uneducated portions of the middle and the higher classes. If there
are any whose minds have been disciplined by sound instruction, and
expanded by liberal acquirements, they are, for the most part, the
children of Calvinistic families, who, having been taught to
reverence these opinions in their childhood, have not had energy of
mind to rise above their early impressions. That multitudes of
persons piously disposed, but without the requisite knowledge, or
intellectual culture, should be influenced by the arguments of men
skilful in dialectics, and zealous to make proselytes, cannot be
deemed matter of wonderment. Especially let it be noticed, that
these teachers and preachers know well how to appeal to ignorant
timidity and to sincere but unguarded piety.
They are told, that to reject these doctrines shows "a heart
secretly disaffected to the government of God," and daring to oppose
presumption and ignorance to the wisdom of the Eternal. As if it
were not the fact, that Calvinism has been viewed with abhorrence by
men of the humblest and the purest piety, by men of seraphic minds
and of the sublimest intellect.
They are also instructed to believe, that the grace of the Redeemer
is magnified by degrading human nature to the utmost, and making the
redeemed passive recipients of predestinated and exclusive grace.
But they do not perceive that Calvinism destroys all ideas of
_grace_, by making God the author of the misery which He affects to
pity, and by tracing the divine conduct to mere motiveless caprice,
to blind and arbitrary choice or rejection.
These distinctions are lost upon the superficial minds of the
multitude. And when they are told that Calvinism honours the
sovereignty of God, and exalts the grace of Christ, their religious
and holy feelings are enlisted in a cause which little deserves
these high and evangelic eulogies. While the love of God in Christ,
to themselves in particular, is made the prevailing topic, the
gloomy and suspicious parts of the system are kept in the back
ground, or positively denied.
If there be truth in the preceding remarks, the degree of popularity
which attaches to this view of religion, far from yielding a
presumptive argument in its favour, is, at least, a reason for
regarding it with suspicion. It has not the recommendation of being
the faith of the most numerous portion of the wise, of the holy, of
the virtuous. It appeals to the weaknesses rather than to the nobler
principles of human nature. It can never be the sincere and
cherished belief of an enlightened, community.
The advocates of this creed appear to be aware of this, and
therefore supply their want of conclusive argument by fulminations
intended to effect by fear, what more honourable means could not
accomplish.
They not only contend for the truth of their doctrine, they make the
belief of it essential to salvation. None are elect who do not
receive their views of election. All others are reprobate. "Shall I
tell you," says one of their most eminent men, "some of the ends
that may be answered by preaching this doctrine? One important end
is, to detect hearts which are unwilling that God should reign; to
lay open those smooth, selfish spirits, which, while they cry
Hosannah, are hostile to the dominion of Jehovah. The more fully God
and the system of his government are brought out to view, the more
clearly are the secrets of all hearts revealed." Men, who fancy
themselves impelled by a "special influence" to receive this creed,
may consistently pronounce judgment on those who reject it. The
absurdity in one case, is not greater than in the other. But their
attempts at intimidation will have no other effect with persons of
dispassionate reflection, than to render more repulsive those errors
which foster insolent conceit in vulgar minds, and encourage those
who appear to have but a superficial knowledge of themselves to pass
sentence of condemnation on the hearts of others.
Formally to disclaim a charge so gross and misapplied as that of
"hostility to the dominion of Jehovah," would be to treat it with
more respect than it deserves. But it may not be improper to remark,
that the charge proceeds with the worst possible grace from the
vindicators of a creed which obliterates from the divine government
every trace of wisdom, of rectitude, of goodness, and so represents
the Ruler of the word, as to make Him an object of detestation and
terror to his creatures. Other sentiments must inspire the heart
before we can reverence the divine administration, and unite in "the
song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God Almighty: _just_ and
_true_ are thy ways, Thou king of saints."
APPENDIX.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON MR. NOEL'S TRACT ON "THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH."
The writer of these pages has no personal knowledge of the author of
the tract, of whom he has only heard by report, that he is a zealous
minister and popular preacher. His writings indicate natural suavity
of temper. Having therefore no feeling of personal disrespect, he
deems no apology to be necessary for the freedom of his strictures
on a work which challenges attention and defies contradiction.
Mr. Noel has openly and dogmatically set forth a theory of the
visible Church and her fellowship, not only hostile to the Church of
England and fraught with absurdity, but propounded under the
alluring guise of Christian charity; a charity which has won for him
the applause of the professors of modern _liberalism_, because, on a
cursory glance, it appears to embrace all sects and denominations of
Christians. It is proper, therefore, to set the matter in a true
light, by showing that this liberality of sentiment is more specious
than real; that Mr. Noel is throwing out false colours, and that
while, in no measured terms, he condemns the supposed want of
brotherly-kindness in the members of the Church of England, his own
apparent liberality is resolvable into nothing else than
_Calvinistic exclusiveness and intolerance_.
Liberality is the order, the fashion, the idol of the day. In many
it takes the form of infidel indifference, regarding as equally
true, or equally false, every creed that is called Christian.
The charity of our holy and Apostolical Church is not thus lax and
indiscriminate. It rests not upon scepticism, but upon sound and
definable principles. It does not proceed on the assumption that all
creeds are equally good, but that men of all creeds have a political
right to follow the dictates of conscience, whether enlightened or
erroneous, in matters purely spiritual, and that they are
responsible only to God for their religious faith and worship;
indulging, at the same time, a charitable persuasion of the
sincerity and Christian goodness of multitudes who are believed to
be labouring under mistaken views of truth. This is true _Christian_
charity, which tolerates error, hopes well of misinformed but
sincere piety, breathes no malignant feelings, indulges in no
haughtiness of conscious superiority; but, after all, holds firmly
to its own persuasion of what is true and right, without the
smallest approach to a compromise of principles even with honest and
well-meaning error. This is the charity of the sound English
churchman, and this charity lies at the foundation of the religious
liberties of the British empire.
As churchmen we contemplate with reverence, our protestant,
episcopal, and apostolical communion. We believe that it rests on
"the foundation of Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself the
chief corner-stone." And we contend for the right of the Church to
demand from her own ministers faith in her doctrines, and to model
her own worship, and adjust her own ceremonies according to her own
holy discretion. But we compel no man to come in. We love and
cherish the chartered and constitutional liberties of our country;
and while we sympathize not with the errors which are tolerated, we
rejoice in the freedom, the just and evangelic freedom, which leaves
every man, without control or interference, to settle all points of
_religious_ duