contradict the fact of their future certainty. They
are certain, whether we suppose them to be known as past, or whether we foreknow
them as future. The question which, on either supposition, remains to be solved,
is—What is the cause or foundation of their certainty? Is this cause to be
discovered in the decree of God, or is it to be sought for in man’s free agency?
This is the sole question which presents itself for solution; for there is no doubt
about the certainty of whatever is apprehended or known, whether the objects known
are past or future. If, then, the decree of God is the cause or foundation of the
certainty, it is evident, that the objects apprehended beforehand as certain,
must come to pass. They cannot
possibly be avoided, for it will not be imagined that the decree of God can possibly
fail. But sinful actions (of which we speak) are admitted to be among those things
which might have. been avoided, even when they are contemplated as now and for ever
necessary in point of actual existence—i. e., when contemplated as past and
gone. If, then, they might have been avoided, they could not possibly be decreed
by God. Their cause or origin must, therefore, be traced to the perverted and abused
free agency of men, seeing that it cannot be traced to the decree of God, in which
case their existence would from eternity have been necessary or unavoidable. It
follows, therefore, that the foreknown volitions and actions of free agents are
in no sense necessary or unavoidable, but that they may or may not take place, although
they be from eternity apprehended as certain.
You will observe from what has been now advanced, that strong
and incontrovertible evidence of our present position lies within yourselves. You
have the same evidence in support of what we have stated to you, which you have
for your own existence; and it is just as easy for any man to convince himself that
he does not exist, as it is to argue himself into the notion, that when he determines
to walk in one direction, he cannot possibly determine to move in a different course.
The consciousness of his own existence, which every man possesses, is one infallible
witness to which now we make our appeal. And unless a man can honestly say, that
whenever he
sins against the dictates of conscience, he has only yielded to the force of a necessity
which he could not possibly resist, we have that man’s verdict decidedly in favour
of what we now advance. The whole question resolves itself into this single point—“Was
it not in my power to have determined differently?—Is there not something within
me whose testimony no sophistry can contradict, which assures me that I might, and
that I ought to have decided in a direction the very opposite?” When any man repents
of his evil deeds, or even when he does not repent, but merely experiences internal
remorse on account of his waywardness, does not that man confirm and substantiate,
beyond the possibility of doubt, every statement which we make against the theory
which falsely ascribes “everything” to God’s unalterable decree?
The entire Bible confirms and strengthens the testimony of universal
consciousness. Men are there addressed and treated, throughout, as possessed of
that entire freedom of will, the existence of which is denied by the theology now
under review. They are commanded both to will and to do in a manner the very reverse
of that which they generally, we might say, universally, choose to act. And all
this clearly implies the possibility of men both determining and acting in a manner
very differently, and pursuing a course the very opposite of that which is too generally
followed. In reference to the future, the Word of God informs men that they may
determine on a different course from that
which is certainly foreknown, and we are thereby furnished with infallible proof
to convince us that wickedness which is certainly foreknown, may not, after
all, take place, but may be avoided, and is therefore undecreed of God. If it were
decreed, it must of necessity happen, and the simple question is, whether the entire
volume of revelation does not confirm the testimony of every man’s consciousness,
and exhibit the fact that men may not, and therefore should not, act wickedly. In
reference to the past, the infallible Word bears the same infallible testimony.
It condemns the sinful deeds of men, and its testimony finds an honest response
in the sinner’s bosom, when he is assured that he might and should have willed and
acted, consistently with the will of God.
But all such incontrovertible evidence is treated with contempt
by the Calvinistic theology. This theology introduces a false and unscriptural
theory among the soul-saving and soul-sanctifying truths of Scripture. It
is taken for granted that “the will of God is first in everything,
and that by God’s immutable decree everything has been, from eternity, unchangeably
and unconditionally fixed.” And this false theory being assumed, and forced into
unnatural connexion with the Word of God, the plainest truths in all the Bible are
racked and tortured and mangled and destroyed, in order to make room for this monstrous
and infernal conception of depraved imaginations. It is by elevating this hideous
theory into the position of a first principle in theology, and twisting and perverting
such texts as
those now under consideration, so as to make them correspond exactly with this false
principle, that our Free Church expositor falls into mistake, and blunders so egregiously,
as to assert, that “even the wicked deed of those who crucified the Lord of Glory
is said, by the apostle, to have been determined before by the hand and counsel
of God.” We hope we have said enough to convince you, that the wickedness referred
to was not decreed, but was simply foreknown by God, and that foreknowledge embraced
no antecedent decree, whereby the wickedness which comes to pass was unconditionally
and divinely “fixed;” but, on the contrary, that the divine foreknowledge
embraced the fact that this, and every other act of wickedness which disfigures
the handiwork of God, it was, and is, and ever shall be, quite possible to
avoid, up to the very moment when sin was, is, or shall be, brought into actual
existence, by the undecreed and independent volitions of fallible and sinning creatures.
II. Our second general observation is, that in the interpretation
of the verses now under consideration, the followers of Calvin ascribe to the wickedness
of men, what the apostle of Christ traces directly to God’s decree.
It is a remarkable fact that, like the Pharisees of old, our Free
Church expositor and his friends turn the Bible upside down by their Calvinian traditions.
They ascribe to God’s decree what the Bible ascribes to the wicke4ness of men and
devils, and they ascribe to the wickedness of men and devils what the Bible traces
to God’s unalterable and most holy decree. They thereby turn the entire Word of
God upside down, and reduce its most blessed contents to one mass of inextricable
confusion, and make it utter the most absurd and palpable contradictions. We have
seen that those theologians ascribe all the wickedness of our Saviour’s murderers
to the decree of God, and we now remark, that they falsely ascribe the entire execution
of God’s decree to the wickedness of the men who reviled and persecuted and condemned
and crucified the Lord of Glory. We say falsely, because it seems evident,
from the word of God, that whatever God himself decreed, he himself carried into
execution. What, then, did God decree? He decreed that Jesus should be, by himself,
voluntarily delivered up into the hands of his enemies—that the wickedness of men
should be signally defeated and frustrated, and that the men themselves should be
made subservient to the working out of his most wise and holy and merciful designs.
The question suggested by this observation is very simple—Did
these murderers obtain possession of the person of Jesus Christ by their own power,
or did they not? Was the act whereby he was led bound to Pilate’s judgment-seat
the act of men, or was it the act of God? Such is the question now before us. The
question is not whether the wickedness which prompted the men to seek the Saviour’s
life was the act of God; the question is, whether the actual delivering up
of Christ, as a prisoner, into their hands was the result of all this wickedness,
or whether it was
not the direct result of God’s immutable decree. In order to help you to an answer,
we may refer you to the first six verses of the eighteenth chapter of John’s Gospel,
where we are informed that—
“When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples
over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into which he entered, and his disciples.
And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted
thither with his disciples. Judas then, having received a band of men and officers
from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns, and torches,
and weapons. Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went
forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus
saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As
soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the
ground.”
Here, then, is the most distinct answer to the question which
I have now proposed. There was here a direct and miraculous interposition of Divine
power, not to destroy the men, but to demonstrate to the universe the utter and
the total powerlessness of all their wicked and malicious schemes. They had no power
whatever to touch a hair of the Saviour’s head. God could not, by an act of omnipotence,
destroy their malice, or pluck out from their souls the rooted wickedness which
was there. This, by an act of omnipotence,
God could not do, but he could destroy their power to hurt, by laying them prostrate
on the earth. And this he, for an instant, actually did, and he thereby proved that
it was not their wickedness which triumphed over him, but his matchless love which
triumphed over all their malice, and which prompted him voluntarily to deliver himself
into their hands, in order that he might die a ransom for their sins. In the delivering
up of the Son of God into the hands of his enemies, we do not therefore behold the
result or even the forth-putting of human power, but we see the direct and voluntary
act of God himself in the carrying into execution his own decree. True, indeed,
the wickedness of the men was not arrested in its outrageous manifestation—true,
indeed, their wickedness seemed to triumph—but the question is, Did it triumph?
So far from this, the humanity was for a moment eclipsed amid the splendour of the
divinity, and God himself appeared, before the eyes of angels, of devils, and of
men, to do what the whole of them together had no power to carry into execution.
And what was this, but voluntarily and directly himself to execute, by his own act
of holy love, what he had from eternity purposed to, do, when he purposed to give
his Son a ransom for all? It was not the act of the men, for “they went backward
and fell to the ground.” Here we behold the sole and exclusive act of God, when
instantly, instead of being struck down into perdition, the men were enabled again
to stand upon their feet, and received Christ a voluntary
captive into their hands. Such, then, was emphatically the act of God himself, in
the execution of his own decree.
And so, when Jesus was before the judgment-seat of Pilate, what
did he say? “Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given
thee from above.” Thus again did Jesus enforce the principle, that he was delivered
up, and went as a lamb to the slaughter, not in consequence of the rage and malice
of devils and wicked men, but as the direct and exclusive result of his Father’s
immutable and eternal decree. “No man [said he] taketh my life from me. I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it up again.”
Then, indeed, did “the heathen rage, and the people imagine a
vain thing.” What did they vainly imagine? They imagined that they were possessed
of power enough to carry into execution their own diabolical purposes against the
incarnate Son of God. They gathered themselves together in order to accomplish their
own wicked ends, but all in vain. “He that sits in heaven” laughed them to scorn.
The Lord did hold them in derision. See Psalm ii. He proved the utter impotence
of all their rage—the total powerlessness of all their mighty and apparently formidable
combinations; and this he did, even at the very moment when they seemed to triumph
over him and his Anointed. On the one side, there were the devil and his angels—Judas
and the Jewish people—Pilate and Herod and the Roman legions—and on what were they
bent?
They were bent upon the destruction of Jesus. They were
leagued together in order to frustrate and overthrow the decree of God, the purport
of which decree was, that his own Son should offer himself up a voluntary sacrifice,
and lay down his life—not as a felon who is condemned to die—but as a conqueror,
voluntarily flinging himself into the hottest of the strife, and breathing his last
amid the shouts of victory,—a conqueror who, after entering into the dark abodes
of death for a season, should grapple with the grim king of terrors himself, within
his grim domain, and on the morning of the third day emerge triumphant from amid
the gloom, crowned with the laurels of success,—a conqueror who should eventually
ascend upwards, to take possession of the mediatorial throne, and wear the crown,
and wield the sceptre, for evermore!
Such was the decree of God. This was what
“the hand and counsel of God determined before to be done.” But Herod and Pontius
Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, had no such ends or purposes
in contemplation. The very reverse of all this was their unholy and malignant intent.
But they were defeated—manifestly defeated—inasmuch as, in the first place, God
did, in point of fact, himself accomplish what he decreed from eternity to do. This
God himself did, in spite of all the rage of his enemies against him and his Anointed
One. And, in the second place, God executed his own decree, and did his own work,
in such a way—at such a time—and amid such a combination of circumstances, that
it really seemed as if his
enemies had been intentionally gathered together to
do his work, which work they unwittingly and unintentionally forwarded and advanced.
And thus it was that, at that very moment when they were raging and foaming and
battling against him, they were made instrumental in forwarding and advancing “whatsoever
the hand and counsel of God determined before to be done.”
But it was not the wickedness
of those who crucified the Lord of Glory, whereby the eternal purpose of God was
fulfilled even unintentionally on the part of those ungodly men. The wickedness
was never decreed by God, and even in the hour of its apparent triumph, whatever
was wicked and unholy, was most effectually and gloriously frustrated and overthrown.
All that was sinful and malicious was traceable to the willing and the doing—the
designing and the determining of the men, and all this was triumphantly defeated,
even when it seemed to have effected its designs. All that was good and gracious,
was but the development in time, of God’s decree formed from eternity, and all this
was most gloriously accomplished by God himself; so that while their wickedness
was defeated, the very men who were fighting against God with all their might, were
made subservient to the execution of his purposes.
We have already hinted, that
the verse which is erroneously supposed to father the wickedness of our Saviour’s
persecutors on the decree of God, and to teach that such wickedness was the actual
fulfilment of that decree, is susceptible of a very different interpretation, by
a legitimate alteration in the collocation of
the words. But we intimated, at the same time, that
even as the verse stands in the received translation, it does not inculcate the
doctrine which has been erroneously founded upon it.On Acts iv. 27, 28, Dr. Payne observes—“This is a case, as it is said, in which
sinful actions are spoken of as the consequence of a Divine decree. Now, I do not
avail myself of a different collocation of the words, proposed by some eminent scholars,
which bring out the statement, not that Herod and Pontius Pilate, &c., were gathered
together to do what the counsel of the Lord had determined, but that Christ was
anointed to accomplish all this. I do not avail myself of this, both because it
is unnecessary to resort to this altered collocation of the words, and because there
can be no doubt that the salvation of men, by the crucifixion of the Son of God,
was a Divinely appointed event. . . . . . In this case, the Divine decree extended to
the giving up of the Saviour into the hands of his enemies, but not to the treatment
which, when thus given up, he received from them. Known unto God are all his works,
and all the power, the thoughts, the feelings of men, from eternity. He knew the
precise state of mind of Herod and Pontius Pilate, &c. . . . . And yet, knowing all
this, he sent, his Son into the world; he determined to send him into the world—determined
to surrender him to the malice of his enemies. . . . . Though
HE DID NOT DECREE that
Herod and Pontius Pilate, &c., should bind and bruise and crucify the Saviour, he
did decree that the Saviour should be given up to their cruelty and vengeance. His
decree, in short, extended to what he did in this transaction, but
NOT TO WHAT
MEN DID. . . . . Jehovah perceives how that principle, which is the prolific source
of all evil, will develop itself in every conceivable variety of circumstances.
And it is perfectly easy for him so to arrange his providential dispensations, as
that the ungodly passions of men shall prove the
instruments of accomplishing his merciful purposes, without decreeing that these
men shall be the subjects of this depravity, or that their unholy passions shall
develop themselves in that particular manner; or, I add, without
DECREEING TO PERMIT
either the one or the other. All that God does in the business, is the subject of
decree; all that man does is not the subject of decree.”—Lecture VI., on Sovereignty,
pp. 125-127.
This will appear evident from
the observations which have latterly been submitted
for your consideration. It seems quite evident that Herod and Pontius Pilate and
the Gentiles did most unintentionally do what God intended to be done. But in doing
this, they did the very reverse of what they had wickedly determined. Their wicked
designs were the very opposite of what God did not only decree, but carry into execution,
in actual opposition to the determinations of wicked men. Granting, therefore, that
the common rendering ought rather to be preferred, the verse which says to us that
those wicked men did whatever God purposed, assures us by that very statement, that
God did not decree any portion of their wickedness, seeing that such wickedness
was frustrated and overthrown.
So far, then, from informing us that “God foreordained
whatsoever comes to pass,” or hinting that “the will of God is first in
everything,”
or announcing that “even the wicked deed of those who crucified the Lord of Glory
was determined before by the hand and counsel of God,”—the inspired apostle intimates
exactly the reverse, and that, too, in the verses which have been selected as the
stronghold of Calvinism!
It is evident, therefore, from the Word of God, as well as from the nature of the case, that the system
of theology which is based upon an assumption such as that under examination, stands
upon a sandy foundation. The storm of controversy which has happily begun to beat
against the baseless tenement, and the tide of discussion which has already begun
to rise upwards around its walls, must very speedily insure its downfall. It is
not founded upon the Rock of Ages, and the sooner it is laid prostrate on the earth,
and swept away for ever, so much the better for the interests of truth and the well-being
of immortal souls.
III. We submit, in the third place, that the interpretation which
has been given of these two verses in the Acts, by the supporters of Calvinism,
CANNOT POSSIBLY be correct.
There are some statements which are so evidently inconsistent
with truth, that every honest man is able to detect their falsehood the moment they
are uttered. It needs little or no examination in order to pronounce them to be
false and unfounded. And so there are some interpretations of the Word of God which
are so manifestly inconsistent with the whole tenor and import of Scripture declaration,
that every man who is in the slightest degree acquainted with his Bible, feels constrained,
at the very first glance, to reject them and trample them under his feet, as perversions
of the Word of God. As if the atheist should say to you that it is written in the
first verse of the fourteenth psalm, that “there is no God”—appealing to the very
Bible, which in such an event would be divested of all authority—in proof of his
blasphemous assertion. On such
a supposition as this, your reply would be instantaneous and unhesitating—“The
fool hath said in his heart, there is no God;” but that there is a God all
Nature speaks aloud through all her works, and to the voice of universal Nature,
the entire volume of Scripture adds its unanswerable response. It is plain, at
first sight, that whatever is evidently opposed to the universal testimony of
Scripture and of conscience, cannot possibly be true. Of this nature is the interpretation
of the two passages which we are now examining. According to this, we are called
upon to believe that all the wickedness which takes place among men has its origin
in the heart of God, and its original embodiment in the purpose of God, and is neither
more nor less than the execution in time, of what God has purposed from eternity
to bring to pass. This is what we are informed the Bible declares. And when any
man startles at such an announcement, just as he shrinks from the reception of the
statement—there is no God, he is informed, with a grave countenance and a pious
whine, that God is sovereign, and it is his duty to receive as a truth the blasphemous
declaration. But most certain it is, that every man who will listen to the voice
of his own conscience (not to speak of the Word of God at all), must shrink back
instinctively from the assertion, that God has himself originated every abomination
which we call by the name of sin, by first decreeing its existence from eternity,
and then himself executing his decree in the works of creation and providence, and
thus by his omnipotence bringing
it to pass in time. If there be any meaning in language,
what is this but to assert that God himself is the active agent in the commission
of all iniquity, and that he has deliberately purposed from eternity to bring it
to pass! What are men but the passive instruments in his hand, to carry into execution
whatever enormity his hand and counsel hath determined to do! What are the circumstances
of time and the events of Providence amid which men are placed, but the means which
God uses for the one purpose of hemming up their path and constraining them to perpetrate
the innumerable acts of wickedness which he hath decreed to bring to pass! This
is what we are called upon to believe; and not only so, but we are gravely informed
that this is precisely what the Bible teaches us. Now I most unhesitatingly affirm,
that it is as easy for any man so far to stifle his conscience, as to believe that
there is no God at all, as to believe that there is such a God as Calvinism has
set up. I put it fearlessly to your own consciences, and I ask you to say if you
do not find it impossible to believe that God is not only the originator of all
evil, but at the same time the great executioner of it—himself executing certain
decrees which necessitate sin, in the works of creation and providence! But here
is the fearful picture which you have set up before you, and which the writer, from
whom I have quoted, calls a representation of God, and which he commands you to
fall down and worship. He directs you to Pilate’s judgment-seat, and to the blood-thirsty
rabble who
crowded around it. He points you to the innocent Jesus
arraigned before that judgment-seat, and cruelly and unjustly charged with crimes
of which he was guiltless as a lamb. He calls upon you to mark the deliberate villany
of the men who knew that their victim was innocent, but who suborned false witnesses,
and brought them forward to substantiate, by what they knew to be lies, their malignant
charge. And what does this writer say to you, and what does he ask you to believe?
He admits that all this is very wicked, and he asks you to condemn and execrate
the atrocious deed. And so far it is well. But he instantly changes the scene. The
curtain which concealed something else from your gaze is drawn aside. And what do
you see? It is the image of a Being who has been behind the scenes, managing and
ordering and arranging the dreadful tragedy. Here is the originator of the entire
plot exhibited before you. The affair was all of his planning. He it was who originally
decreed, and finally executed the whole. There stands the image of the Being who
suggested and manufactured the false and infamous charge. He had power and resources
enough at his disposal to shut up those ruffians falsely to prefer it, and he resolved
to exert his ingenuity and power to that effect, He it was who hatched and ordained
the infernal falsehoods whereby that unjust charge should be substantiated, and
he took care so to order all events that those false witnesses should have their
consciences seared, so as to stand prepared to swear to what they knew to be a lie.
There, then, is the prime mover, and the secret executioner,
of the whole behind the scenes. But what comes next before you? Who is this who
seems ready to relent and set the victim of injustice free? It is Pontius Pilate
himself. There is tenderness in his eye—there is compassion in his heart—there is
a tremulous, hesitating sound proceeding from his lips. Ah he seems reluctant to
condemn. What is that which fell from his lips? Surely—surely the innocent is acquitted,
for PILATE has said, “I find no fault in him.” He thinks of the fearful dream which,
but the night before, had startled from her slumbers the wife of his bosom. He looks
on that majestic countenance—calm and commanding in its consciousness of innocence,—he
trembles to condemn, and, under the impulse of his better nature, Pilate exclaims,
“I find no fault in him.”
But here, again, the scene is changed. Again the mysterious
curtain is withdrawn by this modern teacher of modern Christianity. Again does this
Free Church teacher point you to the Being who has decreed the whole, and who is
secretly but infallibly directing the infernal plot. The heart even of Pontius Pilate
relents, and fain would he set free the innocent. But this Being, whose image is
held up before you, has bound down Pilate, by an iron decree, to dash the tear of
pity from his eye, and stifle the sentiment of justice within his soul, and drown
the voice of faithful conscience, as she urges him to let the victim go. And,
in the execution of this decree, instantly, as if to drown
the voice of imploring conscience, is Pontius Pilate
forced to listen to ten thousand voices exclaiming, “Crucify him, crucify him! If
thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar’s friend.” It is as if the bottomless pit
were opened up, and all the fiends of hell let loose upon him, in order to force
him to spill the blood of the innocent; and—there stands the originator of the whole!—the
Being who has decreed all this!—the Being who has shut up Pilate to the necessity
of doing what it is most evident he would not otherwise have done! And who is this
Being who has urged on all this wickedness? What is his name? Alas! alas! that so
many should call him GOD!!! SATAN
is his proper name.
I ask you to look at the text
from the epistle of James, and see whether you have not there a very different picture
of the Deity from that which is set before you by this most blasphemous interpretation
of the two statements embodied in the Acts. The Holy Spirit says expressly, that
God cannot so much as tempt any man to sin. But this disciple of Calvin declares
that God does more than tempt—he shuts up men to the necessity of sinning, by an
unalterable decree, even as his decree originated, and his omnipotence insured,
the perpetration of all the wickedness of the men who shed the Saviour’s blood!!
Permit me, in conclusion, earnestly and affectionately to remind every one of my
hearers, that there devolves upon each one of us a solemn and a tremendous responsibility,
which, in the midst of this exciting
controversy, we are too prone to forget. We are,
each man and woman present, responsible to God for our own personal and individual
salvation. This is what Calvinism teaches us to forget. It devolves the entire responsibility
upon God, and takes it away from the consciences of men; and herein it appeals to
the innate depravity and spiritual slothfulness of humanity, and to this circumstance
alone it owes its popularity and its success. It feeds and it fattens upon the depravity
of human nature, and to this alone does it owe its existence at the present hour.
There is, my dear friends, a fatal tendency in human nature universally, to roll
upon God the entire responsibility of everything that happens among men. There is
a tendency, in our depraved and corrupted minds, to rid themselves of the burden
of personal responsibility, and to sit or recline at ease under a gospel despised,
and an atonement rejected, and a Holy Spirit resisted, and a sin-laden condemned
soul still unconverted, and every moment exposed to eternal woe. There is a fatal
tendency in every mind to shield itself from the stings and reproaches of a faithful
conscience, under the hypocritical pretence of guarding the sovereignty, and intermeddling
not with the province of God. You are, it may be, yet unconverted—yet unsaved—yet
without “peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” And when conscience, faithful
to her trust, would arouse you from your slumbers; and while the Holy Spirit says
to you, “Behold I stand at the door and knock;” and while God himself is even beseeching
you to be reconciled;
what are you about? You are probably soothing your
consciences by the hypocritical pretence of “WAITING GOD’S TIMES OR DAY OF POWER.”
See ye not that ye are thereby casting upon God the entire responsibility of your
present unconverted—unsaved—God-dishonouring and Saviour-despising position? O my
fellow-sinner, why wilt thou not open thine eye upon the great reality, and behold
the God who loves your soul waiting—already waiting—compassionately waiting—WAITING
FOR THEE? You do not need to wait another moment for thy God. He has waited long,
and he is infinitely desirous even now for thy conversion, but we cannot say to
any one among you, that he will wait another week or day or hour. “Behold,
NOW is
the accepted time; behold, NOW is the day of salvation.” The entire responsibility
of your present unsaved state rests entirely upon your own heads, and if you perish
eternally, that system of error, whereby you are now deluded, will not come to your
rescue in the place of woe, but you shall sink down to hell under the awful burden
which now you seek in vain to shift entirely upon the decree of an Almighty God.
On your own heads will rest your own soul’s blood; and it will be too late to lament
the day when you yielded up your souls to the influence of a false philosophy—a
man-made creed—and wasted away your day of grace under the specious and hypocritical
pretext of waiting upon that God who in reality is waiting for you. The man who
tells you that it is not the sinner who moves first in the matter of conversion,
tells you what is truth. But that man
who says to you that God has not ALREADY moved forward,
and has not ALREADY taken his place, and is not
ALREADY propitiated and satisfied
for your sins, and is not ALREADY waiting to receive you even now into the bosom
of his love—that man, whoever he be, is a deceiver of your souls.
THE FIRST STEP
HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN by your God, and on yourselves alone now rests the tremendous
responsibility of your soul’s conversion. Ah! it will serve you nothing—if you continue
determined in your present course, and rush onward to perdition—to say to your souls
that you were not so presumptuous as to take the matter out of the hand of a sovereign
God, nor so unorthodox in your creed as to be beforehand with God in your salvation.
If you will not look at, this hypocritical pretext, this cunning slander against
God’s truth, in the light of the gospel revelation, you will see it clearly enough
exposed and burned up by the flames of hell. You will see, when it shall be too
late, that it was a mere device of Calvinism, to lull your conscience asleep for
time, and pander to your innate depravity, and leave you at your ease without “PEACE
WITH GOD.” You will see that it was a foul slander against the truth of God to insinuate,
that should you venture even now to believe in Christ as your atoning sacrifice,
who died for your sins, you would be beforehand with God, and become your own Saviour,
and anticipate and forestal the grace of the Spirit of God, without which, no sinner
can indeed be saved. You will see that God was always beforehand with you, and anticipated
your every want; and sent
his Son to bear the punishment of your sins, that
you might not yourselves be punished, but go free; and sent the Holy Spirit to point
you to the finished work of Jesus, as the glorious and exclusive ground of your salvation. And you will see that all things being thus ready for your immediate
conversion, you were yourselves responsible for doubting the truth of God, and
hesitating and slumbering and perishing on the very threshold of salvation. If you
will not open your eyes and look upon the delusions of a false theology now, and
see it now exposed by the light of the gospel, you shall ere long see its falsehood
exposed in the fires of perdition. Depend upon it, my friends, that
ON YOUR OWN
PRESENT CHOICE, and that alone, does your present and eternal well-being Now depend.
“All things are ready.” “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve.”
GOD THE FATHER
is willing, GOD THE SON is willing, GOD THE SPIRIT is willing. On your
OWN WILL,
therefore, hangs Now your everlasting destiny. And the theology which would teach
you to wait or hesitate or procrastinate, as if either the Father or the Son or
the Spirit needed to be waited upon, in order to be made willing to save you, or
as if all that is needful for your immediate pardon were not, on the part of God,
ALREADY FINISHED, or as if the will of God had not
ALREADY ANTICIPATED your will,
and is not ALREADY MOVING for your rescue,—the theology which blasphemously assumes
that all things ARE NOT READY for your immediate
acceptance, and for the immediate acceptance of every sinner on this side of
hell, and which would scare you away from
salvation by the pharisaical pretence, the hypocritical
whine, about the imaginary sin and danger of YOUR WILL going before, and moving
heavenward, independently of THE WILL OF GOD—such a theology is the most successful
instrument whereby Satan deceives and ruins precious and immortal souls. Depend
upon it, that if you are still doubting, and without peace in the prospect of meeting
God, the fault is ALL YOUR OWN. The cause in not with God, but with yourselves.
You have the power to will this moment your own salvation. And it will be said to
you, when it is too late, if you shall live and die unsaved, not that God was ever
unwilling, but
“THE CHOICE YOU MADE has fixed your doom;
For this is Heaven’s decree,
That with the fruits of what he sow’d
The sinner fill’d shall be.”
—Par. X., on Prov. i. 20-31.
Already has God come down to you, and even now he waits and entreats and
strives most earnestly for your salvation. THE DECISION NOW RESTS ENTIRELY WITH
YOURSELVES.
LECTURE FIFTH.
THEORY SECOND, OR ELECTION TO A SPECIAL OR EXCLUSIVE INFLUENCE OF
THE HOLY SPIRIT—THIS THEORY EQUALLY UNSCRIPTURAL WITH THAT FORMERLY EXAMINED—SUBVERSIVE
OF THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD.
ISAIAH v. 3, 4.—”Judge, I pray you, betwixt me and
my vineyard. What could have been done more to my vineyard, that I have not done in it?”
EZEKIEL xxxiii. 11.—”As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in
the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye,
turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?”
MATTHEW xxxiii. 37.—”O Jerusalem, Jerusalem,
thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which
are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even
as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!”
WE proceed now to call your attention to the second general
theory of election. The theory already examined, claims for the elect a special
and exclusive interest in the death of Christ. It affirms that Jesus shed his
blood upon the cross for the elect alone. The doctrine now to be examined,
claims for the elect a special and exclusive interest in the work of the Spirit.
It affirms that the Spirit of God exerts his influence upon the minds of the
elect alone, and that the Spirit strives with none of the human race excepting
the elect, with the view of bringing them to salvation. This theory has been
resorted to with the view of reducing the doctrine of Calvin to a more seeming
consistency with the Word of God, and of rendering
its dogmas somewhat more palatable to the generality of mankind. The school of theologians
by whom this doctrine has been patronized, have been sometimes distinguished by
the name of “Moderate Calvinists,” while they who have pled for a limitation of
the atonement of Christ, as well as for a limitation of the influence of the Spirit,
have been styled, “Ultra-Calvinists.” The great difference between these two parties
consists in this—the Moderate Calvinist affirms that Jesus died equally for all
men, while the Ultra-Calvinist denies this affirmation, and contends that Jesus died
for the elect only. We have, therefore, one set of Calvinists contradicting another
set of Calvinists, on what is, beyond all question, the most important doctrine
of Christianity—the doctrine of the atonement.
The doctrine, then, which falls now
to be considered, proceeds upon the fullest admission of the great truth, that the
Son of God shed his blood for every sinner of the human race. This is an admission
which the greater proportion of professed Calvinists have latterly felt themselves
constrained to make. The men have been latterly shut up to this conclusion by the
force of truth, and the rapid advance of Scripture knowledge among the great bulk
of professing Christians. There are few men who have given to the all-important
inquiry the slightest investigation, without perceiving, at a glance, that since
the death of Christ is the only Scriptural and consistent ground of the gospel offer,
the atonement must of necessity be as extensive as the
offer; and therefore, considering that the
offer of pardon and salvation is made to all men, the Saviour of the world must
have died for all men. The atonement is the foundation of which the gospel offer
is the superstructure; and the great bulk of theologians have been compelled to
admit, that the foundation must be as wide as the superstructure; so that already,
in the progress of the discussion, the Ultra-Calvinists have been left in a small
and humiliating minority. But while this doctrine admits the universality of the
death of Christ, it still maintains the limitation of the influence of the Spirit.
It has the appearance of greater liberality and freeness, and comes to men with
a far more imposing and generous aspect, than the doctrine which we have already
discussed. We shall see, however, that all this liberality and all this vaunted
consistency with the universal call of the gospel to all men without exception,
is more in appearance than reality, and that this half-and-half theory—this measure
of a crooked and halting policy—is no less decidedly contradicted by the Word of
God, than the theory which the middle men have been constrained to forsake and to
condemn.
I. WE OBSERVE, IN THE FIRST PLACE, THAT THIS DOCTRINE RETAINS SOME OF THE
MOST OBJECTIONABLE PRINCIPLES OF THAT UNSCRIPTURAL THEORY WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY
EXAMINED.
There can be no doubt that it is a most important truth which is admitted,
when it is conceded that Jesus
died for all. And there is in the admission
of this great truth, a clear way of escape from the unscriptural position, that
God, in any case, is bound in justice to justify those sinners for whom the Saviour
died. And thus far this theory is free from one fatal objection, to which, as we
have seen, the former theory stands exposed.
But, while the doctrine now under consideration
adopts and recognises a great and important truth, it retains and embraces a great
proportion of the error with which we have already proved the former theory to be
burdened. It rejects one part of the error of Calvin, but it retains another part
of the same error; and while it leaves men in a position no less hopeless than that
in which it found them, this theory wants the consistency of the system which it
professes to supplant. It agrees with the former in tracing whatsoever comes to
pass to the sovereign pleasure and the unalterable decree of God. It asserts, indeed,
that it was the will of God to give his Son to die for all men, and in asserting
this it admits a very important truth; but it asserts, at the same time, that God
has, in sovereignty, decreed and purposed to withhold his Spirit from all men except
the elect, and in asserting this it retains a very important error. This theory
does not say that God executes his decree, and carries into effect his determination
to condemn all save the elect, by giving up his Son to die for the elect, and the
elect alone. It affirms that Christ died for the non-elect as well as for the elect,
but that God has unconditionally decreed that
the former shall not be saved, and therefore
he has purposed to keep back from them the influence of the Spirit. You will notice,
therefore, that this doctrine leaves men in exactly the same position in which it
found them—under an absolute impossibility of being saved—unless it be true that
men can indeed be saved without the influence of the Holy Spirit, and in direct
opposition to the sovereign purpose and eternal decree of Jehovah.
Now my question
is this—Wherein does this theory differ practically and fundamentally from that
other theory which we have, in our former Lectures, proved in your hearing to be
utterly opposed to the Scriptures of truth? I have already granted that it does
differ, in mere theory, from that which has been already shown to be unscriptural,
but the question is—Where lies the practical difference? There is, I admit, a greater
sound of liberality and Scripture consistency, but my question is—Whether all this
apparent and vaunted liberality does not amount to mere empty sound, and nothing
more? There is a great admission, I grant you, when the doctrine, that Jesus died
for all men, is no longer denied; but the question is—Whether the poison be not
mingled with the wine?—whether the great doctrine of Christ’s death for all men
be not paralyzed and destroyed, and rendered practically useless to the souls of
men, by being associated with the exhibition of a dark decree, whereby all men,
except the elect, are shut out and expelled from the very possibility of tasting
the benefits of the great atonement?
Permit me to read to you one short extract
from an eminent living divine—a divine who has written one of the best treatises
for the express purpose of establishing the great and glorious doctrine, that Jesus
died for all men, without one solitary exception. “The brethren of Joseph spoke
truly of themselves [says Dr. Wardlaw] when they whispered one to another, ‘We are
verily guilty concerning our brother, in that we saw the anguish of his soul, when
he besought us, and we would not hear; therefore is this distress come upon us.’
Conscience was in the right. They were verily guilty. And yet it was the purpose
of God, by means of their unbrotherly envy and cruelty, to fulfil his prophetic
declarations to Abraham respecting the future history of the nation that was to
spring from his loins. It was not the less their duty to be affectionate and kind
to their brother, that such affection and kindness would have disarranged and frustrated
the whole counsel of God; nor was it the less their sin to violate the claims of
fraternal love, that by such violation they fulfilled it.”—Discourses on the Atonement,
p. 184.
Be pleased, then, to mark well what is here said. Had the brethren of Joseph
not done what was sinful, the divine decree would have been disarranged and frustrated;
and in doing what was sinful, these men are said to have been acting in consequence
of, and consistently with, the immutable purpose and decree of God!
Now, we have
already endeavoured to prove that such a doctrine is opposed to the plainest declarations
of Scripture, and cannot possibly be true.
It is a libel upon the character of God, and is opposed to the common apprehensions
of mankind. The writer from whom I have just quoted says, that the decree and counsel
of God would be frustrated if men did not act wickedly. If the murderer did not
murder his victim—if the adulterer did not indulge his licentious passion—if the
drunkard did not quench his unnatural thirst—if the blasphemer did not utter his
horrid blasphemy—if, in a word, all things did not happen exactly as they come to
pass, the decree and purpose of God would be frustrated!! And what is this, but
just to embrace the most horrible doctrine of Ultra-Calvinism? It is for the express
purpose of leaving room for the free and necessary execution of such horrible decrees,
that the supporters of this theory find it necessary to limit and circumscribe the
Holy Spirit, in his strivings with mankind. They do not like to say that—God actually
exerts his power for the purpose of insuring the sin and the damnation of his creatures.
To assert this would not be very expedient! They choose rather to present the horrid
conception in a milder and more palatable form. He only keeps back his Spirit, and
withdraws his grace. He sees that if his Spirit were to plead with men, they would
not act wickedly. He determines, however, that the wickedness shall come to pass;
and if it were not to come to pass, his purpose and decree would be frustrated.
And so, in order to insure the commission of the wickedness, he has resolved, in
sovereignty, to leave the men without the Spirit—without
which he knows they will be sure to transgress. This is the form in which the decree
of God is presented before us by the expediency theory of which we speak. And I
now put it to your candid and unprejudiced judgments to say, if there be not here
a full development of the most hideous error, I had almost said blasphemy, of the
system which we have already proved to be unscriptural. If the murderer shall place
his victim in a situation in which he has so arranged that the man shall necessarily
die, and from which all that is necessary for the sustenance of existence is withdrawn,
he is no less truly a murderer than if, with his own hand, he had plunged the dagger
into his bosom. King David did not, with his own hand, murder Uriah the Hittite—he
only ordered the man to be placed in the front of the battle, and the necessary
assistance to be withheld from him. But the mode in which the murder was committed,
did not alter the nature of the deed. And so here, when we are informed that God
does not infuse sin into men’s minds by a direct act of his omnipotence, but that
he has decreed the wickedness, and only brings it to pass, by withholding the one
only influence needful to prevent it—we do not discover any real difference between
this doctrine and that other theory which has been formerly examined and condemned
by the plainest statements of God’s own Word.
But while there exists no real difference
between this middle theory and that extreme doctrine formerly considered, I do most
earnestly entreat you, my
beloved friends, to compare them both with
the strong and emphatic declarations embodied in the two passages of Scripture to
which your attention has been directed. Does God himself not appeal to men, and
ask them there what more he could do for his vineyard which he hath not done? What,
then, is the reply which this theory makes to this important question? It says that
God could have done far more for sinners who perish than what he has done or purposed
to do. It informs us most distinctly that God could, if he had so chosen, have given
to his vineyard the dews of the Divine influence, but this he has, in sovereignty,
purposed to withhold. He knew well that if the influence of the Spirit had been
given to his vineyard it would bring forth grapes in rich abundance. He knew well
that if the influence of the Spirit was withheld and kept back from his vineyard,
it would bring forth wild grapes. He purposed from eternity that it should bring
forth wild grapes and thorns and briars, and every noxious weed; but to bestow the
influence of the Spirit—to cause the dew to descend upon it from on high, would
be most effectually to frustrate and disarrange his high counsel, and therefore
we are informed he withholds the special influence. I appeal to those plain texts
of Scripture, which I have read in the outset, against such an exhibition as this
gives us of the character of our God. I do not deny God’s right and title to keep
back and withhold from men the influence of his Spirit. I do not deny that God,
if he were treating us as we deserve, would never approach us more
with the gentle drawings or the earnest strivings
of his grace. O who can deny all this, or presume to say that we have any claim,
in justice, to one single manifestation of the Holy Spirit to our souls! But all
this does not render the doctrine we are now considering one shade the brighter.
This admission only manifests more clearly and decidedly its dark and odious features,
and brings it out more prominently in all its dreadful and hideous deformity. We
can lay no claim whatever to the influence of the Holy Spirit, for God might in
perfect equity most justly withhold it from us all. Let this be most readily granted,
for verily this is most true; and yet the question still remains, does God condescend
to treat men as they have no right to be treated as respects the influence of the
Spirit—that blessed influence, without which no fruit of holiness can possibly take
root and flourish within the human soul? If God does not keep back his Spirit, but
if that Spirit does, in point of fact, strive with wicked and ungodly men—although
we do admit that men have no claim to his influence—is it not for this very reason
all the more sinful, and all the more cruel, and all the more blasphemous in the
Church to deny and hide from the eyes of perishing men this most wonderful act of
Sovereign Grace? The very circumstance that men do not deserve the influence of
the Spirit, and that God would do them no injustice were he to withhold it, renders
the enormity of the crime a thousand-fold more glaring, on the part of men, when
they presume to say that this needful influence is withheld.
Now, if it had been kept back from wicked
men God could not have been blamed; but this we do most unhesitatingly affirm, God
could not appeal to men as he does, and ask themselves to say what more it was possible
for him to do for them which he hath not done, in order to bring them to repentance.
This God could not, and would not say, if he did, in point of fact, withhold from
them the very influence needful for their return to himself. Would it in this case
be presumption in men to reply, in answer to this earnest and touching appeal, “True,
O God, thou hast given thy Son to die for us, thy vineyard—true, thou hast most
graciously addressed to us thy blessed gospel call—true, thou art under no obligation
to thy vineyard to visit it with the dew of thy influence—but, O Lord, thou knowest
that without this we cannot bring forth fruit unto thy glory, and thou canst do
something more for thy vineyard which thou hast not yet done—thou canst impart the
influence of the Spirit; and now, seeing that thou hast most graciously appealed
to thy vineyard itself, and called upon men to say what more thou canst do that
thou hast not done, grant but this one farther influence, and we shall instantly
flourish and bring forth fruit, and appear fair and lovely as the garden of the
Lord.” I ask any man to say if this is not the precise reply which wicked men would
be in a position to give to the question which our God has most graciously condescended
to propose. But what is the rejoinder which the doctrine we are now considering
puts into the lips of God? It makes God say that all this is very
true, but nevertheless he has made a decree
whereby These wicked men must necessarily and inevitably sin against him and be
damned, and this decree would be frustrated and disarranged (to use the words of
the writer already quoted) if the needful influence was not kept back; and therefore,
while it is most true that he could do something more to his vineyard, he has determined,
in sovereignty, that the one thing needful shall not be done! I now most solemnly
appeal to you, men and brethren, in vindication of the injured and maligned character
of our God; and I call upon you to decide in the face of God’s own word, and this
evening to say whether such a doctrine as this be not utterly inconsistent with
its plainest, and most obvious, and most impressive announcements. I add to this
appeal to his own vineyard the oath of God himself, wherein he most emphatically
contradicts the doctrine which has been palmed upon his Church—“As I live, saith
the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but rather that the
wicked turn from his way and live. Turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why
will ye die, O house of Israel?”
Brethren, the question is a solemn one—and it is
a question which will meet you at the judgment-seat. Will ye any longer set aside
the oath of Jehovah himself, by lending your ears or your influence to perpetuate
and uphold the mere traditions of fallible men?
II. I OBSERVE, IN THE SECOND PLACE,
THAT THIS THEORY OF ELECTION IS STILL MORE OBJECTIONABLE
THAN THAT WHICH WE HAVE FORMERLY EXAMINED,
INASMUCH AS IT INFRINGES UPON THE UNITY OF THE GODHEAD.
According to this doctrine,
we are informed that God the Father so loved the whole world, without exception,
as to give up his own Son to die in its stead. We are farther informed, that God
the Son regarded from eternity the whole human race with an equal regard, so that
He, in the fulness of the time, came, and voluntarily offered up himself the propitiation,
not for the sins of the elect only, but also for the sins of the whole world. All
this is most fully admitted by the brethren who adhere to, and support the theory
of election now under consideration. This they have found it impossible to deny.
The storm of controversy within their own churchReference
is here made to the United Secession, now merged into THE UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
has literally driven them to the
admission of this much of the great and glorious truth. But, in place of sailing
into the safe and peaceful haven which was open for their reception, they have been
drifted upon the rocks and the sand-banks of error, by turning round in order to
embrace the great fundamental delusion now before us. Their position is no better
than it was before; nay more, it is, if possible, still worse, and must inevitably
prove still more disastrous. For what does this theory involve? It involves the
denial of the same mind in God the Spirit, which they are compelled to look upon
as dwelling in God, the Father and God the Son. The love of the Father and
the work of the Son they now see to be universal—wide
as the world—embracing in its ample bosom the entire family of man, without distinction
and without exception. But their Confession of Faith informs them that God has determined
to send down to destruction the greater portion of the human family, and that from
all those whom he has created and brought into the world for damnation, God withholdeth
his grace, and exposeth them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion
of sin; and farther, gives them up to their own lusts, to the temptations of the
world, and to the power of the devil—all in order to prevent the possible frustration,
and the sure and certain execution of his own decree. And so, in order to preserve
the credit of a man-made creed, the third person in the blessed Godhead is arrayed
against the other two; and while the love of the Father and the love of the Son
embraces the whole world, the love of the Holy Spirit is restricted and confined
solely and exclusively to the elect! The wishes, and the desires, and the gracious
efforts of the Holy Spirit, are not by any means co-extensive with the wishes, and
desires, and amazing efforts of the Father and the Son for the salvation of mankind!
That God the Father earnestly and sincerely desires, or wills that all men should
be saved, is unanswerably argued by the upholders of this doctrine from the Word
of God. They argue, with the inspired apostle, that God has proved that—he wills
all men to be saved, by the fact that he has given his Son a ransom for all men.
They point to the death of Jesus for every sinner of the
human race, and they do most triumphantly
conclude therefrom, that God the Father and God the Son do most earnestly and sincerely
desire every sinner on the face of the earth to be saved. But when they come to
the work of the Holy Spirit they say, that this great work is limited and circumscribed.
And just as from the work of the Son they argue out the desire, the earnest desire
of God, that all for whom his Son was given to die should believe and live, even
so are we taught to measure the desire and the wish of the Spirit. The Spirit, accordingly,
does not wish all men to be saved! The Spirit’s work and effort is the measure of
his love. And since his work and his effort to save does not extend beyond the number
of the elect, we have the Holy Spirit represented as not willing that any one single
soul, beyond the number of the elect, should come to the knowledge of the truth
and be saved from impending ruin. Here, then, is the desire and the wish of both
the Father and the Son opposed and counteracted by the desire of the Spirit!
Here
is the Father parting with his only-begotten and well-beloved Son, just because
he desires to save a world from perdition; and here is the Son parting with his
glory for a season, and hum. bling himself even to the death of the cross, and doing
enough by his death for the salvation of the whole race; but here is the Spirit
of truth refusing to work and to put forth his influence upon the Souls of multitudes
for whom the Saviour died! Behold, my friends, the horrible representation! Transport
yourselves, in imagination,
to the ancient city, which was
crowded with the murderers of our Lord, and see the Saviour weeping over the guilty
crowd of infatuated men and women who were madly rushing onwards to an undone eternity.
Hear the Saviour uttering, from his inmost soul, the plaintive cry—“O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto
thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth
her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” Mark the emphatic words, “ye would
not.” It is not, “My Father would not”—it is not, “I would not.” I say more—it is
not, “The Holy Spirit would not impart to you the needful influence.” The sentiment
of Jesus is, “I would, and God the Father and God the Spirit would, but you have
yourselves alone to blame for the rejection of salvation: ye would not—ye will not—come
to me that ye might have life.” But fancy to yourselves one of our modern theologians,
who have mixed up with the water of life the poison of a false and unscriptural
fatalism—who have set the writings of Plato, or the ravings of Aristotle side by
side with the Word of God, and have learned to say, that “whatsoever comes to pass”
must necessarily happen, otherwise men would be far stronger than God, and overthrow
the irreversible decree!—fancy to yourselves some of these men side by side with
the weeping Saviour, when his heart was bursting and breaking over the wickedness
and infatuation of the men and women whom he tend to save;—would they not have counselled
him to
dry up his tears? Would they not have
enlightened his mind upon the philosophy of the whole plan? Would they not have
asked him to tell them, whether his tears and lamentations could alter or turn back
the Divine decree? Would they not have corrected his mistake when he exclaimed,
in tenderest and most earnest accents, “Ye would not”? And would they not have
directed him to the Great Spirit, who sits behind the entire machinery of nature,
and whose influence alone was awanting in order to fill the entire city with his
followers—whose influence alone was needed in order to transform every blaspheming
Jew into a genuine convert, and fill the atmosphere around with the most rapturous
hallelujahs and sounds of praise? would they not have exclaimed, “Say not to those
Jews,’ YE would not.’ Point them to the Holy Ghost, and say,’
HE would not,’ because
if He would, the decree which binds you down to the necessity of playing your part
in this dreadful tragedy would be frustrated and overthrown!
“Men and Brethren,
I do this night appeal to you in the name of God, and I ask you to say, whether
will you give credit to the weeping Jesus, or will you still abide by the blasphemous
dogma of an infidel philosophy which has been artfully engrafted upon the pure and
unadulterated Word of God? It is the fatalism of the ancient heathen philosophers,
which has been imported into the Christian Church during a dark and backsliding
age. The dogma of fatalism was introduced by Satan into the schools of theology,
and by mixing
up the doctrine of necessity or fatalism
with the Word of the living God, the great deceiver of souls has forged a strong
and a heavy chain, whereby he leads thousands to destruction. And what has the Church
done? She has imported her creed, to a great extent, from the dark bosom of the
papacy. Who was Calvin? and who were the Reformers? They were mighty men, it is
true, but still they were only men. And what had these men not to do? They had to
battle against ten thousand deadly errors. And is it any wonder that they were not
a match for every one of them? Consider the dark atmosphere amid which they lived
and moved, and the wonder is, not that these mighty men of God brought out of the
papacy so much of deadly error; the wonder is that they were the means of exhibiting,
in their day and generation, so great a proportion of precious truth. And what,
I ask, have the churches of the reformation done since the days of these mighty
men? Have they followed up the movement which these reformers began?—have they subjected
every doctrine to the scrutiny of the Word of God?—have they put their human creeds
into the fining pot, and separated the dross from the pure gold? No. We have verily
proved ourselves a race of weak and degenerate men. The children of the reformation
have not followed the footsteps of their nobler fathers. We have taken their creeds,
and we have set them up as if they were the infallible word of God. And if ever
any spark of life has been manifested since the days of the fathers of the reformation,
it has been the
life which is only the manifestation of
spiritual death—the life and the activity of men who arouse themselves to exertion
only when it is necessary to expel from their churches those who would presume to
question the infallibility of the Confession of Faith!—who would dare to “try all
things by the Word of God, and hold fast only that which is good”! There are many
of the doctrines in these Confessions which are precious; but who could expect that
there should be nothing that is wrong? And I, therefore, earnestly and affectionately
call upon you to say, whether you will abide by the words of God himself, and take
his assurance and oath, that he withholds nothing from you that is necessary for
your salvation; or whether you will take the word of men, when they tell you, that
except ye happen to be included in the decree, which the imaginations of infidel
philosophers hath conjured into being, the Holy Spirit withholds from you that influence
which is indispensable to salvation. Choose ye this day whom ye will believe. If
the Lord Jehovah be true, when he swears by himself that he desires your life, believe
him; but if fallible men be true when they hold out a dogma which contradicts the
oath of Jehovah, believe them.
LECTURE SIXTH.
THIS THEORY OF ELECTION INVOLVES THE DENIAL OF THE NECESSITY OF THE
INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ORDER TO CONVERSION—QUOTATIONS FROM MR. HENTON AND
DR. WARDLAW.
JOHN vi. 44.—”No man can come to me, except the Father, which hath
sent me, draw him.”
JOHN ix. 41.—”If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now
ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.”
JOHN iii. 18.—”le that believeth
not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only-begotten
Son of God.”
THE verse which has first been read informs us that, without the Holy
Spirit, no man can believe; the verse next quoted informs us, that if men could
not believe, they would have no sin when they do not exercise faith in Jesus; and
the last passage announces the sinfulness of not believing, and ascribes the condemnation
of all those who remain condemned to the fact, that they have not believed in the
name of the only-begotten Son of God.
Now what is the plain and obvious inference from these
indisputable facts? If men cannot believe without the Spirit; and if they would
not sin against
God by not believing, if they really could
not believe, shall we conclude, that all those from whom the Spirit is withheld
are without sin when they do not believe? Such a conclusion as this would evidently
be mistaken, because our Saviour plainly tells us, that so flagrant is the sin of
unbelief, that it is announced as if it alone constituted the sole and the exclusive
ground of condemnation. What, then, are we to make of these plain statements? Are
we to attempt to explain them away altogether, or are we to arrive at the conclusion,
that the Bible contradicts itself? Nay, verily. Let us rather admit, that no man
is commanded to believe without the Spirit, and the entire mystery is solved. No
man is required to believe without the Spirit, therefore no man is commanded to
do what the Bible expressly declares no, man can do. If men could not believe, there
would be no sin in their unbelief; but now we say they can believe, therefore their
sin remaineth when they do not believe, and for their unbelief they are justly condemned.
III. THE THIRD OBJECTION WHICH WE STATE AGAINST THIS DOCTRINE OF ELECTION IS, THAT
IT DOES AWAY WITH THE NECESSITY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO ENABLE MEN
TO BELIEVE.
The grave and heavy charge which I now adduce against this theory of
election, I do not mean to substantiate by mere circumstantial evidence or inferential
proof. Not that there would exist the slightest difficulty in doing this, so as
to make out an unanswerable
argument against it, but because, in the
first instance at least, it is better at once to remove every shade of doubt or
suspicion from your minds, as to the result of the important argument, which, under
this head of discourse, we mean to pursue. We shall read to you the published declarations
of our brethren themselves. We therefore solicit your attention to the following
extracts.
The first is from the second edition of a very able treatise, entitled,
“The Work of the Holy Spirit in Conversion, by John Howard Hinton of London.” In
the ninth page of the advertisement prefixed to that very talented work, the author
most candidly and honourably apprises his readers of the great point which he means
to establish.
“I have argued [says Mr. Hinton] that our being able to do anything
is the same as our having sufficient means of doing it; that we have sufficient
means of doing our whole duty without the Holy Spirit; and that, therefore, we are
able to do our whole duty without him.” P. 9.
Such is this author’s own statement
of the main doctrine which his work was written and published to support. I shall
append to this quotation a ingle specimen of the argument embodied in the book.
The author is trying to prove his position from the Bible, and here is one of his
proofs.
“5. In this place, also, we may introduce the passage in which the apostle
asserts the intrinsic and independent sufficiency of the divine word: ‘From a child
thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which
are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.’
2 Tim. iii. 15. We scarcely need stay to prove tthit the apostle here assigns to
the Scriptures a sufficiency to make men wise unto salvation, apart from the influence
of the Holy Spirit. No reference to the Spirit is contained in the passage or its
connexion, nor is there any ground for introducing it. We observe more particularly,
that the sufficiency of the Scriptures to impart saving wisdom is not to be viewed
in the abstract, but in connexion with the persons to whom they are given: they
are able to make US wise unto salvation. Now this, it is manifest, implies something
respecting our condition as well as the excellency of the Scripture itself. It is
not able to make an idiot or an infant or a dead man wise unto salvation—it can
have this effect upon none but such as are capable of understanding, appreciating,
and obeying it—whence it evidently follows that we, whom it is able to make wise
unto salvation, are able to understand it, to appreciate and to obey.” P. 134.
These
are the words of the writer who is looked up to by many as one champion of modern
orthodoxy. The brethren whose sentiments are thus expressed and thus defended, are
surely themselves denying the necessity of the Spirit’s work in order to make men
wise unto salvation. We are plainly and expressly informed, that any man, if he
be not an idiot or an infant or a dead man, is perfectly able to become wise unto
salvation, apart from the influence of the Holy Spirit. And
yet these are the theologians who take
the lead in charging upon us the denial of the work of the Spirit! We are informed,
in the extract which we have just quoted to you, that the apostle says nothing at
all about the Holy Spirit in the passage of Scripture on which the doctrine is founded;
but we press the simple question, “Does the apostle say in that passage what our
brethren say, when they tell us that the Scriptures are able to make us wise unto
salvation apart from the influence of the Spirit of God”? We confidently submit,
that the apostle propounds no such doctrine. He does not make mention of the Spirit—that
is quite true. But if the apostle does not mention the Holy Spirit, he does not
mean thereby to deny and to dishonour him by affirming, or even implying, that men
may do very well without him in the matter of their salvation.
Let this erroneous
principle of interpretation be carried out, and the very reverse of the assertion
may be easily proved. Our brethren say, that men may be saved without the Holy Spirit.
Upon their principle of interpretation it would be easy to prove that men may be
saved without the Word. Our Saviour said, for example, when he spoke to Nicodemus,
“Except a man be born of water, and of the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of
God.” Now if any man has a right to take up the statement of Paul, wherein he asserts,
that “the Holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto salvation,” and to argue
therefrom that there is no need of the Spirit in order to enable men to be saved,
may not another man take up the words of
our Lord to Nicodemus, and argue therefrom,
that there is no need of the Scriptures in order to lead men to salvation? There
is no mention made of the Holy Spirit by Paul. That is true enough. But it is equally
true that there is no mention made of the Scriptures by our Lord. And if it may
be argued in the one case, that because the Scriptures only are expressly mentioned—therefore
men may be saved without the Spirit—may it not be argued in the other case, that
there is no need for the Bible at all, for men may be converted by water an[ the
Spirit, which alone are expressly mentioned by our Lord?
The next quotation which
I make is from the work of Dr. Wardlaw, from which, in former Lectures, I have freely
quoted. The book from which I have already quoted, was written avowedly on the work
of the Spirit; the book from which I am now to quote, was written avowedly for the
purpose of proving the universal extent of the work of the Son; but in some parts
of this book Dr. Wardlaw states his sentiments, and those of others who have adopted
his theory of election, and these are precisely the sentiments of the author from
whom I have last quoted.
There exists in men universally [says Dr. W.] a ground
of responsibility—all that is requisite, as before explained, to render them justly
accountable. The accountableness for the treatment they give to the offers of the
gospel arises from the nature of those offers themselves, as well as of human capabilities,
irrespectively of all secret purposes in the mind of God,
and of all communications of grace to
the mind of man. All to whom the gospel message comes, and who have ‘ears to hear,’
have the means of salvation in their power; and it depends on their own will whether
salvation is, or is not to be theirs.”—Discourses, p. 180.
The last sentence of
this quotation announces a most delightful truth. One would imagine, at first sight,
that there is implied in it, in the first place, the admission that there is no secret
purpose unconditionally decreeing any man to inevitable destruction; and, in the
second place, that the gracious influence of the Spirit, without which no man can
come to Jesus, and whereby the Father draws us, is not withheld from any. But to
our unspeakable astdnishment, we are here arrested by the information that such
is by no means true. We refer you to the context, where we are reminded of the secret
purpose and the special influence! We are told that the reason why it depends upon
the will of men whether or not salvation may be theirs, arises from man’s perfect
capability to believe, in direct opposition to God’s eternal purpose and the Holy
Spirit’s indispensable grace! To this doctrine we cannot subscribe. For what is
this but to set up man’s power—to exhibit what is styled man’s “capabilities”—as
something stronger than the decree of God! What is this but to assert that man wants
only the will to prove himself more than a match for the overthrow of the counsels
and decrees of the Almighty! What is this but to inform us that the
sinner has no need whatever of any influence
of the Spirit, but is perfectly competent to save himself even to the overthrow
of the throne of the eternal God!
I have now done what, in this discourse, I purposed
to do. I have laid before you the proof, that I prefer no false or groundless charge
against brethren, when I discard their theory of election, because it leads to a
denial of the necessity of the Spirit’s influence in order to enable sinners to
believe.
And now, my fellow-sinners, permit me again, in parting from you, to remind
you, affectionately and solemnly, of the oath of your God. “As I live, saith the
Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn
from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye, from your evil ways, for why will ye die?”
In parting from you again, I point you to that oath, and I ask you, Is God sincere
and honest even when he swears? I point you to more than to his oath—behold the
sacrifice of his Son I Sinner, behold the Lamb of God bearing away the sins of the
world! Sinner, thy sins were all laid upon that innocent and spotless sacrifice! They are all away—away from between thee and thy God—away from between thee and
the blessed influence of the Spirit, who, even now, is wooing every prodigal here
back again to God! “Behold, I stand at the door and knock.” Thus the Holy Spirit
strives! But he will not strive for ever. Death, judgment, eternity—these are at
the door, and if the Spirit part from you at death, he parts with you for ever.
LECTURE SEVENTH.
THE NECESSITY OF THE INFLUENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT TO ENABLE MEN
TO BELIEVE—SEMI-ORTHODOX PREACHING—QUOTATION FROM DR. WARDLAW—NATURAL AND MORAL INABILITY.
JOHN iii. 5.—”Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except
a man be born
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”
JOHN vi. 44.—”No
man can come to me, except the Father, which hath sent me, draw him: and I will
raise him up at the last day.”
HERE, then, are two Scripture witnesses, whose testimony
we hesitate not to set in opposition to the two fallible witnesses whose report
has been listened to in our previous discourse. The one witness declares that no
man can come to Christ, or believe in him, without the drawing of the Father; the
other witness declares that a sinner cannot see the kingdom of God, or be converted
or born again, apart from the influence of the Spirit. These two statements of the
Word of God are thus express and definite in their testimony in support of the absolute
necessity of the Spirit to enable any man to believe.
Now we crave your attention to the one single point which
needs here to be examined. It is not denied by
any man who supports the doctrine to which
we now object, that the Spirit of God is needed to make the sinner willing to believe.
And so, when we come to state such passages of Scripture in opposition to their
doctrine, they explain away their import by affirming, that the only want experienced
by men is a want of will. And so they would paraphrase the two Scripture proofs
now under examination in the following way:—“No man will come to me, except the Father,
who hath sent me, draw him,” although any man and every man is quite able to believe
in me without the drawing of the Father. And again, “Except a man be born of the
Spirit, he will not see the kingdom of God,” although any man has power enough to
be born again, and to see the kingdom of God, and to enjoy its privileges without
the Spirit!!!
Here, then, is the single point which you will require to keep before
your minds, in order that you may arrive at a just and intelligent decision. Does
the inability of men to believe, or to be born again into the family of God, without
the Spirit, amount to a mere want of will and nothing more? The question is not,
whether the sinner is naturally unwilling to believe—that is not the question, for
that is most fully admitted. But granting that be is unwilling, the question remains,
Has he perfect power to believe and be saved without the influence of the Spirit,
so that he is able to become wise unto salvation, without any interposition on the
part of the third person of the Godhead? Now, in answer to this question, we request
you to observe, and
to remember well, the distinct assertions
of the Word of God to which we have referred you; and we ask you, without any prejudice
in your minds, to decide as to their plain and common-sense import. When you read
the words, “No man can come to me except the Father draw him,” do you suppose,
as honest and unprejudiced men and women, that you are at liberty to interpret these
words so as to infer that any man is perfectly able to come to Jesus without the
drawing of the Father? Would not such an interpretation amount to a contradiction
of our Saviour’s statement? And when you read the words, “Except a man be born of
the Spirit, he cannot see the kingdom of God,” would any of you think of saying,
that you were bringing out the meaning of the solemn and emphatic declaration, by
asserting that any man is perfectly able to see the kingdom of God without the Spirit?
Yet such is the interpretation which is put upon such statements!! It is affirmed
that such passages of Scripture do not assert a want of power on the part of the
sinner to do well enough without the Spirit, but that they refer, simply and
exclusively, to a want of will to exercise his powers in the right and proper
direction. And we are referred to the obvious fact, that the Holy Spirit, in
conversion, does not impart to the sinner any new faculties or powers of mind,
and brethren erroneously conclude, that because the sinner does not get a set of
new faculties or powers when he is converted, that therefore he is able to
convert himself without the Spirit!!
The error to which we now advert arises
from an oversight of the fact, that the reason why every man is able to believe
is, that every man is, in point of fact, drawn by God with the view of bringing
him to the acceptance of a full and free salvation. But suppose that any sinner
were not drawn by God, we submit that it would be impossible for him (even though
he were willing) to believe in Jesus. We submit that, while every man is able to
come with the drawing, and in consequence of the drawing, of the Father, no man
is able to come, or could possibly be able to come without this drawing influence;
and we hold that, when any man resolves this want of ability to be saved without
the Spirit into a mere want of will, he is perverting and setting aside the infallible
statements of the infallible Word.
We may here illustrate our doctrine by a parallel case. Take
the supposition of a mighty prince, in a remote province of whose dominions the
standard of rebellion has been erected, but who has resolved, in virtue of a
satisfaction given to his government, to proclaim, in person, a free pardon to
every one of his rebel subjects. You must suppose that the minds of the rebels
are filled with hard and suspicious thoughts respecting their lawful sovereign.
They know his power, but they are impressed with the idea that he is desirous
only to exercise his power in oppressing and punishing them for their rebellion.
He might send forth an ambassador to proclaim a pardon to the rebels and to
invite them back again to their allegiance. But
he takes a different plan. He leaves his
splendid palace; he goes forth himself with his own proclamation, and he himself
announces it in person to the rebels; he goes in person from city to city, and from
town to town, and from village to village, and from house to house; he announces,
with his own lips, to every one of his rebel subjects the wonderful intelligence,
that his own son—the heir of his kingdom and his throne—has voluntarily subjected
himself to punishment in their room and stead; he announces to them the farther
intelligence, that so desirous was he himself for their happiness, that he accepted
of the substitution, of his son and heir in their stead, for the very purpose of
enabling him consistently to offer them a free pardon, and save them from the punishment
which their revolt had justly merited; he entreats and beseeches and implores the
rebels, on his bended knees, to lay down their arms and submit to his government,
and not to compel him, most reluctantly, to execute summary vengeance upon them,
by persisting any longer in their rebellion! The result of all this personal entreaty
is, that some of the rebels become subdued in their enmity by the wondrous condescension
of the sovereign, and submit themselves to his sway, while the rest of them will
not believe him, nor give him credit for his generosity and kindness, and therefore
remain rebels, and are consequently treated as enemies, simply because they refuse
to he reconciled.
In this case you will perceive, that the only reason why any one
of these rebel subjects are not saved from
the consequences of their revolt, is,
that they will not believe and trust the kindness of their sovereign, and refuse,
consequently, to be at peace with him. It would be absurd to say that on such a
supposition they could not believe. It was simply because they would not, and not
because they could not. The self-same influence which was brought to bear upon those
rebels who were induced to accept the pardon of their prince, was brought to bear
upon those who obstinately persisted in their revolt, shutting their ears against
the entreaties, and their eyes against the manifested kindness of their most gracious
sovereign. The only difference between the two classes of individuals consisted
in this—the one yielded to the drawing influence of their sovereign’s compassionate
efforts, the other resisted the same drawing influence which was exerted equally
upon them, with the view of winning them back to their allegiance.
But if you alter
the supposition, and imagine to yourselves the sovereign of whom we have spoken,
selecting from among these rebel subjects a few special favourites, and passing
by all the rest, and condescending to visit in person only those houses or cities
that happen to be inhabited by the favoured few—you entirely change the whole aspect
of the case. You thereby render it absolutely impossible for the rebels who are
passed by to believe in the gracious intentions of their sovereign—to accept his
pardon, and to become reconciled to his person and his government. In the case already
supposed, it was possible for them to be
reconciled, and it was sinful for them
to remain in a position of hostility, because the drawing influence of their sovereign’s
kindness was exerted equally upon them all. They had all of them evidence sufficient
to convince them, and motive sufficient to induce them, to lay down their arms and
be at peace. But in the case now supposed, they want the evidence necessary to convince
them, and the motive necessary to induce them, and it is not because they have not
the use of all their powers or faculties, but because they cannot possibly exercise
their powers in the way of believing, without any evidence, or changing their minds
without any motive, that it is utterly impossible for them to accept the pardon
which the sovereign most graciously proclaims. In this case, what does the sovereign
do? He passes them by—he does not condescend to speak to them—he does not deign
to notice them. He knocks at the door of their neighbour’s house—he repairs to the
gate of the adjoining city—and he pleads with his favourites, and his favourites
alone. The rebels who are passed by do not, of course, believe that there is any
pardon for them. They do not believe that their sovereign desires them to be at
peace with him. They believe, on the other hand, that all that the man wants is,
to get his pampered favourites induced to flee with him out of the scene of revolt,
and that his determination is only the more unalterably fixed to take summary vengeance
on all the rest, and in due time visit them, if he can, with fire and sword. They
do not believe in his love to theme and they are not reconciled.
Now, the question which I propose to you
is this—Whether is it because the men will not believe, or because they cannot believe,
in the love of their sovereign to them that they remain rebels? Mark well the true
position of affairs. The king passes by their door. He does not pass them by because
he has no time to visit them. He does not pass them by because he falls into the
mistake of ignorance, and does not know that their houses are inhabited. He came
to the rebel province with an unalterable determination not to speak to them at
all. Nay more, he knew that he needed only to pass them by in order to confirm and
harden them in their rebellion; and because he determined to destroy them, he passed
them by. This is what the men are told. This is what they are taught to believe.
I ask any man of common sense to tell me, if, in this case, it be possible for the
men to believe in the pardoning mercy of their prince, and to be reconciled? The
visit of the king to his special favourites, is not, in this case, fitted to draw
the rest; it is fitted to repel them. This special influence put forth upon some,
it is evident, is not a drawing, but a repelling influence to all the rest. They
cannot—it is not that they will not, but it is an absolute impossibility for them
to believe in their sovereign’s love, because the sovereign does not seek to draw
them.
The preachers of our day who hold the theory now under examination, preach
a gospel to all men; but they tell all men, at the same time, that God has unalterably
determined that all from whom the special
influence is withheld are doomed by God
to unconditional damnation. Here, then, is the evidence—the only evidence which
is presented before perishing thousands, Sabbath after Sabbath, and year after year.
The question is very simple. Is it possible for any man to believe in the face of
this evidence in the love of God to his soul, before he is quite sure that the special
influence has visited him? It is perfectly plain, on their own principles, that
until a man not only has the supposed special influence, but knows infallibly that
he has it, the man would be believing in opposition to the plainest evidence, if
he ventured to believe in the pardoning mercy of God as bringing to him a free salvation.
But it is not possible for any man to believe in opposition to apprehended proof.
It is not possible for a man, for example, to believe that it is midnight in the
midst of the clearly perceived light of the meridian sun. If any man, therefore,
believe that all are doomed to damnation who have not the thing which men call a
special influence, he cannot, in the absence of that supposed influence from his
soul, believe that salvation has come to him. It is, therefore, not only unscriptural,
but absurd, in the supporters of a special influence, to maintain that any sinner
is able to believe and to do all his duty without the Holy Spirit.
I am about to
exhibit a specimen of such semi-orthodox preaching, from the “Discourses on the
Nature and Extent of the Atonement,” by Dr. Wardlaw of Glasgow.
I may only premise,
that it lacks but one element—the recognition of the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s
indispensable influence. This will appear very clearly
at the close of this quotation.
“If there were a want of natural capacity for believing,
there would be equally a want of natural capacity for disbelieving. If there were
not this kind of ability to believe, there would be no guilt in unbelief.—O my fellow-sinners,
deceive not yourselves, as multitudes have done before you, with this plea of inability.
The plea is often advanced with a levity of spirit, that sufficiently indicates
its origin. ‘We cannot, it seems, help ourselves,’—many have thought and said,—‘we have no ability to do anything; we cannot change our own hearts; we cannot atone
for our sins; we cannot come to God; we cannot believe;—it is divine power, divine
grace, that must do the work;—it is not ours;—and if God is not pleased to put forth
the necessary power,—what can we do?—There is no help for us:—we must be damned!’—And
with the last fearful link of the chain there is secretly associated a self-flattering
hope,—a hope founded in the unreasonableness and unrighteousness of such a doom,—that
it shall not be so. This, I apprehend, is uniformly involved in the real or affected
carelessness with which the conclusion,—a conclusion in itself so unspeakably fearful,—is
usually uttered. The mind rests its hope secretly on the unfairness that
inability
should incur condemnation. The inward surmise is:—‘if we really are unable, then
every effort of ours must be unavailing; perdition is entailed upon us, and by nothing
that we can do is it avoidable:—and yet—and yet—is this justice?—and—if it be not
justice, can it be true?’
“Now, my fellow-sinners, this is all delusion. I come
to the point at once; and, with all diffidence, yet with all confidence, I say to
you,—if there were no ability, it would not be justice. But in the sense in which
you urge the plea, and in which, perhaps, it has been put into your lips, there
is no truth in it. In the sense in which you plead inability,—the only sense in
which the plea could be of any avail,—you are not unable. So far from being unable
in any sense that even palliates your
unbelief and impenitence,—your inability, rightly interpreted,
resolves itself into the strongest mode of expressing your culpability and guilt.
For what does the word mean?—simply, the strength of your antipathy to God and to
goodness. Your inability to believe is only another phrase for your aversion to
the truth of God. Your inability to ‘repent, and turn to God, and do works meet
for repentance,’ what else is it, less or more, than your fondness for the service
of sin and of the world, and your unwillingness to relinquish it?—what is it, but
that you cannot give up the world;—you cannot renounce your favourite sins;—you
cannot abandon ’the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life;’
or you cannot bear the mortification of pride, the renunciation of your own righteousness,
the crucifixion of self?—What is there in your cannot, but the want of will?—If
you tell me you are willing but not able, you tell me what never has been, and never
can be; what involves, indeed, a fiat and palpable contradiction; inasmuch as, the
inability affirmed in Scripture being unwillingness, and nothing else whatever,
it amounts to neither more nor less than saying that you are willing and unwilling
at the same time. To say you would believe if you could,—is not only not true; it
is the precise opposite of truth. The plain truth is, that you could believe if
you would; there being no one thing whatever that prevents you from believing, but
the want of will; nothing between you and pardon but the want of will to have it
in God’s way,—that is, freely, and in connexion with holiness, with newness of life.—‘I
would but can’t believe,’—‘I would but can’t repent,’—are, both of them, as unsound
philosophy as they are unsound divinity. If in any instance either were true, there
would, in that instance, be no guilt in unbelief and impenitence. It is the will
that is wanting, and the will only. The will to believe is, virtually, faith; the
will to repent is, virtually, penitence. There never has been the will to either,
where there have not actually been both.
“In making the atonement, and in offering
you pardon on account of it, if you are willing to accept the pardon on that
ground, God has put the blessing in your power. Who
is to blame, if you have it not? Not He assuredly; but yourselves, and yourselves
alone.—What would you have? You have all the natural faculties and powers, that
are necessary to constitute a ground of accountableness. You have the natural powers
required for considering, understanding, believing, choosing, loving and hating,
speaking and acting;—and moreover for asking. The question, then, is, How comes
it that these powers are not occupied about proper objects?—how comes it that they
are not rightly directed?—Take them in order. You have the power of considering:—why
is it that you do not consider the ’things that belong to your everlasting peace,’—the
things which, of all others, you cannot but be sensible, ought, both in duty and
in interest, to be considered by you?—You have the power of understanding!—how is
it, that you do not understand the divine testimony;—that is, that you do not perceive
and appreciate its excellence, and its adaptation both to God’s character and to
man’s need? ‘Why, even of yourselves, judge ye not that which is right?’—You have
the power of believing,—of crediting what is attested by sufficient evidence. You
are practising this every day and every hour, on other subjects. How is it, that
you do not believe the Word of God,—the glorious gospel,—‘the word of reconciliation,’
of peace with God through the atoning blood of the cross? Is it because you have
examined its evidence, and satisfactorily proved it untrue? or is it because, in
its humbling and holy character, it is not to your liking? Let conscience give a
faithful answer. You have the power of choosing:—you are exercising it continually.
How is it, that you do not, among the objects presented for your selection, ‘choose
the good part that shall never be taken from you?’ You have the natural power of
loving, and of hating:—how is it, that you do not love God, love Christ, love holiness?—and
how is it, that you do not hate sin, and ‘abhor that which is evil’?—how is it that
your love and your hatred are not in harmony with those of God, that you do not
hate what he
hates, and love what he loves? You have the natural
power of speaking and acting;—why is it, that you do not always speak and act aright?
I
have added to all these—You have the power of asking;—yes; and with the power, you
have the liberty, in the quarter where most it behoves you to apply; and more even
than liberty—earnest invitation, and all the encouragement of faithful promise:—how
is it, then, that you do not ask of God?—how is it that you come not to him for
the influences of his Spirit, and for the blessings of his salvation? how is it,
that, when these blessings are set before you, on the ground of the atonement, in
all their fulness and in all their freeness, you do not eagerly and gratefully accept
them?—that when the way is opened to the mercy-seat, through the rending of the
vail even the Redeemer’s flesh, you do not press towards it?—that when ‘in Christ’s
reconciling the world unto himself,’ he beseeches you to be reconciled to him, you
do not catch with all avidity at the gracious entreaty, and come into friendship
with your justly offended God?—O delude not your own souls by talking of inability.
Is there any other answer that can truly, in the tribunal of conscience, be given
to such questions, but one—that you have ‘no heart’ to these things—to the truths,
to the ways, to the service, or to the enjoyment of God? And if this aversion of
heart, this perverseness of disposition, this want of will to that which is good,
be not sinful, then is there no such thing as sin in the universe—no moral evil
or criminal desert—nothing on account of which any creature can be condemned or
punished.
“I again ask, what would you have? Every consideration that is calculated
to influence and determine the choice of your mind, is set before you;—everything
fearful on the one side, everything truly desirable on the other. The terrors of
coming wrath are depicted, to induce you to flee from them, and effect a timely
escape; and the way of escape is set open before you. All that is, or ought to be,
attractive, in the beauties of holiness,—in the prospect of ‘fulness of joy and
pleasures for evermore,’—in a God who ’delighteth in mercy,’
and whose very nature is ‘love,’—in a Saviour as willing
as he is able, and as able as he is willing, to ’save you to the utternmost,’—in
an atonement whose infinite virtue is for all,—in the forgiveness of sin, fellowship
with God, and the reciprocations of mutual love between the renewed soul and the
divine source of all blessing;—in all that is comprehended in life eternal!—What
would you have? The most sincere and earnest invitations are addressed to you, assuring
you of the divine readiness to receive and to bless you: and every one of these
invitations proceeds upon the assumption, that there is nothing between you and
the enjoyment of the blessings to which you are invited, but your own will. Jehovah—the
God with whom it is impossible to lie, swears to you by the certainty and necessity
of his own being—‘As I live, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but
rather that the wicked turn from his wicked way, and live: turn ye, turn ye, for
why will ye die?’ and Jesus, the divine Saviour, pleads with, and entreats, and
encourages you—‘Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy-laden, and I will
give you rest.’—What would you have? What more is necessary to constitute a valid
ground of responsibility?—think,—and say,—what more is there required?—what is wanting?—There
is nothing remaining, that I can conceive of, but your being made willing. Will
you say that this is necessary to your accountableness? If you wish to retain your
claim to rationality, you will never advance such a plea. Think a moment—a moment
will be enough—of its self-contradictory absurdity: that it should be necessary
for you to be made willing, in order to your becoming accountable for being
unwilling!—that
a right disposition requires to be imparted, in order to your being responsible
for cherishing and indulging a wrong one! And yet, gross as is the absurdity of
the sentiment, it is greatly to be feared that some impious surmise of this kind
floats in many minds—that unless God give them a right disposition, they cannot
help it. But the entire Bible proceeds on the assumption that the wrong disposition
is your sin,—existing and operating
wilfully, resisting the inducements to its suppression
and crucifixion, and neither desiring nor seeking divine aid to effect it.—What
would you have? You are neither compelled to evil, nor forcibly restrained from
good. You voluntarily choose the one; you voluntarily refuse the other. It is a
matter of consciously spontaneous preference. What, then, I still urge upon you,
would you have? You cannot be saved against your will. You cannot have your hearts
changed against your will. You cannot be made willing against your will! You have
all the powers before enumerated: you have all conceivable motives presented to
you to exercise those powers aright—in the choice, the love, the pursuit, and the
enjoyment of right and worthy objects: you are under no compulsory and no withholding
power. Why, then, I repeat, do you remain at a distance from God, when he invites
you to his presence and his favour? Why are you not interested in the virtue of
the atonement, when you are assured that its virtue is free to you and to all Why
are you not partakers of the blessings of God’s salvation, when these, in all the
free munificence of the Godhead, are set before you, and pressed upon your acceptance?
Why are you not in the way to heaven, when the gate is thrown wide, and entrance
not permitted merely but urged? Who, let me ask, or what, prevents you?
WHO? Not
God: he invites, entreats, prays you, and, with the sceptre of his grace extended,
waits for you, that you may touch it, and live. Not Christ. He has shed his blood
for sinners, and for you among the rest,—he sets himself before you, crucified and
slain—he shows you his hands and his side, and says, ‘Him that cometh unto me I
will in no wise cast out.’ WHAT, then, prevents you? Nothing whatever, in the form
of obstacle, lies in your way, save those which are thrown there by the devil, the
world, and the flesh, operating upon your earthly and corrupt affections, and indisposing
you to leave the broad way and enter the narrow; that is, there is nothing but the
strong antagonist power of your inclination to sense and sin. The sole obstacle
is to be found in the words—‘Ye will not.’ Do
not delude yourselves by fancying there is anything
else. Cheat not your souls with words. Believe not those who would lay your consciences
to sleep on the pillow of an imaginary inability. Unwillingness is the word. It
is the inability of disinclination—of alienation of heart; moral inability. You
can, but will not, is the truth; or, if you like it better, though it is the same
thing, you cannot, because you will not.”—Pp. 146-155.
I have now done with the
reading of the quotation, and I have one question to propose—Do you not perceive
the important, the studied omission? The excellent author, from whose discourses
we have read, is true to his system. But what has become of the special influence,
for which he contends so zealously, and which he believes to be the saving influence
of the Holy Spirit? What has he made of this? Is there any reference to its necessity,
or—to the necessity of the Spirit of God in any form, or in any degree whatever,
in order to the conversion of the sinner to God? It is painful, indeed, to differ
on a point so very important from such a writer as this. But is it possible to agree,
even with this revered servant of Jesus Christ, without committing ourselves to
a denial of the necessity of Divine influence in order to the production of saving
faith? He asks—“Who or what prevents you?” And mark his reply—“Not God: he invites,
entreats, prays you; and, with the sceptre of his grace extended, waits for you,
that you may touch it, and live. Not Christ. He has shed his blood for sinners,
and for you among the rest—he sets himself before you, crucified and slain—he shows
you his hands and his side, and says, ‘Him that cometh unto me, I will in no wise
cast out.’ What, then, prevents you?” Our answer
to this question is, “The Holy Spirit’s blessed influence is awanting still.” Is
it possible that this writer could pen and preach the beautiful and striking appeal
to sinners which we have quoted, and not think of this most important omission?
Would that Dr. Wardlaw had added one single sentence more, just before asking the
sinner, “What, then, prevents you?” Would that he had written down such a sentence
as this—“Not the Holy Spirit: for thus it is written, ‘To-day,
as the Holy Ghost
saith, to-day, Oh that ye would hear his voice, and harden not your hearts.’ And
again, ‘The Spirit, as well as the Bride, says Come.’ And, yet once more, every
moment you remain unconverted, ‘Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost.’” Would Dr. Wardlaw have compromised
his system, had he appended such a sentence as this? Doubtless
he would, and he knew it. But does not this only prove, even to a demonstration,
that this system lacks “one thing needful” to be consistent with the Word of God—the
recognition of the absolute necessity of the influence of the Spirit, in order to
enable any sinner to believe in Christ, and to be saved? We pause for a reply.
We
shall doubtless be referred to the distinction between natural and moral inability—a
distinction which our brethren are in the habit of drawing with the view of evading
the difficulty in which they are placed by their theory, and escaping the consequences
to which it inevitably leads. Justice, therefore, to our subject, requires us to
examine this point, before dismissing this part of our argument.
What do brethren understand by moral and what by
natural ability? The former implies the possession of the power or ability to
will.
The latter implies the possession of the power to act. It is admitted on all hands
that the action is dependent upon the will. So dependent is the action upon the
will, and so closely connected are they with each other, that, in the passage now
quoted, Dr. Wardlaw says, that “the will to believe is virtually faith; the will
to repent is virtually penitence. There never has been the will to either, where
there have not actually been both.” This is a very strong assertion of what is called
man’s natural ability to believe unto salvation. But while it is asserted that wherever
there is the will to believe, faith is the invariable result, it is evidently, indeed
necessarily, implied that faith cannot exist where the will to believe is awanting.
Where the will exists, faith is said invariably to follow. But where the will is
awanting faith will be admitted, as a matter of course, to be impossible. “You
could believe if you would,” Dr. Wardlaw says. But it is no less true that you
cannot
believe, if you will not. The second statement is no less true than the first. They
stand or fall together. But it is affirmed that men have not the power to will.
This is affirmed by our brethren who have unanswerably demonstrated, and who glory
in admitting, that men have the power to believe. Let us inquire, therefore, into
the reason of their strong assertion of man’s power to believe. We take the statement
of the excellent author from whom we have so largely quoted. He says truly—“if there
were no ability it would not be
justice” to condemn any sinner on the ground of
unbelief. Here, then, is one strong position which we occupy in asserting man’s
perfect ability savingly to believe. The responsibility of the sinner is measured
by his opportunity or his power. But the question arises—is the sinner not responsible
for his determinations or volitions? Is he not responsible for the man. ner in which
he exercises his will? Listen again to Dr. Wardlaw’s reply to this question—“If
this aversion of heart—this perverseness of disposition—this want of will to that
which is good, be not sinful, then is there no such thing as sin in the universe—no
moral evil or criminal desert—nothing, on account of which any creature can be condemned
or punished.” Here again we have the happiness of saying amen to the doctrine of
Dr. Wardlaw. It is sinful—justly punishable—not to will in accordance with the will
of God. Now comes our inquiry—why is the sinner justly punishable for not willing
to believe? Will Dr. Wardlaw here withdraw his words—“If there were no ability it
would not be justice”? Surely not. The assertion is just, and it is true that the
measure of a man’s ability is the measure of his responsibility. But every man is
responsible for the direction in which he wills. On Dr. Wardlaw’s own principle,
therefore, the sinner must possess the power—the ability to will. It is upon the
admission of this truth, and that alone, that our brethren can maintain their consistency.
They cannot surely argue that it would be unjust in God to condemn the sinner who
has no power to believe, because the man believes not; and at the same time affirm
that it is
perfectly just in God to condemn the sinner who
has no power to will because he wills not! If the want of power be the measure of
just responsibility in the one case—it is the same in the other case. And therefore
we submit with all deference to the venerated man from whom we have quoted, that
the same principle whereby he establishes man’s natural ability to believe, proves
beyond all reasonable question, that the sinner possesses the power or the ability
to will, as well as the power or ability to do, consistently with the just and righteous
command of God.
You must have noticed that, in the quotation already made, even
Dr. Wardlaw expresses himself upon this point with evident inconsistency. He speaks,
in the first place, as if any man in his senses ever dreamt of maintaining the absurdity
that a sinner must be willing before he can be responsible for being unwilling!
Did the doctor ever listen to the assertion of an absurdity such as this beyond
the precincts of an asylum? Nay, verily. He accordingly says very truly, “If you
wish to retain your claim to rationality, you will never advance such a plea. Think
a moment—a moment will be enough—of its self-contradictory absurdity: that it should
be necessary for you to be made willing in order to your becoming accountable for
being unwilling!” The doctor is verily right in affirming that no sane
man could possibly advance such a plea. “And yet, gross as is the absurdity of
the sentiment, it is greatly to be feared [adds this writer] that some impious
surmise of this kind floats in many minds—that unless God give them a right
disposition, they cannot
help it.” Is it possible that Dr. Wardlaw could
purposely set himself to practise a deception upon the minds of his readers? It
is impossible. It is therefore very evident that the doctor is himself labouring
under a gross misconception, when he confounds the act of willing with the power
to will. It is absurd, indeed, to imagine, even for a moment, that the actual existence
of the former is essential to responsibility; but it is not absurd to affirm that
a man is not, and cannot be, justly held responsible, if the latter be indeed awanting.
But any ignorant and unthinking individual who should happen to peruse or listen
to the eloquent appeal of this writer, would imagine, and would be warranted to
infer from the expressions we have quoted, that the doctor’s opponents must be irrational
indeed! No man could imagine for a moment that the doctor is capable of, descending
to an intentional misrepresentation; and few men have been accustomed to observe
the egregious blunders into which even great and learned men constantly fall, when
they are warped and entangled by an absurd and erroneous system of theology. And
knowing that Dr. Wardlaw is morally incapable of misrepresentation, and fancying,
moreover, that HE is intellectually incapable of falling into a very ridiculous
mistake—most of his readers will doubtless imagine that the system which he aims
at in the expressions now under consideration, actually proceeds upon the absurd
conception, that the sinner must be “made willing” before he can be responsible
for being unwilling! The followers of Dr. Wardlaw would be surprised, indeed, if
Dr. Candlish or Dr. Marshall, or any of
the extreme men of Calvin, should try to argue
against Dr. Wardlaw’s strong assertion of every sinner’s ability to believe, so
that, “if there were no ability it would not be justice” to condemn him for unbelief,
in the same style as Dr. Wardlaw has attempted to argue against the sinner’s ability
to will. What if Dr. Wardlaw should be met by the following statements in the form
of a refutation:—“If you, Dr. Ralph Wardlaw, wish to retain your claim to rationality,
you will never advance such a plea. Think a moment—a moment will be enough—of its
self-contradictory absurdity: that it should be necessary for you to be made to
believe, in order to your becoming accountable for your unbelief! And yet, gross
as is the absurdity of the sentiment, it is evident from your book that some impious
surmise of this kind floats in your mind—that unless God constrain you to believe,
it would not be justice to condemn you.” Would Dr. Wardlaw or his followers in his
own Union, and also in the United Presbyterian Church, be satisfied with such a
representation of their own sentiments? Would they not be very ready to detect the
fallacy and cry out against the injustice? Would they not exclaim—“We never said
that the sinner needed to be made to believe, but that the sinner must possess the
power to believe before he can be justly punished for his unbelief; and you, Doctors Candlish and Marshall, confound
the act of believing with the power to believe,
and you thus misrepresent our doctrine when you try to fasten upon it such an absurdity”?—Would
not this be Dr. Wardlaw’s reply to such an argument against his own doctrine—“that
a man is not responsible for not believing who
wants the power to believe”? Such, then, is our reply to his argument against our
doctrine, when we maintain “that a man is not responsible for being unwilling who
wants the power to will.”
The ground occupied by Dr. Wardlaw, when he affirms that
God cannot justly condemn any sinner for unbelief who has not the power to believe,
is the exact foundation on which any man may take his stand and maintain the injustice
of condemning any sinner for not willing to believe who wants the power to will.
It is not the want of faith which would render it unjust in God to punish, but the
want of power to exercise faith. How absurd to imagine that a man must have faith
before he can be justly punished for the want of it! But does Dr. Wardlaw entertain
such an absurd notion as this? He does, if his argument be worth anything, when
he exclaims, “How absurd to imagine that a man must have the will to believe before
he can be justly punished for the want of will!” Both absurdities are equally absurd.
But if the last is necessarily implied in the doctrine, that the power to will is
necessary to responsibility for unwillingness, the first is equally implied in the
doctrine, that the power to believe is necessary to responsibility for unbelief.
But Dr. Wardlaw does not entertain such an absurdity as that a man must believe
in order to be justly punished for not believing! His argument, therefore, is not
worth a straw against us when he speaks of “the self-contradictory absurdity—that
it should be necessary for you to be made willing in order to your becoming accountable
for being unwilling!” The doctor has evidently
been aiming at some system which has no “claim to rationality,” when he penned the
sentences we have been examining. But we humbly submit, that the implied charge
falls back upon his own theory. It is surely most irrational to affirm, that the
want of power to discharge one obligation releases the sinner from just responsibility,
while it is, at the same time, maintained, that the same want of power to discharge
another obligation leaves the man accountable for its neglect. But the theory now
under examination admits the injustice of punishing a man for not believing aright
if the man wants the power to believe, while it affirms that there is no injustice
whatever in punishing a man for not willing aright if the man wants the power to
will!! Is not this inconsistent and irrational?
But no stronger reasoning can be
advanced in favour of the vaunted distinction between natural and moral ability
and inability. It is a distinction without a difference, and no solid argument can
be based upon it. The self-same argument which establishes what is called man’s
natural ability, or power to believe and to do his duty, demonstrates man’s moral
ability or power to will, to believe, and to do his duty. And the same weapon whereby
the one should be overthrown would destroy both, and that, too, at the same stroke.
Any man who peruses the long extract which we have quoted from Dr. Wardlaw might
be led to inquire, whether the doctor seriously believes the theory which he has
set himself to maintain. Does the doctor not assure the sinner, that he has the
power not only
of considering, understanding, believing, but also
of “choosing”? To this we say, amen. But what says the system which is based upon
the imaginary distinction between natural and moral ability—the system which affirms
that man has no power of choice? Have I not quoted the doctor’s express words, when
I have written down the following—“What would you have? You are neither compelled
to evil, nor forcibly restrained from good. You voluntarily choose the one; you
voluntarily refuse the other. It is a matter of consciously spontaneous preference.
What then, I still urge upon you, would you have? You cannot be saved against your
will. You cannot have your hearts changed against your will! You cannot be made
willing against your will! You have all the powers before enumerated.” And now we
again ask, Has not Dr. Wardlaw himself expressly mentioned, among the number of
man’s natural powers, the power of choice? And what is the power to choose but the
power to determine or to will in one direction rather than in any other? And has
not the doctor appealed to every man’s consciousness in support of this great truth?
And if, in support of this great truth, every man’s consciousness decides, what
have we but an infallible decision against the system which affirms the want of
the power to will or to choose in the absence of a special influence for which this
writer has been wont to contend?
When it is demanded of us now, “What, then, would
you have?” we think we are fully warranted to reply, “We would have the honest
consistency of truthful and truth-loving men.” We would have anything rather
than a system of shuffling and shifting and popularity-hunting expediency. We would have a consistent advocacy of the glorious and soul-saving
truth by brethren who have much to answer for at the judgment-seat of God, seeing
that to whomsoever much talent and much influence is given, of them much shall be
required. We would have the esteemed and eloquent writer from whom we have quoted,
and our very esteemed friends of the United Presbyterian Church, to lead forward
and advance the mighty movement which has been begun in our land, instead of frowning
upon it and retarding it, and doing all in their power to crush and annihilate it.
Or, if we cannot have this, we would have the opposite consistent alternative. Let
them stand by Dr. Marshall and his party. Let us have the consistency of error rather
than this truckling and halting expediency, and we shall know how to deal with it.
But when we have at one time, and in one sentence, the confession of the truth,
and, in the very next sentence or discourse, the exhibition of opposing error; when
now we have Jesus Christ, and, in a short time, John Calvin, exhibited as an authority;
when we have, in one page, the assertion that man has no power to will without the
special, indefinable, irresistible influence of an ideal theology, and, in another
page, the affirmation of man’s perfect power to will as well as to believe, without
the Holy Spirit at all; when we have the one or the other—error or truth, truth
or error, or truth and error, both together, jumbled and hashed up in one heterogeneous
mass, precisely as expediency may direct;—when we have such a state of things round
about us, we are
almost confounded by the question, which is again
and again pressed upon our notice,—“What would you have?”
But the plea which
is founded upon the distinction between natural and moral inability, is evidently
unsound and untenable, not only for the reason already stated, but for another reason,
with the statement of which we shall now conclude this discourse. It is admitted
that men cannot be saved against their will, or have their hearts changed against
their will, or consider, or ask, or perform one single duty against their will;
and yet they are informed by these sapient teachers, that they have the power to
believe and to be saved, while they are at the same time warned not to believe “the
heresy” which assures them that they possess the power to will! Without their will,
they are not able to believe or to do their duty, but they are quite able to believe
and to do their whole duty, although they have no power or command over their will!
Is not this a palpable absurdity? How can sinners be possessed of natural ability,
or the power to act aright, if they have no power to will aright, when the doing
is admittedly dependent upon the previous willing? How is it possible for any man
to take the second step, when it is not possible for him so much as to attempt the
first step, it being admitted that the former is necessarily dependent upon the
latter? Does not this absurd philosophy mar the beauty, and take the heart and soul
out of the glorious gospel, with which it has been unnaturally linked? What is the
gospel which our brethren present, Sabbath after Sabbath, before their
congregations? It is the mere dead carcase of Christianity.
It is Christianity divested of its energy and its power. It is the merest mockery
of human wretchedness. Is this an uncharitable announcement? Look at it and judge
for yourselves. We look them once more in the face, and ask our brethren—Do you
not say to the sinner that he is perfectly able to believe and to be saved? Do you
not tell him that it would be unjust in God to condemn him, if he had not the power
savingly to believe? Do you not assure him that he possesses “all the powers required
for considering, understanding, believing, choosing, [?] loving and hating, speaking
and acting; and, moreover, for asking”? But when the sinner comes to be wrought upon
by such statements as these, so as to find himself most uneasy in the midst of his
remaining unbelief, and would instantly flee to Jesus for safety, what do you not
say to him?—in what way do you set the man’s conscience at rest for time, and leave
him waiting and waiting and waiting, under the conviction that it is his duty to
wait on, without the possession of perfect and solid peace with God? You inform
him that he wants the power to will to believe! You tell him, that when you spoke
of ability, it was not moral, but only natural ability to which you referred; and
by your misty metaphysical distinction, you cloud and obscure the poor man’s soul—you
hide from his eye the sun of righteousness, by this metaphysical mist which you
throw around the sphere of his mental vision! To what does this vaunted distinction,
after all, amount? Like every other distinction got up for the purpose of mere evasion,
we have a distinction without a difference. We
have the same thing presented before us under a different name. Under the title
of “moral inability,” the sinner is informed that he has no power to believe; while,
under the title, “natural ability,” the man is forthwith instructed that he possesses
full power to believe; and that God himself could not justly punish him for unbelief,
if he could not believe. Must we be charged with being uncharitable, because we
call this a manifest contradiction? Is it uncharitable to speak the truth in love?
We feel it to be painful, but we do not admit it to be uncharitable, to speak of
that whereby esteemed brethren are themselves deceived, and whereby they most unintentionally
deceive and ruin immortal souls, and to call it by its proper name. We use the words
of the most charitable among living divines when we say to our fellow-sinners—“This
is all delusion—cheat not your souls with words—believe not those who would lay your
consciences to sleep on the pillow of an imaginary inability.”
The esteemed writer
from whom these words are again quoted, immediately adds, “Unwillingness is the
word.” Here is “the word”—What means this “word”? Dr. Wardlaw means by it
inability
to will. But while the doctor evidently refers to “beloved Ultra-Calvinistic brethren,”
against whose teaching he warns his fellow-sinners, when he says, “believe not those who would lay your consciences to sleep on the pillow of an imaginary inability;”
and while we admit that there is ample room for the faithful warning, ought we not
to say to the doctor—“Physician heal thyself”?
Does he not differ from those divines against whose
pernicious doctrine he so faithfully warns men only in words—mere words? What is
the alteration which the doctor proposes? It is the change of a word! “Unwillingness
[says he] is the word.” The brethren against whose teaching Dr. Wardlaw lifts his
faithful voice inculcate the notion of inability to do. Dr. Wardlaw himself inculcates
the sinner’s inability to will to do. No wonder that the same “Alliance,” styled
“Evangelical,” can contain them both. They can shake hands over the inability! But
we humbly submit that if this inability be, as this doctor says it is, in the one
case “imaginary,” it is no less imaginary in both cases. Dr. Candlish very justly
observes respecting it, somewhere in his attempts to combat Dr. Wardlaw’s unanswerable
arguments in favour of a universal atonement, that this is merely removing the inability
into “a niche farther back.” It is merely assigning to it a different position in
the unbroken and indestructible chain of necessity! Call it natural, or call it
moral, or call it by any fine name you choose—it is inability after all—“an imaginary
inability.”
If we were, therefore, unhappily compelled to make our choice between
two evils, we should choose the least, and adhere the rather to Dr. Candlish and
“those” against whose pernicious teaching Dr. Wardlaw lifts his warning voice.
We hesitate not to say to our semi-brethren—pernicious as the out-and-out orthodox
teaching admittedly is, it is not by any means so pernicious as your own; and the
reason is, that it is far more honest and consistent with itself, and far less
truckling
and deceptive, than is that half-and-half Calvinism
which a miserable expediency has originated and patronized. Your system is a mere
catch-penny system—it is no system at all. It wants the consistency even of error,
and down it must speedily fall of its own accord. It has already slipped away out
of the hands of all those who have preceded the Congregationalists and the “United
Church” in their march out of Calvin-land, and it is our happiness to anticipate
the time when it will be no longer expedient for the expediency brethren to retain
it.
What is YOUR gospel, which you call it uncharitable to denounce as an imposition
and a cheat? You go to the dungeon of the condemned man, and you tell him that you
are the bearers of good news—“good tidings of great joy.” You say to him that he
has perfect freedom to enter the palace of his sovereign, and ask and obtain whatever
he desires. And at this announcement the poor man’s heart begins to leap for gladness.
But you point him instantly to the bolts and bars and heavy chains which bind him
to his prison-house, and you remind him that he has not the power to move, and you
have no authority to set him free from the spot to which he is bound! And yet you
say to him that he has the power to enter the palace, and you entreat him to enter,
and you rebuke him because he is not found at the foot of the throne asking and
obtaining whatever his heart desires!! Is not this the very essence of absurdity?
Does it not amount to the most deliberate cruelty thus to insult and mock
and tantalize the miserable and the unfortunate?
WHY? Simply because you know that the poor man has not the power to move from his
dungeon, and you admit he must first of all walk outside of that dungeon before
it is possible for him to approach the palace of his sovereign. True, indeed,
IF
the poor man were once disengaged from his fetters and out of his prison-house, he
has the power to walk up to the palace. And YOUR gospel
depends upon this miserable “IF”!! The man has the power to take the second step, IF the first step were once
accomplished! But the first step he has no power to take! Why, then, not deal
HONESTLY
with the poor man at once, and say plainly to him that you have NO GOSPEL to him
at all?
But such is the sum and substance of the gospel which you have for sinners
of the human race. It sounds at first like music from on high. It falls upon the
ears of your hearers like sounds of sweetest melody. It is so free!—it is so full!
It takes within its ample grasp the world—the whole world “without distinction
and without exception!” But examine it—and what is there in it all for any sinner
to cling to in the hour of need? Simply an assurance that the man is able to save
himself without the Holy Spirit! Here is one side of your vaunted gospel, and looking
at it in this, its most unlimited aspect, it amounts to a downright falsehood. But
turn round the other side which embraces not the world, but takes in exclusively
“the special few,” and what does this “gospel” say? It assures men that they have
no power to will—no power to
take the first, the essential step back again to God—no power to will even to consider what the Holy Ghost says unto them—but that
an iron chain of necessity binds their will down to the dark prison of their unbelief,
until a special, direct, mystical, irresistible, and inexplicable influence shall,
somehow or other, burst their fetters and set them free! Here, then, is the other
aspect of what you call gospel, and looking at it in this “special reference” we
find it to involve another falsehood, no less destructive than the former.
“Now,
my fellow-sinners, this is all delusion.” So truly has Dr. Wardlaw spoken of the
system which has been examined in the first four of the Lectures, which we have
been privileged to deliver in your hearing. We think we are warranted to apply the
doctor’s own expressive words to his own theology; and while we do so, we trust
that while we condemn the system of this excellent writer no less strongly than
he himself condemns the system of those whom he still loves as brethren, we shall
not be awanting in cultivating towards him, and all from whom we differ, the same
spirit of expansive charity. But we want more than mere verbal charity;—we want
charity in deed; and we are therefore desirous that our brethren who are most industrious
in circulating against us the slanderous charge of denying the necessity of the
Holy Spirit’s needful influence, would be so charitable as gird themselves to the
task of proving what they gratuitously assert, and charitably pointing out to all
men, if they can, from the Word of God, that the truth which we
maintain involves the error which they are pleased
calumniously to charge against it. We have ventured to show our brethren what we
deem an example of charity, when we have not only asserted, but endeavoured at great
length to prove, that the system which they themselves patronize involves a denial
of the great truth for which all Christian men must ever be forward earnestly to
contend.
We have most gratefully availed ourselves of the admissions which our brethren
have made, as the result of Scripture examination and clear and solid proof which
has not been, and cannot be, successfully met and overthrown. They have proved that
Jesus died for all men, and that all men without exception are able to believe.
This they have proved,—this we have admitted; and so far we have gratefully and
joyfully accepted of their Scriptural and enlightened concessions. But when they
come in with their “special influence,” we ask them, how they reconcile this with
what they have proved to be true in reference to every sinner’s perfect ability
to believe, and we are informed in reply, that the sinner is able to believe without
it. We then ask, what they mean by this special influence. They inform us that they
mean to describe thereby the influence which precedes the sinner’s will, and must
needs take the precedency of the sinner’s will, before the sinner can believe—the
influence of the Holy Ghost. Here it is that we pause and take leave to dispute
with our brethren the truthfulness of their theory. We admit that the Holy Spirit’s
influence must needs precede the sinner’s will
before it is possible for the man either to will aright or to believe aright; but
it is evident that this influence, whatever be its nature, cannot be “special” or
exclusively restricted to the elect alone, unless it be true that the elect only
are possessed of the ability to believe. But our brethren have proved that all men,
without exception, are able to believe, and are therefore justly punishable for
unbelief. We leave them therefore to take their choice between the denial of what
they have proved to be true; or the denial of the necessity of the Holy Spirit in
order to the production of faith; or the abandonment of their theory of election,
whereby the influence of the Spirit is falsely imagined to be specially and exclusively
confined to the elect. Our heart’s desire and prayer for our brethren is, that they
may speedily abandon this last-mentioned error, and come forth consistently in the
strength of the Lord, to the acknowledgment of THE WHOLE TRUTH.
LECTURE EIGHTH.
ELECTION TO A SPECIAL INTEREST IN THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT—OPPOSED
TO THE SCRIPTURE TESTIMONY RESPECTING THE NATURE OF DIVINE INFLUENCE—DIVINE DRAWING
IDENTIFIED WITH DIVINE TEACHING—MAY BE RESISTED—“THE SPIRITS IN PRISON”—THE MURDERERS
OF STEPHEN—THE THEORY OF A COMMON DIVINE INFLUENCE WHICH CANNOT SAVE—THE SPIRIT
WORKS BY MEANS.
GEN. vi. 3.—”My Spirit shall not always strive with man.”
ACTS vii. 57.—”Ye do always RESIST THE HOLY GHOST; as your fathers did,
so do ye.”
JOHN vi. 45.—”It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man,
therefore, that hath heard and hath learned of the Father cometh unto me.”
I WISH you, my friends, to examine the doctrine of election,
which we are now considering, in the light of the Holy Scriptures, and, with
that view, I have already directed your attention to several plain and simple
texts, whose testimony no candid man can possibly overlook or disregard. And I
now close the consideration of this important subject by inviting your attention
to one
other general remark. We object to this doctrine
of election, because,
IV. IT IS OPPOSED TO THE SCRIPTURE STATEMENTS WHICH POINT
OUT TO US THE NATURE OF THE WORK OF THE SPIRIT.
The Word of God not only asserts
the necessity of the Spirit’s work—it speaks very plainly of the nature of that
work in the conversion of the soul. It tells us precisely what is the kind of influence
which the Spirit exerts upon the souls of men in order to bring them back to God.
It is styled a “drawing” of the soul on the part of God; it is a
persuasive influence,
adapted by infinite wisdom, to the nature of the soul; it is not like that influence
which is exerted upon inert and unconscious and unthinking matter; it is such influence
as is adapted to the nature and properties of mind. It is not the turning of a mountain,
but the revolution of a mind; not the dragging of a body, but the drawing of a soul,
which this influence seeks to effect. And accordingly, we find the Sacred Scriptures
representing the matter exactly in this light. We cannot conceive of a more direct
or explicit statement upon this point than what is embodied in John vi. 45, wherein
our Saviour himself very clearly intimates to his disciples the precise manner in
which the Father draws. We have seen that, in the 44th verse, he asserts the absolute
and indispensable necessity of the influence in order to enable any man to come
to him—“No man can come to me, except the Father who hath sent me draw him.”
But he immediately instructs us respecting
the nature of this influence—he instantly informs us in what way the Father draws,
when he adds, “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God.
Every man, therefore, that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto
me.” You will observe the precise phraseology which our Saviour uses, with the evident
design of anticipating and correcting the blunders into which dreamy and mystifying
theologians should be apt to fall.. He does not use the expression “draweth” at
all in the 45th verse. He uses the expressions, “taught of God,” “heard and learned
of the Father;” and observe, more particularly still, our Saviour uses these expressions
in order to render it impossible for any man, without the most obvious perversion
of his words, to affirm that the drawing is anything different from the
teaching,
or the hearing and learning of the Father, anything different from the soul’s voluntary
submission to the drawing influence of the Spirit. It is impossible for any man
to come without the drawing influence; but all men are taught of God, and every
man who hears and learns of this divine teacher, infallibly cometh unto Christ.
Such is our Saviour’s statement. Do you not see, therefore, that the drawing of
the Spirit and the teaching of the Spirit are here identified? Is it not plain,
from these words, that the Spirit draws by teaching, and that wherever the Spirit
teaches there he draws, and that whosoever listens to his teaching, and learns at
his feet, actually cometh unto Jesus? The persuasive influence of the Holy Spirit,
whereby he
draws men to Jesus and to happiness, is here
strongly contrasted with the opposing influence of the Scribes and Pharisees, whereby
the souls of the people were seduced away from Christ. And whereas those infatuated
men and women who submitted to be taught by those erring teachers, and heard and
learned at their feet, did not and could not come to Jesus, it was very different
with those who regarded the teaching of God the Spirit rather than the fallible
and erroneous teaching of fallible men; for while the former could not possibly
come to Christ, every one of the latter “who hath heard and learned of the Father
[Jesus emphatically declares] cometh unto me.”
You see, therefore, how it is that
the Spirit of God draws the human soul; it is by his own infallible teaching. And
you see, farther, how it is that any soul is drawn by the Spirit; it is by disregarding
the mere teaching of mere men, who would set up their own fallible creeds and confessions
and catechisms and sermons, as if they were to be placed upon a level with the Word
of God, thereby, like the ancient Pharisees, setting aside, by their traditions,
the Scriptures of truth. It is by setting aside all such mere human authority—by
disregarding all such fallible and priestly dictation to the conscience—by elevating
the Word of God to its legitimate position of supremacy above all human creeds—by
acting out practically the great principle of the Reformation, and practically asserting,
in the face of an aspiring and ignorant clergy, the right and duty of private individual
judgment as to the
Scriptures of truth—by every man remembering
that it is not to his ministers or elders, but to his God, that he is responsible
for his belief; or (to use the language of Jesus himself, in the verse we are now
considering) it is by hearing and learning of the Father, as he speaks by the Spirit
in the Bible, that men are drawn of God, and brought to Christ and to happiness.
But while such is the doctrine of the verse before us, that doctrine is denied and
set aside, in order to make room for the strange notion of election we are now engaged
in examining. You have already seen that, in order to bolster up this strange notion,
its advocates find it necessary to maintain that sinners are quite able to believe,
and do all their duty, without the influence of the Spirit; but, in connexion with
this, they hold the theory of a special influence, which they inform us is directly
and mysteriously exerted upon the minds of the elect, in order to make them willing
to believe, and which is withheld from all the rest of the human race, who, if
they were only willing, could be saved without it. This thing, then, which they
call a special influence, is not the influence of the divine teaching. It is not
the influence exerted upon the soul when the soul hears and learns of the Father.
We are told that it is something else—something different from—something over and
above that influence of which alone our Saviour speaks, in the 44th and 45th verses
of the sixth chapter of John’s gospel. We have demanded to know what it is, and
where it is spoken of in the Word of God—and, strange to say, its
supporters cannot tell! They cannot
inform us what this special influence is! But
what is still more strange, whenever we come to press them for proof of its existence,
from the Word of God, they refer us to such passages as those we are now considering;
but whenever we begin to examine these passages, we find that they inform us distinctly
of the reality and necessity and distinctive nature of the Spirit’s work. These
texts inform us that the Spirit works by means—that he draws men to Jesus by presenting
truth before their minds—that it is only when taught of God, and when they hear
and learn of the Father, they ever come to Christ. But this is the very thing which
these electionists deny. They deny the doctrine so plainly stated in the very passages
of Scripture which are most frequently upon their lips!—And it is because they deny
what we submit to you Christ plainly says, about the nature of divine drawing—(when
he exhibits it not as direct or without means, but as exerted by means of teaching
or instruction, and when he thereby exhibits it, not as physical but moral in its
nature),—that we hold their doctrine to amount to a mere figment of the human imagination.
But I here call your attention to a somewhat more tangible feature of this dreamy
and mystical theology. We are informed by its supporters, that this special influence
whereby the work of the Spirit is set aside, is altogether irresistible. We are
not informed what it is, although we are told that it is not divine teaching: But
when we come to inquire a little more closely into the matter, we are told that
whatever it be, it cannot
be resisted by any sinner on whose mind it is once
exerted. This additional piece of information seems to us quite decisive, in order
to stamp this special influence as a mere delusion. It cannot be the influence of
the Holy Ghost—whatever men may choose to call it. And the reason why we speak so
decidedly here, is, that the Bible speaks decidedly upon this particular point.
And here, my friends, you will find some use for the passages of Scripture which,
in the outset, I have requested you to mark. We are informed by its friends that
their “special influence” cannot be resisted, and that it is never exerted upon
the minds of any of those sinners who perish in their unbelief. Well, then, we take
our brethren at their word, and we say to them—Brethren, that influence of which
you speak cannot therefore be the influence to which God himself refers, when he
says, in Genesis vi. 3, “My Spirit shall not always strive with man,” for
there
was an influence which was resisted, and overcome by the antediluvian transgressors,
who, because of their obstinacy and sin, were ultimately swept away by the waters
of the deluge. The simple question here is—did these antediluvian transgressors
resist the influence of the Holy Spirit or did they not? That these men resisted
a very powerful influence when they resisted the preaching of Noah, our brethren
are ready to admit, but they deny that it was the influence of the Spirit which
was resisted; for if they did not deny this, they would need to give up their system
of theology which is based upon the theory of
election, whereby they are taught, that the Spirit
of God cannot possibly be resisted by any with whom he strives. But I stand before
you this evening pledged to demonstrate the utter falsehood of that theory of election,
and the consequent delusiveness of that system of theology which is based upon it.
And here is one of my proofs—God himself gives us to understand that his Spirit
strove with the antediluvian sinners who finally perished. And have we not a right
to ask any man who says that God’s Spirit did not strive with these men (otherwise
they would have all been saved),—“Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?”
How comes it to pass that proud and vain mortals persist in setting up their own
imaginations in direct opposition to the most obvious truths of God’s own Word?
It is all for the purpose of upholding an unscriptural and soul-destroying system
of theology, which teaches sinners to believe, that if the spirit of God only strive
with them they cannot possibly be lost, and which thereby instructs them to stifle
their consciences, and remain at ease under the garb of a dry and fruitless attendance
on the means of grace, while they say to their souls—“Soul, take thine ease and
be at peace, for if the Spirit of God only strive with thee, thou canst not possibly
be lost.” Now, my friends, I hesitate not to make my appeal to your own consciences
this night, while I direct you to this simple statement, “My Spirit shall not always
strive with man,” and just as if I were proposing a question to any class of Sabbath—school
children, do I ask every one of you to say,
what the doctrine of this passage is,—Does it not
contain the doctrine that the Spirit of God did strive with the generation of men
who existed before the flood? It was not the means of grace merely that these men
resisted; it was the influence of the Spirit, exerted through the instrumentality
of the means. I charge you, therefore, this evening, to listen to God’s Word; and
to reject the traditions of men which contradict that Word, and would lead you to
believe that the influence of the Spirit was not exerted upon those men whose spirits
are now shut up in the prison-house of despair. Permit me here to refer you to another
inspired condemnation of that doctrine of election which is founded upon the error
of a special influence. The passage is one which bears directly upon the statement
from Genesis which we have now before us. It is written in
1 Peter iii. 18-20: “For
Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might
bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit. By
which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were
disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while
the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved by water.”
Now, here you notice, (1,) That Christ preached to the spirits in the prison-house
of despair. (2,) That the time when Christ preached to those lost and imprisoned
spirits was in the days of Noah—while yet these spirits now in prison were inhabiting
their fleshy and mortal tabernacles,—before
they were swept into prison by the waters of the
flood, and while yet the long-suffering of God waited for their repentance. (3,)
You will observe more particularly, that it was by the putting forth of the influence
of his Spirit upon them, through means of preaching—the preaching of Noah, the preacher
of righteousness (as we are elsewhere informed)—it was by his own Spirit thus striving
with them, in order to bring them to repentance, that Christ did most earnestly
seek to prevent those spirits from going down into the prison of everlasting woe.
Now, can any honest and candid man look such facts—divinely recorded facts—as these
are, fairly in the face, and at the same time affirm, that the influence of the
Spirit cannot possibly be resisted? I have no doubt, my dear friends, that you see
clearly enough the bearing of this question upon the great doctrinal point now under
discussion. You see that if this question be honestly answered as God himself answers
it, the entire doctrine of election in the faith of which, you, and I, and thousands
more, were unhappily nursed up from our infancy, falls to the ground—a baseless
and demolished thing. But if your eye does not see farther than this, you will fail
to appreciate the infinite importance of the question which I am so earnestly pressing
upon your notice. My fellow-sinners, your own souls, and the souls of your children,
and the souls of your friends, and the souls of the thousands and tens of thousands
who even now are posting onwards and downwards to the doleful prison-house, are
practically interested, and will be
eternally affected, either for weal or for woe, by
the question which I now press upon your notice! Does God himself not declare that
his good Spirit strove, and strove long, and strove earnestly, with those lost spirits
which are’ now in prison, enduring the dreadful penalties of their stubborn and
unnatural resistance? The teachers to whom ye trust, with united voice tell you,
“No,” for our Confession of Faith says, that the influence of the Spirit cannot
be resisted! Here, then, is a dreadful controversy! It is a controversy between
the infallible God and fallible men! Men and brethren, on whose side are ye resolved
to stand? Will ye idolize men because these men are called ministers of Christ?
Will ye stand out striving with your Maker, and confronting the truth of God by
a blasphemous contradiction, and stay your souls any longer upon a mere arm of flesh?
Can you forget that it is thus written, “Cursed be the man who putteth his trust
in man”? I appeal, therefore, this night, from the verdict of the men who teach
you, to the infallible verdict of the living God—the God of truth, who cannot possibly
lie and who cannot possibly be mistaken; and in opposition to Scotland’s vaunted
theology—whereby the people of my native land have been too long deceived and deluded,
and, in too many instances, eternally ruined—do I this night declare, that there
is not a soul among you all with whom the Spirit does not earnestly strive; and
that if any of you perish, your blood is on your own heads, and ye shall go down
into despair resisting the influence of the Holy
Spirit, whereby every soul of you may happily be saved!
But this leads me to call up before you another infallible witness in support of
the position I am now seeking to maintain,—it is the testimony of the Spirit himself,
speaking through the lips of a dying martyred saint, to which I now summon your
attention. You find it written down in Acts vii. 21: “Ye do always
resist the Holy
Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” In the face of this evidence, we are very
coolly informed, by our modern theologians, that the Holy Ghost cannot be resisted!
Well, then, my fellow-men, it is not for me to dictate, but it is for you, as in
the sight of God, to make your choice. Which will ye believe? Choose ye between
the Word of God and the traditions of fallible men, and say which ye will believe! Do you ask me to inform you how it is possible for them to meet such evidence
as this, and yet retain their soul-destroying doctrines? You may well propose the
question, and I shall now try, as briefly as I can, to answer it. This evidence
splits them up into two parties, who each endeavour vainly to assail it from two
very different points. One party says” These men did not resist the Holy Ghost at
all—it was only the preaching of the apostles, and the miraculous evidence by which
it was proved to be divine, that the men resisted.” Another party rejoins—“It was
not the proper influence—the special influence—the only influence which converts
the soul, that these men resisted—for this we hold it to be impossible for any
man to resist—they resisted the common influence of
the Spirit, which is not, properly speaking, the influence of the Spirit at all,
since it never did, and never can, convert a single soul to God.” Such is the double
battery which Calvinists have erected, in order to assail this impregnable fortress of
the truth of God, and thereby, if possible, save from destruction their “horrible
decree.” But most evident it is, that both parties fail so much as to touch the
real point of assault. That point is involved and exhibited in the very distinct
assertion of the Word of God, wherein we are plainly informed, that the murderers
of Stephen were going down to hell resisting, in their downward progress, the true
and proper influence of the Holy Ghost, which was drawing and inviting them upwards
to heaven: they were posting onwards to destruction in spite of all the efforts
of the Holy Ghost to save them. Now, it will not do for one set of Calvinists to
tell us that these infatuated men did not resist the Holy Ghost at all, but that
they simply resisted the means of grace, which in themselves can never save a single
soul. We admit that they resisted the means of grace, but we maintain that they
resisted more than the means, for we are distinctly informed that they resisted
the Holy Ghost himself.
Do you not observe the recklessness with which those assailants
assault the Scriptures of truth? In a former Lecture, we quoted to you a passage
from one of their books, wherein they endeavour to prove that any sinner who chooses,
may be saved without
the Holy Ghost altogether. You will remember that
the writer quoted the verse wherein Paul says to Timothy, that from a child he had
known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make men wise unto salvation; and because
Paul does not mention the name of the Holy Ghost in that particular connexion, it
was maintained by this writer, that Paul inculcates the doctrine that any sinner
who chooses may easily become wise unto salvation, without the influence of the
Spirit. Now, here is a passage where the Holy Ghost is expressly named, and where
not one word is said about the Scriptures and the means of grace; and what do those
reckless perverters of God’s word now do? They reverse their own system of interpretation
altogether, by overlooking the distinct mention that is here made of the Holy Spirit,
and insisting that this Scripture passage does not refer to the Spirit at all, but
only to the means of grace! In speaking of one passage where the Scriptures are
mentioned, but where the Spirit is not named, they insist that no reference whatever
is made, even by implication, to the Spirit. And this they do in order to bolster
up their doctrine, that the Spirit is not needed to enable any sinner to be saved!
But when you take them to another passage, where the Holy Ghost is expressly named
and where the means of grace are not mentioned, they exactly reverse their former
principle of interpretation, and insist, that though the Holy Ghost is named, he
is not at all referred to in the text; and though the Scriptures are not named,
they, along with
the other means of grace, are exclusively referred
to! And this they do for the same reason as before—they must at all hazards uphold
their system of theology, and hold by a special, irresistible influence, in order
to keep up their theory of election, and avert its threatened destruction! The truth
of God needs to be defended by no such unseemly weapons. We have mentioned to you
before, that where the Scriptures, or other means of grace are mentioned, the Holy
Spirit is not thereby excluded. And so, when it is said—“The Scriptures are able
to make men wise unto salvation,” it is not implied that the Scriptures are able
to do this without the influence of the Spirit. And so here, when it is said to
men who perished—“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost,” the Scriptures and other
means of grace are not excluded, and it is not implied that these murderers did
not resist the means; but what we affirm is, they resisted more than the means—they
resisted the influence of the Holy Ghost himself—that very influence whereby the
Spirit saves the soul.
I submit, therefore, to your unprejudiced and honest judgments,
whether it be not unanswerably proved, by the text before you, that the Holy Ghost
has been resisted, and may therefore again be resisted, by the sinners with whom
he strives. But what do we make of the other mode of interpretation whereby the
force of the passage is sometimes evaded? We are told that it is the common influence
of the Spirit which is here said to be resisted; and when we ask what is the meaning
of the expression, a common influence, we are
informed that it is an influence whereby God
does not mean to save, and which cannot save the soul. This is what we are told.
But the all-important question is, BY WHOM are we told this?—to whom are we indebted
for this marvellous piece of information, about an influence of the Spirit which
cannot possibly save any sinner’s soul? and on whose authority are we called upon
to believe in it? This will not be said to be an unreasonable demand. Let us see
one solitary passage in the whole Bible which speaks of an influence of the Holy
Ghost which needs to be supplemented by another kind of Divine influence, in order
to become adequate to the salvation of the soul, and we shall instantly believe.
But of all the absurdities of error, this is the most absurd! Of all the weak positions
which erring men are compelled to occupy, this is the most weak and infantile. And
hence it is, that even among Modern Calvinists, it is only “the weaker brethren”
who are found to skulk into this most unscriptural position. Every reader of his
Bible knows well, that there are not two kinds of ordinary Divine influence spoken
of throughout its pages. There is not a work of the Holy Ghost for all men, and
another work or influence of a different kind for the elect only, spoken of in the
Scriptures. There are, indeed, miraculous gifts, and gifts of inspiration referred
to; but these are not surely included in what is called the common influence, which
all men are said, by this hypothesis, to possess, though it never can save a single
soul; and these are not included by our brethren in the thing which they call a
special
influence, which they say is irresistible.
And there are different degrees of Divine influence referred to in the Bible—one
man possessing comparatively less of the Spirit than another, and all being commanded
to be “filled with the Spirit.” But we challenge any man to adduce one single passage
of Scripture which so much as hints at two separate and distinct kinds of influence—the
one common to all men, but which cannot save, and never did save a single soul—the
other confined exclusively to the elect, but which, from its very nature, cannot
possibly be resisted. The truth is, that as there is one God and Father of all,
and one Lord and Saviour of all, even so there is but one Spirit who strives with
all, and who saves and sanctifies all those who believe. And as there is one Spirit,
so there is but one kind of spiritual influence, which is common to all men, and
which, when any man resists, he resists the Holy Ghost. Neither are we left in ignorance
as to the nature of this influence, for it is said in the text we are now considering,
“Ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.” Now, that
it is resistible by men, is obvious at the very first reading of the verse. But
when the question is put, How does the Spirit exert his influence?—is it
directly
upon the soul, or by means, and through the instrumentality of truth? we
have only to betake ourselves, not to the dreams and speculations of fallible
men, far less to the musty creeds of men who most religiously murdered their
fellow creatures, on the charge of witchcraft!—“we have a more sure word
of prophecy, to which we would do well to take heed.”
The text refers us to the fact, that as their fathers resisted the Holy Ghost, so
did they. Now the question is—Does the word of God supply us with information as
to the way in which their fathers resisted the Spirit? It does. Turn with me, therefore,
for example, to the ninth chapter of the book of Nehemiah, verses 20th and 30th.
“Thou gavest also thy good Spirit to instruct them, and withheldest not thy manna
from their mouth, and gavest them water for their thirst.” And again (ver. 30),
“Yet many years didst thou forbear them, and testifiedest against them by the Spirit
in thy prophets; yet would they not give ear.” Thus was it that the fathers of Stephen’s
murderers resisted the Holy Ghost; and thus did these their children resist the
Holy Ghost; and thus does every sinner on the face of the earth resist the Holy
Ghost, who refuses to believe the testimony of the Spirit, speaking through means
of the Scriptures, and to enter into the possession of eternal life. It is thus
by means that God the Father draws the sinner to himself; and it is only when the
sinner hears and learns of the Father, speaking to all men by his Spirit through
the Word, that he cometh unto Jesus, and finds rest unto his weary soul.See the
very able Treatise upon the Work of the Spirit, by T. W. Jenkyn, D. D., of London.
And now, my friends, I have done with this unscriptural theory of election, the falsehood
of which I have endeavoured, in the four last Lectures, to establish. We shall very speedily, if God spare us together, come to set
before you a theory of election from the Word of God which excludes none of you
from salvation, but which is gloriously consistent with the gospel message which
comes to every sinner on the face of the earth. We have said that we shall do this,
if God shall be pleased to spare us together. But, beloved friends, there is much
in that little word “IF.” It may be that we shall not all meet again beneath the
sun—it may be, that we shall not all meet until we shall face each other before
the judgment-seat of Christ. My friends, God is my witness when I assure you, that
the glorious truth which I am feebly endeavouring to set before you, gives
MY sinful
and guilty and hell-deserving soul glorious hope in the prospect of that day. I tell
you more, when I assure you, that I too once preached the very error which I have
been endeavouring to expose, and against which, to my dying hour, and with my latest
breath, I—would warn my fellow-men. That doctrine never gave me peace in the prospect
of meeting with my God. It never assured even the preacher himself, that he was
one of the elect. The preacher knew he was “the chief of sinners;” but how could
he know that he was one of the special favourites of God without a special revelation,
which to him was never once vouchsafed? My dear friends—may I not add, my fellow-sinners—sinners
against God as well as he who now speaks to you—are ye possessed of another revelation
different from that which lies before me? Have your teachers furnished
you with a Bible to the elect? Have you g6t from them
a message which will serve you in the face of death, judgment, and eternity, if
their doctrine of election be not all a fable? If God has indeed brought only some
among you into existence under the possibility of being saved, is it possible for
you to know which of you is interested in the love of—God, so as to cherish good
hope beyond the grave.? It is impossible I But I have proved to you that the current
doctrine of election is a falsehood and a lie; therefore, I say, it is not impossible
for you this very evening to come to peace with God through the knowledge of his
love—his matchless love to you as well as to me. There is no Divine influence kept
back from you. No. “He that spared not his own Son, but gave him up to the death
for you all, shall he not with him also freely give you all things?” Think you,
then, that when he gave his Son, he will withhold the needful influence of his Spirit?
Think you that he will hold you guilty for not believing, and yet keep back the
one thing needful to enable you to believe? No, brethren. You have something to
believe, and that something is true; and that something is not bad news, but good
tidings of great joy to every one of you, in the solemn prospect of “THAT DAY,”
till which, I have said, we may never all meet again. But what is that something
which you are bound to believe, and which, if you do not believe, you make the God
of truth a liar to his face? Tell me, my beloved friends, what you would like it
to be? In the face of death and judgment, what, my fellow-sinner, would be
good news to thy sinful soul? Riches? Honours? No! no! These
will not comfort thee at the hour of death! What if, at that solemn hour, an angel
from on high were to descend and sing—“Fear not: for unto thee was born
a Saviour!
and that Saviour bare thy sins in his own body on the tree! and that Saviour hath
sent me down to assure thee, sinner, of his love; and, through his blood, to proclaim
to thee the pardon of thy sins!” You say—“Give me an angel’s word and then I will
believe, and will not fear to face my God.” My fellow-sinner, I point thee to
more
than an angel’s word! I point thee away from the errors of men to the Word of
the
Holy Spirit. In that Word there is truth—in that Word there is power, the power
of God unto salvation to every one that believeth. That Word is the word of the
gospel, with which the Spirit approaches thy sinful soul, and says that Jesus loved
thee! and shed his blood for thee! and that pardon through that blood is proclaimed
to thee! Such is the testimony of the Spirit to every sinner in this house to-night—such
is the good tidings of great joy which, not an angel, but God himself addresses
to you all! O then, friends, believe Him even now, and yield to his truth even now,
for, “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.”
LECTURE NINTH.
THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF ELECTION—ELECTION, THE ACT OF SEPARATION—SEPARATION
FROM THE WORLD—SEPARATION BY GOD—ULTIMATE AND SUBORDINATE OBJECTS OF ELECTION—DISTINCTIVE
NATURE OF ELECTION—SEPARATION THROUGH MEANS—“MAKE YOUR CALLING AND ELECTION SURE”—IMPORTANCE OF HOLINESS.
EPHES. i. 4.—”According as he hath chosen us in him before
the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him
in love.”
2 THESS. ii. 13.—”But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you,
brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to
salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.”
1 PETER i. 2.—”Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”
2 PETER i. 10.—”Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and
election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.”
THE question which
falls now to be considered, is one of engrossing interest. It is a question which
lies at the foundation of all theology, and which is indissolubly connected with
the eternal destinies of every soul of the human race. WHAT IS ELECTION?
(,) What is the true and proper import of the term? (2,) What is the actual
state of things which is necessarily and
really presupposed by the electing process?
(3,) Who is the sole and exclusive agent by whom the process of election is conducted?
(4,) What is the grand ultimate end which God has in view, and what the proximate
or subordinate objects which God in election proposes to accomplish? These are four
preliminary questions which we wish you this evening to answer preparatory to the
great fundamental question—WHAT IS ELECTION? And the solution of each and all of
these subordinate points will open up the way for a brief exposition of a doctrine
which, to this hour, has not met with that attention, nor occupied that position
in the minds of men, which is everywhere assigned to it in the Word of God.
I. WHAT
THEN IS THE IMPORT OF THE WORD?
It denotes the act, or process of separation, when
one object is selected or set apart from other surrounding objects. Observe what
we say. It is the act, or process of selection or separation. This is a remark so
very plain and simple, that you are very apt to pass it over and to dismiss it from
your minds by a mere cursory glance. But you will see the error of such conduct,
when I inform you, that this remark, simple and plain and self-evident as it is,
lies at the very foundation of the subject we are now seeking to expound to you.
The truth is, that all error is the result of overlooking the most obvious facts.
Men suppose that such things are so plain that they cannot possibly be denied, and
it is here that the deceiver of souls gets advantage over his votaries. He gets
them to forget altogether
the plainest axioms. He leads them astray from
truth, and astray from God, and astray from everlasting happiness, by making them
careless about first principles, which are so obvious and so simple, that even a
child may easily apprehend them. The idea of ELECTION is familiar to the mind of
the youngest child who practically exemplifies every day its preference of one thing
and its aversion to another. The very infant upon the breast knows practically what
election is. Let it be surrounded by a number of strange faces, all seeking to engage
its attention and to win its preference, and the child will turn away from them
all, and hide its little face in the bosom of its mother. The little one chooses
or selects, or sets apart for itself, the object to which it instinctively turns
from among all the other objects which are set before it. There you see an illustration
of the great principle involved in election. The events of every-day life are pregnant
with examples. You want a servant to do your work, and many there are who are desirous
to serve you; but you select one out of the many, and the act of separation, whereby
you choose and separate one from among all the other applicants, is your deed of
election. You want a man to represent you in the great council of the nation, and
many there are who solicit your vote; but you fix upon one out of the many, and
when the day and hour of election comes you hasten to the polling booth, and you
practically exemplify the true and proper import of the term election. You separate
the man for whom you vote from all the other claimants for
your suffrage, and the act of separation is
the act of election. The word has the same meaning to whatever subject it may happen.
to be wedded, and by whomsoever the right or privilege of election may happen to
be exercised. It bears the same meaning in the Bible which is attached to it in
the ordinary affairs of men. It implies the right to choose or to select, and it
expresses in every instance the act or process of selection.
You cannot fail to
notice the important difference between the purpose to select, and the act or process
of election. The one exists when you have made up your minds how you are to act;
the other has no existence, and cannot possibly have any existence, until the time
when you come to carry your purpose into execution. Till then there is not, in point’
of fact, any election. You may speak indeed improperly and loosely, and you may
say at the moment your mind is made up how you mean to act, that very moment the
election, so far as you are concerned, is virtually decided. But, even when you
do thus express yourselves, you do not mean to intimate that the electing process
is already past. It is not the act or process of separation, but the purpose or
decision of your mind, which, strictly and properly speaking, is the thing referred
to when you say, that the election, so far as you are concerned, is decided whenever
your mind is made up. In this case it is not election in fact, but election in purpose
of which you speak. It is not THE ACT of selection or separation, but
THE PURPOSE
to elect which is indicated by your words. I have said
that this distinction is important, and I now
add, that it is a distinction which is paramount in importance. It is so very important,
that if you fail to appreciate it and fully to understand it, you disqualify yourselves,
in the very outset, for apprehending the great Bible doctrine of election altogether.
But surely it is not difficult to understand this simple and important distinction.
When a man has made up his mind to do anything whatever, every man can see clearly
the difference between this, and the actual performance or execution of the purpose
which has thus been formed. Now, it is universally admitted, that the term election
means strictly and properly the actual process of separation. But it is universally
forgotten that there is a very material difference between the purpose to elect
or separate, and the actual process itself; which process alone is strictly and
properly expressed by the term election. Take an example of election from the Word
of God—the election of Aaron to the office of the priesthood. We know that Aaron
was in the purpose of God elected from eternity to fill the sacerdotal office; but
when we speak of election from eternity, we refer not to the election properly speaking,
but to the purpose of God to separate the house of Levi from all the other tribes
of Israel, in order to minister at the altar. We prove to you, from God’s own words,
that Aaron was not, in point of fact, elected by him to fill the sacerdotal office,
until after the earth had opened her mouth and had swallowed up Korah, Dathan, and
Abiram, before the eyes of the affrighted multitude, and until after
the rod of Aaron “budded and brought forth buds,
and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds” within the tabernacle of the Lord. You
have read the seventeenth chapter of the book of Numbers, where God says to Moses:—(ver.
5,) “And it shall come to pass, that the man’s rod, whom
I SHALL choose, shall
blossom.” Here then is an example of election on the part of God, and God himself
speaks of it not as a past or present, but as a future act. The election of Aaron,
on the part of God, did not take place until Aaron was ACTUALLY SET APART to fill
the sacerdotal office. In accordance with this example of election, you will understand
the strict and proper import of the word. Properly understood, it means, and can
mean nothing less and nothing else, than the actual process or deed of separation;
and when it is spoken of as eternal, the reference is not to election properly so
called, but to election in purpose, which is not the election itself, but the purpose
to elect. There are many elections spoken of in the Scriptures of truth. There is
angelical election, for we read of “elect angels;” there is a
national election,
for we read of the election of the Jewish nation, who were separated by God from
all the surrounding nations as his peculiar people; there is, as we have seen, a
sacerdotal election, as in the case of Aaron and the sons of Levi to the priestly
office; there is a regal election, as in the separation of Saul, and after him of
David the son of Jesse, to wield the sceptre and sit upon the throne and wear the
crown; there is a mediatorial election, for Jesus the Son of God was
styled “mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth,”
and separated or set aside from all the beings in the universe to stand between
an offended God and a rebel world; and there is evangelical election, which consists
in the separation of all who believe the gospel from the world around them, and
such is that election of which we now speak.
Now what we wish you to notice is,
that in all election, whether angelical or national or sacerdotal or regal or mediatorial
or evangelical, there is the uniform development of the grand fundamental principle
to which we now specially and particularly refer. In every instance, the election
is nothing more and nothing less and nothing else than the act or process of separation
itself, as distinguished from the purpose so to separate, or choose, or pick out,
or select. The purpose is one thing, the election is another and separate thing
altogether. The purpose is something in the mind of God; the election is the actual
separation, which has no actual existence, and cannot possibly have any actual existence,
until the purpose conies to be developed and carried into execution.
II. OUR SECOND
INQUIRY NOW RELATES TO THE ACTUAL STATE OF THINGS PRESUPPOSED BY THE VERY EXISTENCE
OF ELECTION.
The very idea of angelical election presupposes the existence of other
angels from whom the elect angels were separated; and so there could be no such
thing as national election, if there had not existed at
the period of separation other nations
from whom the peculiar people were picked out and set aside. And it would be absurd
to speak of an election or choosing of one man and his tribe to the priestly office,
without at the same time assuming the existence of other men and other tribes, from
among whom the chosen one was separated and set apart. And so, to come at once to
the election of which we speak, it would be absurd in the extreme to speak of an
actual selection or separation of believing men and women, without supposing the
actual existence of a mass of unbelieving persons, from among whom the elect are
separated. Is it not manifest at a single glance, that the act or process of separation,
implies not only the actual existence of the persons who are separated, or elected,
or chosen, but the equally actual existence of the very individual persons from
among whom the elect are so separated and chosen? Is it not a monstrous absurdity
to speak of AN ACTUAL selection and separation of a multitude of
nonentities from
among a host of other similar nonentities? It is not thus that the Bible instructs
us, and it is not over a universe of mere ideas that Jehovah reigns. There was once
an ideal philosophy which has been happily exploded and put to flight by a strong
appeal to the common sense and the every-day apprehensions of mankind; and we still
live under the reign of an IDEAL THEOLOGY which is already beginning to totter toward
its downfall before the common sense of men who are content to make their appeal
to, and draw
their religion from, the infallible Word of
the infallible God. It is not from among a generation of phantoms that the selection
of which we speak is made. Jesus said unto some of the separated ones, “I have chosen
you out of the world.” It was not out of an ideal world, but out of an existing
world—a sinful, Saviour-crucifying and gospel-hating and salvation-despising world,
that the elect were actually taken and set apart for God. You cannot suppose the
act of separation as eternal save in the sense in which you can suppose the world
itself to have existed from eternity. It existed from eternity in the mind and purpose
of God. God purposed from eternity to create it. In like manner as you may figuratively
and with an exclusive reference to the purpose, speak of the world existing from
eternity, even so is it figuratively, and with a reference solely to purpose, said,
that they who are united by faith to Christ are in him chosen from eternity. But
it is evident to common sense itself, that the actual election or separation of
some from the world—the act or process of choosing or picking them out of the world—necessarily
presupposes the actual existence, not only of the elect themselves, but also of
that identical world out of which they were literally chosen and actually separated
for glory.
III. OUR THIRD QUESTION RELATES TO THE AGENT BY WHOM THE ACT OF SELECTION
IS CARRIED INTO EXECUTION.
And here we need not pause nor hesitate even for a
moment—it is God alone who elects. But for
this, there would be no election—no separation from the world at all. Did God not
graciously choose us, we never could, and never would have been chosen. Here is
the grace and here the glory of election. It is primarily and exclusively the doing
of the Lord, and it is wondrous in our eyes. It is to the praise of the glory of
his grace that there are any brands plucked from the burning—it is to the praise
of the glory of his grace that there are any sinners united to the Saviour—it is
to the praise of the glory of his grace that there are any souls saved from the
pit of destruction, and welcomed among the angels of heaven to the regions of immortal
blessedness. “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be all the glory,
for thy mercy and thy truth’s sake.”
IV. OUR FOURTH INQUIRY RELATES TO THE GRAND
ULTIMATE END WHICH GOD HAS IN VIEW IN ELECTION, IN CONNEXION WITH—THE PROXIMATE
OR SUBORDINATE OBJECTS SUBSERVED THEREBY.
And here be it observed, that the grand
ultimate end which God proposes here, and in everything that he does, is his own
glory. God cannot possibly act save for this one grand ultimate object. He would
cease to be God were he to propose to himself any other end than this. This is the
highest, the noblest, the most worthy of all possible ends. This, therefore, is
the only ultimate object and design worthy of a being of infinite excellence. The
very same reason
which would, and does render it sinful in
any creature to propose to himself his own gratification or glory as the grand aim
of all his doings, renders it impossible for God to propose to himself any other
end. The creature is finite and dependent and imperfect and fallible; the Creator
alone is infinite, independent, and infallible. He alone is infinite in every conceivable perfection;
and he only is necessarily and legitimately the ultimate end and origin of all that
can be called great or good or wise or holy in the wide universe.
But while the
glory of God is the grand ultimate object which he has proposed to himself in election
and in all that he does, there are certain subordinate and proximate ends which
he proposes to effect in the separation of believers from the world. These proximate
and subordinate ends are TWO. The one refers to the state, the other to the
character
of those who are the subjects of the separating or electing process. In reference
to their state, the object which God has in view in their election or separation
from the world is, their being placed in a position wherein they may enjoy daily
and hourly access to the blood of Christ, and have their consciences sprinkled therewith
from their daily and hourly shortcomings. In reference to their character, it is
the design of God in their election to lead them on in a course of holy and progressive
obedience, and ultimately to bring them forth perfect and without blame before him.
Such are the two subordinate objects which God has in view in the separation or
selection of sinners out of the world,—the
one referring to their state, so that they may
be partakers of all possible blessedness which they are capable of enjoying; and
the other referring to their character; so that, reflecting the image of God, they
may be capable to perform those high and exalted duties, and be made meet for those
high and holy exercises in which it is at once their duty and their privilege to
engage. We are not left to hesitate or debate for one moment as to these two objects
being the secondary and proximate objects which God has in view in election. As
to the first, we are informed in 1 Peter i. 2, that we are “elect
unto the sprinkling
of the blood of Christ.” Here, then, is the most distinct intimation of the state
of privilege into which God does in point of fact introduce believers by election.
It is unto the daily sprinkling of the blood of Christ. So, then, just as they need
pardon every day, they have freedom of access every day by faith into the holiest, having their consciences daily sprinkled with the blood of the atonement. And their
state of blessedness is not referred to merely by the Apostle Peter, for Paul adds
his testimony to the same effect, in witnessing upon this point. In 2 Thessalonians
ii. 13, he reminds believers of the state of exalted blessedness to which they were
chosen, saying, “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation.”
Such is the state of blessedness, of present and future blessedness, which it is
one design and object of God to confer by election. To this state all who
believe are separated. To the enjoyment of the daily sprinkling, and the blessed
hope of the glorious kingdom—to the present and
everlasting enjoyment of all that is contained in that wondrous word, “SALVATION”—are
they separated by—God in the process of election.
But the second proximate object
which God has in view, subordinate to his own glory, refers to the characters of
those who are chosen. They are accordingly said by Peter, in the passage before
referred to, to be elect “unto obedience,” as well as unto the daily sprinkling
of the blood of Christ; and Paul says, in Ephesians i. 4, that they are chosen in
order that they “should be holy and without blame before him in love.” Here, then,
is the second subordinate object of election clearly and distinctly and incontrovertibly
announced. It is progressively holy obedience here and perfection hereafter, so
that we may be without blame presented to the Father—without spot, or wrinkle, or
any such thing. The king’s daughter is thus to be adorned without in a robe of finest
needle-work, being clothed in the righteousness of Christ himself; and she is to
be all glorious within when, freed from every imperfection which cleaves to her
here below, she shall meet her descending Lord in the clouds, and so be for ever
with him in glory. Such is the twofold object which God, in election, proposes to accomplish, and does, in every instance, most graciously accomplish; and these
two objects are not, in any case, inconsistent with his glory. By them his own glory
will be most efficiently promoted and most worthily advanced.
WE NOW COME TO THE MAIN INQUIRY, WHAT IS THE
SPECIFIC OR DISTINCTIVE NATURE OF ELECTION?
What is it which God does when he elects,
or chooses, or separates believers from the world? The twofold object which God
has in view in separating believers from the world cannot be mistaken, and will
not here be overlooked. Permit me, therefore, to propose to you the simple question,
What is it which, in any case, stands out as the hindrance towards the
effecting of these two subordinate objects whereby, in every instance, the glory
of God is most effectually advanced? This is the great problem to be solved; for
it cannot be doubted that God is, in no case, uninterested or careless in
reference to the advancement of his own glory. If you do not doubt this (and it
is impossible for any man to doubt or question it for an instant), you will
surely admit that God cannot possibly remain uninterested or careless in
reference to the salvation of any sinner by whose salvation his glory would
undoubtedly be advanced. If His glory would be advanced by one sinner being
separated or elected out of the world, and
set apart to the daily sprinkling of the blood of Christ, and to obedience, it follows,
as a necessary consequence, that his glory would be much more illustriously manifested
by every sinner on the face of the earth being so separated to the enjoyment of
daily sprinkling and the following of all holiness. It is on this ground chiefly
that there is joy among the angels over every sinner who repenteth. Where, then,
lies the hindrance, in: any instance, to the advancement
of God’s glory by the accomplishment of this
twofold object of election? What is the hindrance, in the first place, to any sinner’s
enjoyment of the daily sprinkling of the blood of Christ? It lies in the state of
condemnation in which, by his unbelief, the man is placed. And where, again, lies
the hindrance to any sinner’s voluntary obedience to God’s commandments? It lies
in that unregenerated heart and nature in which, by his unbelief, the man voluntarily
remains. Here, then, is the twofold hindrance whereby the twofold object which God
has in view in election is alone prevented. This is the only hindrance which prevents
the separation of any, and every sinner, on the face of the earth, to the enjoyment
of present and eternal happiness. Do you ask me then to say what is the distinctive
nature of election? My reply is, election consists in the removal of this twofold
hindrance. It does not consist in the removal of the condemnation alone—that is
an act of God which is called by the name of justification;—it does not consist in
the removal of the enmity of the unregenerated soul alone—that, too, is an act of
God, and it is called by the name of regeneration;—but let the two be looked at
in their combined state—look at the removal of the condemnation from the sinner’s
soul in connexion with the removal of the enmity from the sinner’s heart, and
you
have a distinct idea of that process of separation whereby the sinner is separated
“unto obedience and the daily sprinkling of the blood of Christ.” It is here that
you will get your minds cleared up so as to have a distinct and definite conception
before you of the nature of that act
of separation which is called by the name of election. It is the separation of a
condemned and trembling spirit to the enjoyment of the daily sprinkling of Christ’s
blood; and so far as this object is to be effected, it cannot be effected save by
an act of God, who alone can justify. But justification alone is not election. It
is the process of separation whereby an unregenerated soul is brought into a condition
of progressive obedience, which shall issue in being presented without blame before
God at last; and, so far as this object is to be effected, it can only be effected
by being born again, or regenerated by the Spirit of God. But regeneration alone
is not election. This process of separation, on the part of God, is a process whereby
(the Word of God distinctly informs us) the twofold object of obedience and sprinkling
of the blood of Christ is brought about; and, therefore it must, as a matter of
necessary consequence, consist in the justification and regeneration of the sinner,
viewed, not separately, but in harmonious combination. We have before told you that
there is a common principle which all election claims, whether it be angelic or
national or sacerdotal or regal or mediatorial or evangelical. The principle which
is common to all is that which distinguishes election itself from the purpose to
elect; but just as there is a principle of agreement which is common to them all,
so there must be something in each which distinguishes it from all the rest. And
here we have, accordingly, discovered wherein the distinguishing feature of evangelical
election consists.
It is the process whereby God separates a sinner
of the human race from other sinners round about him, and it consists in the twofold
act and process of justification and regeneration combined. Both are essential towards
the removal of the only hindrances which intercept between any sinner and the subordinate
and ultimate objects of election; and, therefore, evangelical election, viewed distinctively
from every other election whatever, can consist in nothing more, nothing less, nothing
else, than the conjunct removal of the condemnation and the enmity which are peculiar
to the unbelieving souls of men.
The conclusion at which we have thus arrived, is
confirmed and established from the plainly revealed fact, that the election of which
we speak is brought about in every instance THROUGH THE INSTRUMENTALITY OF MEANS.
This is an important truth, which is very clearly revealed to us in the Word of
God. In that passage from the second chapter of second Thessalonians, already referred
to, the inspired apostle says distinctly, that the elect are chosen to salvation
“through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth.” What can be more
distinct than this? It is not to sanctification of the Spirit, but through sanctification
of the Spirit that the process of election is carried on by God. It is not to the
belief of the truth, but through the belief of the truth that we are chosen to salvation.
Such a distinct revelation as this is decisive of the whole question, by which the
minds of men have
been agitated and convulsed upon the subject
of elec. tion. The dominant and prevailing theories, the fallacy of which has been
already very fully pointed out in previous lectures, are every one of them based
upon the erroneous assumption, that the elect have been chosen from eternity to
the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth. Take away the word “to”
which is expressive of an end or object to be attained, and substitute in its place
the word “through,” which is expressive not of the end to be attained, but of the
means whereby any object or end is brought about, and you change entirely the whole
aspect of the doctrine now under consideration. But who has a right to take away
what God himself has introduced, and in its stead to substitute an expression which
alters entirely the whole aspect of theology! Who has a right to say that the elect
are chosen to, when God himself informs us that they are chosen not to but
through
sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth? There may be a question started
as to the import of the expression, “from the beginning” God hath chosen you, but
there cannot be any debate about the import of the statement, that it is “through
the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” the elect are chosen.
Some may argue that the expression “from the beginning” refers us back to eternity,
while others may contend that the apostle refers to the beginning of their Christian
life—the time when they first believed. We are not careful to interfere at all with
this question, seeing that whatever view you take
of the expression “from the beginning,”
the great truth developed in the text remains the same. If you shall decide that
the phrase “from the beginning” is expressive of that eternity which preceded all
time, you cannot deny the fact that it is plainly declared, that they who are chosen
are chosen through means of the sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the,
truth. And you will not affirm that the elect were actually sanctified by the Spirit,
and did actually believe the truth before they came into existence. But you will
admit that they could not be actually chosen before it was possible for them to
become the subjects of the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the truth,
for this very obvious reason, that it was through means of these that they were
chosen, and their separation or election actually effected. Should you therefore
be of opinion that the phrase “from the beginning” is expressive of eternity, you
are thereby shut up to the admission that the phrase “’chosen to salvation” is expressive
not of actual election from eternity, but of election in purpose, or God’s eternal
purpose to elect. But the moment that you are shut up to this admission, you are
shut up thereby to an admission of the great truth for which we contend. We contend
earnestly for the truth, that whatever God does in time he purposed from eternity
to do. But we contend with equal earnestness for the other truth, that election
is in no instance a transaction of a bygone eternity, but a transaction of God effected
in time; and that it is a transaction effected in time only,
after a sinner believes the gospel, is
demonstrated by the fact, that it is through the means of the sanctification of
the Spirit, and the belief of the truth, that any sinner is actually, in point of
fact, chosen by God.
You have the same truth brought out by Peter in the verse,
from the first chapter of his first epistle, which we have also referred to before.
We have already seen from the examination of that verse that the two proximate and
subordinate ends which God accomplishes in the election of the sinner, are “obedience
and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.” It is TO these ends that sinners are
elected. But the verse refers also to the means through which these ends are attained.
It is expressly said, “through sanctification of the Spirit.” We cannot conceive
of any truth more plainly revealed than this, so that if any man shall still deny
that election is something which God, in every instance, effects through means,
we have a right to hold up these plain statements of Scripture before him, and to
charge him with a presumptuous denial of the Word of God. Unless, therefore, a man
be prepared to rush heedlessly against the thick bosses of the Almighty’s buckler,
and to court the awful “WOE” which rests upon “him who striveth with his Maker,”
and to make the God of truth a liar to his face, we cannot conceive how in the face
of these plain Bible announcements, he can persist in holding by the flagrant absurdity
of an eternal election, or refuse candidly and honestly to confess that election
is a transaction of time, effected by God through means of
the sanctification of the Spirit, and the
belief of the truth.
It is only upon this principle that it is possible for any
man satisfactorily to explain such a passage as the following:—It is written in
2 Peter i. 10, “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling
and election sure; for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” Now, on the
supposition that election is an act or purpose of the Divine mind formed from eternity,
we defy any man to furnish a satisfactory explanation of this verse. On this supposition
it would amount to little short of blasphemy to call upon men to make their election
sure or firm. How should any creature be called upon to make a decree or act or
purpose of the Divine mind sure or firm or steadfast? The conception is blasphemous,
and it is nowhere suggested or countenanced in the Scriptures of truth. We are not
ignorant of the bungling attempt which is made to explain Away this text, and to
shade its meaning and eclipse its glory. We are informed, for example, that Peter
wanted those Christians to whom he wrote to make themselves sure of the reality
of their calling and election, and that there was no uncertainty or doubt hanging
over the matter save only in their own minds. This explanation is consistent enough
with the system of error which it is framed to support, but we appeal to every unprejudiced
and honest man if such an explanation be not a barefaced explaining away, an evident
perversion, of the inspired words. There is no shade of doubt hanging over the translation
of the
original Greek. No scholar has ever ventured
to propose, and no man can possibly propose a different collocation of the words.
The simple term translated sure, means nothing else than sure or firm; and Christians
are therefore called upon to make their calling and election sure. Now, you will
notice that the Calvinist does not propose a simple explanation of the words,—he
proposes a complete alteration of their evident meaning and import. He denies what
the words affirm, and he affirms what other passages of Scripture plainly contradict.
The words affirm the possibility and the duty of Christians to make their calling
and election firm and sure; but the Calvinist finds it necessary to deny the possibility
of any man making his calling and election sure, in order to maintain the credit
of his soul-deluding divinity. Other passages of Scripture plainly declare, that
the believer in Christ, when he is believing, possesses the assurance of his salvation.
But the Calvinist chooses to write down a contradiction of this truth, and to insert
his falsehood in place of the other truth which the text we are examining evidently
contains. This text says nothing at all about assurance of salvation as possessed
by believers,—it speaks of the calling and the election of believers, and it contains
an exhortation to believers to make their calling and election firm and sure, thereby
implying, that it is through the instrumentality of means placed by God at the Christian’s
disposal, that their calling and election are in point of fact carried into sure
and certain execution.
Look at this text in the clear sunlight
of revealed truth, and all is beautiful and consistent. Remember that the process
of election, or separation of believers unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood
of Jesus Christ, is carried on by God through means of the sanctification of the
Spirit and belief of the truth; and in the light of this plainly revealed fact,
you will at once perceive how believers are called upon most consistently to make
their calling and election sure. Let it be remembered that the calling spoken of
here, is the calling to glory—that calling which is almost exclusively spoken of
in the New Testament epistles—that calling which is addressed exclusively to believers.
Let it be farther remembered, that this high calling to the future possession of
eternal glory, goes hand in hand, and side by side, with the election or separation
of the souls of believers from the world around them. The call to eternal glory
is ever addressed to them by God while he carries on the process of election or
separation of the soul, in all its powers and affections and desires and aspirations,
from a wicked and ungodly world. The prize of this high calling is held out to them
at the distance, even while God selects or separates them for himself. Now, observe,
that the means through which this call to glory is addressed to them, are the same
as those whereby they are chosen or elected or separated in their thoughts and feelings
and desires and hopes from the vanities of time. It is through sanctification of
the Spirit and the belief of the truth that they are both called to glory, and separated
unto obedience and
the daily sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ. Here is their calling and election, which they are exhorted to make firm
and sure. Now, how could they do this but by co-operation with God? God it was who
addressed to them the call to glory, and sought more and more to elect or separate
them from the world through the sanctification of the Spirit and the belief of the
truth. But it was their duty to be fellow-workers with God—it was their duty to “work out their sanctification with fear and trembling,” not the less diligently
that “God wrought in them both to will and to do of his good pleasure.” The means
whereby God elects or separates were all provided and plied by God. The means for
the removal of that condemnation which stood out as the gigantic hindrance to the
daily sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ—this consisted in the death of Jesus
for their sins, and this was provided by God. The means for the removal of that
unregenerated mind which stood out as the gigantic barrier to a course of progressively
holy obedience—this consisted in the influence of the Holy Spirit, and this also
was provided by God. The faith of the truth whereby alone the sinner can possibly
enter into union, and retain increased communion with Jesus, and thereby rise from
a state of condemnation to a state of justification;—the faith of the same truth
whereby alone the sinner can possibly receive the influence of the Spirit, and thereby
become the subject of regeneration;—here is another Divinely accredited means whereby
the calling and election of any man is exhibited and carried out into
practical execution. Here is the connecting
medium between the soul of the sinner and the power of God,—the connecting medium
between the soul of the sinner and that calling and election of which Peter speaks,
and of which the Bible is full. How then is the believer to make his calling and
election firm and sure? Clearly by persevering steadfastness in the faith of the
truth—by holding fast the beginning of his confidence steadfast unto the end—by
a simple, childlike, vigorous reliance on the truth of God, so that faith might
grow and flourish and expand and produce fruit in abundance, to the praise and glory
of God.
You will see, therefore, how it comes to pass that believers are called
upon to make their calling and election firm and sure. They are required to do this
because the prize of the high calling at last, and their actual separation unto
obedience and the daily sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ—their actual separation
to progressive holiness here and ultimate glory hereafter, is a process which is
carried into effect by God through the instrumentality of means; and the means,
so far as man is concerned, is the faith and obedience of the truth. The other means
essential to the carrying out of election, or separation from the world, were provided
by God independently of, and entirely without the co-operation or consent of men.
The sacrifice of Christ has been provided, and the Holy Spirit, is provided, and
the truth to be believed is provided by God, and placed freely at every sinner’s
door. All
things are ready for the immediate election
of the sinner. But inasmuch as man is a free agent, and is graciously furnished
with everything necessary to the faith of the truth, it is at this point that he
is called upon to act his part, and to give credit to the testimony of the Spirit
who speaks to him of Jesus. Inasmuch, therefore, as the faith of the truth is one
indispensable means of election, the sinner prevents God from electing or separating
him from the world while he refuses to believe. There is no election out of Christ.
It is in Christ, as the apostle, to the Ephesians, declares, that God hath chosen
any sinner, or ever will or ever can choose any sinner on the face of the earth.
But while the sinner remains unconverted—while he remains an unbeliever, he remains
out of Christ, even as the uningrafted branch: has no connexion with the vine. But
while you admit that the apostle says that believers are chosen in Christ, do you
ask what is meant by being chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world? In
this case, I refer you, in one word, to what has been already said. It is election
in purpose, or the purpose to elect, which was formed from eternity. This purpose
was based upon God’s infallible foreknowledge of the undecreed faith of men. Hence
Peter says that we are “elect according to the foreknowledge of God.” But, as we
have already said in previous lectures, foreknowledge fixes nothing—foreknowledge
decrees nothing—foreknowledge leaves the sinner as free to act as if nothing were
foreknown. But God purposed from eternity to give unto you the power to believe,
and he
purposed graciously and earnestly to call
upon every one of you to believe, and he foreknew with unerring certainty every
sinner who will listen to his voice, and believe in his Son; and he purposed whenever
the sinner believes and is united by faith to Christ to elect or separate that sinner
unto obedience, and the daily sprinkling of the blood of Christ on earth, and perfect
glory in heaven. The phrase—“chosen in him before the foundation of the world,”
is exactly parallel to the kindred phrase—“the Lamb slain from the foundation of
the world.” In both instances, the phrase refers to the purpose of God, and the
sinner is not thereby said to have been actually elected before the foundation of
the world, any more than Jesus is said to have been actually slain from the foundation
of the world. You will observe, therefore, that the great Bible doctrine of election
is uniformly consistent with the entire gospel scheme. It hinders no man from salvation.
It is the sinner’s own unbelief which stands out as the only hindrance. The doctrine
of election invites and entreats and opens up the way, so to speak, to every sinner.
The means whereby every soul of you may be separated, or chosen, or elected by God,
are already provided. The Son of God has died for your sins. Here, then, is the
only ground of immediate acceptance—the immediate removal of condemnation. Here
is the ground on which pardon is freely proclaimed to you all, and on which you
may instantly be justified. The Holy Spirit is present in his blessed influence,
and he knocks at the door of every sinner’s heart,
seeking this very night admission into
the soul. Here is the agent—the blessed agent in regeneration, by whose influence
every soul of you may this very evening be regenerated. The truth of God respecting
Jesus as your Saviour—that truth is before you in the inspired volume, the letter
of love from God to man. Here, then, is the means whereby the work of Jesus justifies
the soul,—here the means by which the Holy Spirit sanctifies. But if you will not
credit it when your Bible tells you that “God is love,” and love to you—if you
will still hesitate and doubt, and treat God as if he had written down a lie, and
sent it down to you in the shape of truth—if you will not believe that God is satisfied
by what his Son did for you on the cross, and fancy yourselves not good enough yet
to be saved—if you will still persist in seeking some qualification within yourselves,
as if God were inviting the righteous and not sinners to repentance—or if ye will
remain careless about the revelation of God’s love, and count it a small thing to
be assured that, for Jesus’ sake, every sinner in this house is this moment as welcome
to enjoy his Maker’s friendship, as if he never had sinned—in one word, if ye will
not believe God’s truth, but will persist in unbelief, you cannot possibly be elected
by God. But the damnation of your souls will lie for ever at your own doors, and
your blood will rest eternally and exclusively and justly upon your own heads.
The practical question, after all, resolves itself into
this—Will ye submit your wills unto God’s will so as
to become partakers of this most blissful and most holy election? There are many
who have no objections to be elected to safety and to happiness apart from a life
of active, and laborious, and world-forsaking, and self-denying consecration to the
service of God and of holiness. Such an election has no existence, save in the depraved
imaginations of deluded Antinomians. “Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Whatsoever
a man soweth, that shall he also reap. He that soweth to the flesh, shall of the
flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit, shall of the Spirit reap
life everlasting.” “Without holiness, no man shall see the Lord.” The choice, then,
is before you. We dare not bribe you into the church of the living God, by concealing
from you the fact, that there is no salvation for any man disconnected from holiness
of heart and holiness of life. Be it known unto you, men and brethren, that holiness
of heart and holiness of life, is itself salvation. It is not the ground of salvation.
No. The finished work of Jesus for your sins; that is the only foundation or ground
of any solid hope for time or for eternity. It is not even the means of salvation. No.—Simple faith in Christ as your Saviour; that is the one only means whereby any
soul can possibly come into the possession of the great salvation. But since holiness
is not the ground or foundation on which a man may stand and apprehend salvation
as all his own; and since it is not even the means through which a man may ultimately
reach it, does any man inquire—What is the use for holiness? Our answer to such an
inquirer is—“Holiness is salvation.” We do not say, indeed, that holiness is the
first or preliminary stage, so to speak, of any man’s salvation. We say the very
reverse, when we contend earnestly against the universally prevalent delusion, that
the sinner must needs be holy first, or that the sinner can possibly be holy
first,
before he is in a pardoned state, and in a position to know that he is pardoned
and justified and saved from impending wrath. No sinner can possibly enter upon
the path of holy obedience, until he knows assuredly that his sins are freely pardoned.
Holiness, therefore, is not needed, either to render it consistent with God to pardon
your sins, or to assure any sinner that his sins are pardoned. The assurance of
pardon must needs precede and anticipate any and every holy emotion within the soul,
and any and every holy action in the life so that if you have never known the blessedness
of “the man whose iniquities are pardoned, whose sins are covered, and to whom
the Lord imputeth not iniquity,”—which blessedness arises from a conscious sense
or assurance of forgiving mercy;—if you are still the subjects of doubts and fears
upon this great preliminary step in the experience of every child of God, you need
no other or stronger evidence to convince you that you are “still in the gall of
bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” But it is equally true, my brother, that
if you are assuring your soul of a free forgiveness, and talking of “peace with
God,” and entertaining the hope of future blessedness, while you still retain the
consciousness
within your bosom, that (though men who
see not into the heart, treat you as one of God’s children), you are not loving
Jesus Christ because he has already saved you from condemnation, and because you
know, and rejoice in knowing, that he saves his people, not only from condemnation,
but “from their sins;”—if having the consciousness of an imaginary justification
through his blood, you lack the consciousness of a sincere desire and earnest readiness
to sacrifice all that is dear to flesh and blood, in order to be assimilated to
his blessed image;—Wif there is one solitary object on earth, or one solitary lust
of the flesh, which you are not ready to sacrifice at the bidding of Jesus Christ;—you
may, indeed, pass current among men for a child of God, but in the eye of God, and
in the light of God’s truth, you stand out a self-convicted hypocrite. The sooner
you flee to Christ, the better for your poor soul. You are deceiving yourself, if
you think you are safe for eternity. You are wilfully shutting your eyes against
the salvation of the gospel. You are assuredly turning the grace of God into licentiousness,
and making Christ the minister of sin. “If any man come after me, and hate not
father and mother, and houses and lands, yea and his own life also, he cannot be
my disciple.” You must make an absolute and unconditional surrender of your own
depraved will to God’s will, before you are even in a position to apprehend clearly
the blessed message which brings to your door a free salvation. You have not yet
apprehended the light—the true
light shining around you. What is the reason? Why
do you not receive Christ’s salvation, but choose rather to soothe your soul by
a false and presumptuous assurance of safety? Yours is not the assurance which
the people of God, in every age, have every one of them possessed. Yours is the
assurance of presumption. It has not led you to surrender all to the disposal of
your God. There is some favourite idol still within your soul. You may be looking
with pity upon those around you who make an idol of a minister, or a church, or
a man-made creed, whereby they are prevented from opening their eyes upon the glorious
gospel; but “why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, and seest
not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam that
is in thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote that is
in thy brother’s eye.” Thou speakest truly enough when thou sayest that an unscriptural
creed prevents many from looking at the truth; but this is only one form of the
delusion whereby Satan deceives and retains within his grasp the souls of men. What
if thy neighbour loves his creed, or his religious sect, or party orthodoxy, more
than Christ, while you love some other object more than Christ? What that object
is, I know not; but God knoweth, and thine own conscience will reveal it unto thee,
if thou wilt but listen to her faithful voice. I again press the question, Why
do you not receive Christ’s salvation? What is the reason of your remaining unbelief
as to this, while it may be you are
consoling yourself under the assurance of a pardon which
God has nowhere revealed, and which it is impossible for God to grant to any being
in the wide universe—a pardon disconnected from holiness? Hear our Saviour’s infallible
reply: “This is the condemnation, that light has come into the world, and men love
the darkness rather than the light because their deeds are evil.” John iii. 19.
“Their deeds are evil.” Such is the reason why they love the darkness and will not
open their eyes upon “the true light”—the light which unfolds the salvation of the
gospel—the light which shows all who will look upon it, that the salvation of the
gospel is a salvation from all sin as well as from merited punishment. “Their deeds
are evil.” Some men see at a glance that if they were to be at peace with God, they
would need to part with some questionable or, it may be, positively sinful occupation—others
suspect at once that if they were to be friends with God and to enjoy assurance
of salvation, they would incur the displeasure and be made the laughing-stock of
their unconverted friends. They want a religion which will keep their consciences
at ease, while they retain their sinful occupation, or keep up their intercourse
with their most agreeable companions, and so they love the darkness—they choose
rather to retain a human error which instructs them to suspend assurance upon future
procrastinated amendment, and to shut their eyes against the light of gospel truth,
which would bring them to immediate and perfect peace, but which would also dissociate
them from what they love.
But many more there are whose “deeds are evil,” and
they would retain their sins and be excused from “denying themselves and taking
up their cross;” and so they separate in their minds between safety and holy living,
and they shut their eyes against the light which reveals the only pardon of the
gospel—the pardon with self-denial, and active, laborious, flesh-crucifying, and
world-sacrificing holiness, beneath and behind it. And so they learn to speak of
peace with God and assurance of a possessed and enjoyed salvation—deceiving and
being deceived! The last error is worse—infinitely worse, because. more dangerous,
than the first. We would not therefore deceive you. We would rather inform you plainly,
that unless you have made up your minds to sacrifice whatever you may discover to
be inconsistent with the will of God, and to do whatever God shall require you to
do, though it should be at much painful cost and sacrifice to flesh and blood, you
cannot possibly be Christ’s disciples. There is a free pardon for every soul of
you in Christ, and that even now. But the enjoyment of this gracious forgiveness
is only preliminary to a life of progressive holiness on earth, and an eternity
of holiness beyond the grave. It is for you, beloved friends, to make your choice.
I know full well that, at this moment, every feeling of your souls, and every association
of your thoughts, and every habit of your lives, and every impulse of your desires,
and, it may be, every apparent temporal interest with which you are bound up, chime
in with the syren song of a false and destructive orthodoxy,
which bears onward impetuously against the truth
of God, inducing you to close your eyes against the light of life, and your understandings
against the candid and serious examination of the gospel of salvation. Of this I
am not ignorant; but you are not left without an opposing influence which would
lead you to Jesus, and to true and lasting happiness. And with this better influence
bearing upon your minds, and soliciting your instant decision on the side of God,
you have the power to resist all that infernal influence whereby you are led astray,
and this instant to choose “the good part which shall never be taken from you.”
God the Father pleads with you; God the Son pleads with you; God the Spirit pleads
with you. The interests of eternity are set against the selfish and mistaken interests
of time; and you are asked by God himself to say, “What is a man profited, though
he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” And you have the power to decide
for God and for happiness in opposition to every allurement which seeks to enchant
you, and which beckons you downward to destruction. You have the power to will or
to choose the good rather than the evil, even now while the current of evil is bearing
you impetuously along on its dark and troubled bosom. You have not yet reached the
farthest verge over which many a deluded soul is carried, and plunged into the deep
unfathomable abyss beneath, from which there is no escape. You have the power to
choose, as we have endeavoured in former addresses to demonstrate in your hearing.
It is for
you to consider the freeness of that salvation which
is announced to you, and to look well at its nature as a salvation from condemnation
this very moment, in order to subsequent and entire consecration of all that you
are, and all that you have, to the service of your God. You have the power to make
it this very moment entirely and everlastingly your own, in fullest and most blissful
possession; but you have the power to decide against it and to rush upon perdition.
There cannot be any other alternative; FOR it or
AGAINST it, you must this night,
every soul of you decide. Hesitancy and doubt, and procrastination till some more
convenient season—these are present determinations of your will against salvation.
Before you is the blessing and the curse!—both are before you. The claims of God
and the sinful allurements of the flesh!—both are before you. An open heaven and
a gaping hell!—both are before you. Heavenly truth exhibited by the Holy Spirit
as the guide-mark to glory, and hellish error exhibited by Satan, in the shape of
an angel of light, to allure you to everlasting woe—both are before you. No power
in the universe can constrain your choice. God himself cannot FORCE
you to choose—the
decision is in your own hands. “Choose ye this day whom ye will serve. If
Jehovah
be God, serve him; but if Baal be God, serve him.”
APPENDIX.
WE have quoted, in pages 100 and 112, from the work of Zanchius in defence
of Calvinism, translated by Toplady, in order to establish what many blind and ignorant
Calvinists of the present day endeavour to deny—the identity of Calvinism with the
FATALISM of the ancients. We here subjoin what Toplady himself published, and what
the late Dr. Pringle of Perth republished, in the way, not of DENYING (for it cannot
truthfully be denied), but of explaining and defending, after pleading guilty to
the charge. Our readers will be pleased to mark the absence of all reference to
the Word of God, and the barefaced appeal made by CHRISTIAN MEN to
HEATHEN AND ANTICHRISTIAN
PHILOSOPHERS in support of this theology! If the supporters of this system could
discover in the Bible any foundation for their creed, would they be foolish enough
to make their appeal to a document like the following? But we cheerfully give them
the benefit of the best defence of their system they can find, and here append the
entire document, It is intituled
AN APPENDIX concerning the FATE OF THE ANCIENTS,
From the Latin of JUSTUS LIPSIUS.Vide LIPSII Physiolog,
Stoic, Lib. 1. Dissert. xii.
Fate [says Apuleins] according to Plato, is that,
“Per quod, inevitabiles cogitationes Dei atque incepta complentur”
whereby the
purposes and designs of God are accomplished. Hence, the Platonics considered
Providence
under a threefold distinction: 1 The Providentia prima, or that which gave birth
to all effects and is defined by them to be, του πρωτου Θεου νοεσις, the intention
or will of the Supreme GOD. 2. The
Providentia secunda, or actual
agency of the secondary or inferior beings, who were supposed to pervade
tile heavens, and, from thence, by their influence, to regulate and dispose of
all sublunary things; and, especially, to prevent the extinction of any one species
below. 3. The Providentia tertia, supposed to be exerted by the
Genii; whose office
it was, to exercise a particular care over mankind: to guard our persons, and
direct
our actions.
But the STOICAL view of Providence, or Fate, was abundantly more simple,
and required no such nicety of distinction. These philosophers did, at once, derive
all the chain of causes and effects from their true and undoubted source, the
WILL of the ONE LIVING AND TRUE GOD. Hence, with these Sages, the words
DEITY, FATE,
PROVIDENCE, were frequently reciprocated as terms synonymous. Thus Seneca, speaking
of God; “Will you call him Fate? You will call him rightly: for all things are suspended
on him. Himself is causa causarum, the cause of causes beside.” The laws of the
universe are from God; whence the same philosopher, elsewhere, observes, “Omnia
certa et in aeternum dicta lege decurrere:” All things go on, according to a certain
rule or decree ordained for ever: meaning in the law of Fate. So Cicero: “All things
come to pass, according to the sovereignty of the eternal law.” And Pindar, probably,
had an eye to this, where he says,
Νομον παντων Βασιλεα, θανατων τε και αθαατων, ειναι. That
The law ruleth all, whether gods or mortals. Manlius most certainly
had:
Sed nihil in tota magis est mirabile mole.
Quam RATIO et certes quod
LEGIBUS omnia parent. Where by
Ratio, is evidently meant, the decreeing mind of God; and
by Leges, is meant Fate, or that series of causes and effects which is the offspring
of his decree.
Homer cannot begin his Iliad, without asserting this grand truth:
Διος ὂ ετελειετο βελη: the counsel or
decree of Jupiter was fulfilled. The divine
poet sets out on this exalted principle; he puts it in the front of the noblest
poem in the world, as a testimony both of his wisdom and his faith. It was as if
he had said, “I shall sing of numberless events, equally grand, entertaining and
important; but I cannot begin to unfold them without laying down
THIS, as a first,
fundamental axiom, That, though brought to pass by the instrumental agency of men,
they were the fruit of God’s determining Will, and of his all-directing Providence.”
Neither are those minuter events, which seemingly are the result of
chance, excluded
from this law: even these do not happen, but come to pass in a regular order of
succession, and at their due period of time. “Causa pendet ex causa: privata ac
publica longus ordo rerum trahit,” says Seneca: “Cause proceeds from cause; the
long train of things draws with it all
events, both public and private.” Excellent is that of Sophocles;
(Aj. Flagell.)
Εγω μεν ουν και ταυτα, και τα ταντ᾽ αει,
Φασκοιμ᾽ αν ανθρωποισι μηχαναν Θεους.
Ὁτω δει μη το δ᾽ εστιν εν γνωμη φιλα.
Κεινος εκεινα στεργετω· καγω ταδε.
i. e. “I am firmly of opinion, that all these things, and whatever else
befall us, are in consequence of the Divine purpose: whoso thinks otherwise, is
at liberty to follow his own judgment; but this will ever be mine.”
The Longus
ordo rerum, mentioned by Seneca, is what he elsewhere styles, “Causarun implex
series,” or a perpetual implication of causes. This, according to Laertius, was
called by the Stoics, αιτια των οντων ειρομενη, an involved, or concatenate causality
of whatever has any existence: for, ειρμος is a chain, or implicate connexion. Agreeably
to this idea, Chrysippus gives the following definition of Fate: Ἐιμαρμενην ειναι, φυσικην συνταξιν των
ὅλων εξ αιδιου, των ἑτερων τοις ἑτεροις επακαλουθουντων, αμεταβολου και
απαραβατου ουσης της ποιαυτης συμπλοκης. “Fate is that natural,
established order and constitution of all things, from everlasting, whereby they
mutually follow upon each other, in consequence of an immutable and perpetual
complication.”
Let us examine this celebrated definition of Fate. 1. He calls it
a natural συνταξις: meaning by nature, the great
Natura Prima, or GOD, for, by
some Stoics, GOD and NATURE are used promiscuously. But, because the Deity must
be supposed both to decree and to act with wisdom, intelligence, and
design,
FATE is sometimes mentioned by them under the name of λογος, or
Reason. Thus they
define FATE (Laert. in Zen.) ἑιμαρμενεν, λογου, καθ᾽ ὁν
ὀκοσμος διεξαγεται,
to be that supreme “Reason, whereby the world is governed and directed;” or, more
minutely thus, λογον, καθ᾽ ὁν οτα μεν γεγονοτα γεγονε, τα δε λεγομενα γινεται, τα δε γενησομενα
γενησεται: “that reason, whereby things that have been, were:
the things that now are, have a present existence: and the things that are to be,
shall be. Reason, you see, or Wisdom, in the DEITY, is an antecedent cause, from
whence both Providence and inferior Nature are derived. It is added in
Stobaeus,
μεταλαμβανει δε του λογου, την αληθειαν,
την αιτιαν, την φισιν, την αναγκην, i. e. that Chrysippus sometimes varies
his terms; and, instead of the
word reason, substitutes the words truth, cause, nature, necessity; intimating,
that Fate is the true, natural, necessary cause of the things that are, and of the
manner in which they are.—2. This FATE is said to be εξ αιδωυ
from everlasting.
Nor improperly: since the constitution of things was settled and fixed in the Divine
mind (where they had a sort of ideal existence) previous to their actual creation:
and therefore, considered as certainly future in his decree,
may be said to have been, in some sense, co-eternal with himself.—3.
The immutable and perpetual complication, mentioned in the definition, means no more
than that reciprocal involution of causes and effects, positis omnibus ponendis,
are necessarily produced, according to the plan which infinite wisdom designed from
the beginning. GOD, the First Cause, hath given being and activity to an immense
number of secondary, subaltern causes; which are so inseparably linked and interwoven
with their respective effects (a connexion truly admirable, and not to be comprehended
by man in his present state), that those things which do in reality come to pass
necessarily, and by inevitable destiny; seem, to the superficial observer, to come
to pass in the common course of nature, or by virtue of human reasoning and freedom.
This is that inscrutable method of Divine wisdom, “A qua” (says St. Austin) “est omnis modus, omnis species, omnnis ordo, mensura, numerus, pondus; a qua sunt semina
formarum, formae seminum, motus feminum atque formarum.”
NECESSITY is the consequence
of Fate. So TRISMEGISTUS:
Παντα δε γιγνεται φυσει και ἑιμαρμενη, και ουκ εστι τοπος ερημος προνοιας,
προνοια δε εστι, αυτοτελης λογος του επουρανιου Θεου. Δυο δε τουτου αυτο
φυεις δυναμεις αναγκη και ἑιμαρμενη: i. e. “All things are
brought about by Nature and by Fate; neither is any place void of Providence. Now,
Providence is the self-perfect reason of the super-celestial God; from which reason
of his, issue two native powers, Necessity and Fate.” Thus, in the judgment of the
wiser heathens, effects were to be traced up to their producing causes; those producing
causes were to be farther traced up to the still higher causes by which they were
produced; and those higher causes to GOD, the cause of them.
Persons, things, circumstances,
events, and consequences are the effects of necessity; Necessity is the daughter
of Fate: Fate is the offspring of God’s infinite wisdom and sovereign
WILL. Thus,
all things are ultimately resolved into their Great Primary Cause; by whom the chain
was originally let down from heaven, and on whom every link depends.
It must be
owned, that all the fatalists of antiquity (particularly among the Stoics) did not
constantly express themselves with due precision. A Christian, who is savingly taught
by the Word and Spirit of God, must be pained and disgusted, not to say, shocked,
when he reads such an assertion as
Την πεπρμενην μοιραν αδυνατον εστι αποφυγειν και Θεω.
God himself cannot possibly avoid his destiny (Herodot. 1.), or that
of the poet Philemon:
δουλοι βασιλεων εισιν, δι βασιλεις Θεων,
Ὁ Θεος αναγκης.
Common men are servants to kings; kings are servants to the gods; and God is a servant
to necessity. So Seneca: “Eadem necessitas et Deos alligat: irrevocabilis Divina
pariter atque
humana cursus vehit. Ille ipse, omnium conditor ac rector, scripsit
quidem Fata, sed sequitur. Semper paret: Semel jussit.” “The self-same necessity
binds the gods themselves. All things, divine as well as human, are carried forward
by one identical and overpowering rapidity. The supreme Author and Governor of the
universe hath, indeed, written and ordained the Fates; but, having once ordained
them, he ever after obeys them. He commanded them at first, for once: but his conformity
to them is perpetual.” This is, without doubt, very irreverently, and very incautiously
expressed—whence it has been common with many Christian writers, to tax the Stoics
with setting up a First Cause superior to God himself, and on which he is dependent.
But, I apprehend, these philosophers meant, in reality, no such thing. All they
designed to inculcate was, that the WILL of God and his Decrees are unchangeable:
that there can be no alteration in the Divine intention; no new act arise in his
MIND; no reversion of his eternal plan; all being
founded in adorable Sovereignty;
ordered by infallible Wisdom; ratified by Omnipotence; and
cemented with Immutability.
Thus Lucan:
Finxit in aeternum causas; qua cuncta coercet,
Se quoque lege tenens.
And this, not through any imbecility in God, or as if he was
subject to Fate, of
which (on the contrary) himself was the ordainer: but because it is his pleasure
to abide by his own decree. For, as Seneca observes, “Imminutio majestatis sit,
et confessio erroris, mutanda fecisse. Necesse est ei eadem placere, cui nisi optima
placere non possunt:” “It would detract from the greatness of God, and look as
if he acknowledged himself liable to mistakes, was he to make changeable decrees:
his pleasure must necessarily be always the same; seeing, that only which is best
can at any time please an all-perfect being. A good man (adds this philosopher)
is under a kind of pleasing necessity to do good; and, if he did not do it, he could
not be a good man.”
“Magnum hoc argumentum est firmae voluntatis, ne mutare quidem
posse:” “It is a striking proof of a magnanimous will, to be absolutely incapable
of changing.” And such is the will of God—it never fluctuates nor varies. But, on
the other hand, was he susceptible of change; could he, through the intervention
of any inferior cause, or by some untoward combination of external circumstances,
be induced to recede from his purpose and alter his plan; it would be a most incontestable
mark of weakness and dependence: the force of which argument made Seneca, though
a heathen, cry out, “Non externa Deos cogunt; sed sua illis in legem
aeterna voluntas
est:” “Outward things cannot compel the gods; but their own eternal will is a law
to themselves.” It may be observed, that this seems to infer, as if the Deity was
still
under some kind of restaint. By no means. Let Seneca obviate this
cavil, as he effectually does, in these admirable words: “Nec Deus ab hoc minus
liber aut potens est; IPSE ENIM EST NECESSITAS SUA:” “God is not hereby, either
less free or less powerful; FOR HE HIMSELF IS HIS OWN NECESSITY.”
On the whole,
it is evident, that when the Stoics speak, even in the strongest terms, of the
obligation
of Fate on God himself, they may, and ought to be understood, in a sense worthy
of the Adorable Uncreated Majesty. In thus interpreting the doctrine of Fate, as
taught by the genuine philosophers of the Portico, I have the great St. Austin on
my side: who, after canvassing and justly rejecting the bastard, or
astrological Fate,
thus goes on: “At qui omnium connectionem seriemque causarum, qua fit omne
quod fit, Fati nomine appellant; non multum cum eis, de verbi controversia, certandum
atque laborandum est: quandoquidem ipsum causarum ordinem, et quandam connectionem,
SUMMI DEI tribuunt VOLUNTATI:” i. e. “But for those philosophers [meaning
the STOICS] who, by the word Fate, mean that regular chain and series of causes
to which all things that come to pass owe their immediate existence; we will not
earnestly contend with these persons, about a mere term: and we the rather acquiesce
in their manner of expression, because they carefully ascribe—this fixed succession
of things, and this mutual concatenation of causes and effects, to the WILL of the SUPREME GOD.” Austin adds many observations of the same import, and proves, from
Seneca himself, as rigid a Stoic as any, that this was the doctrine and the meaning
of his philosophic brethren.
THE END.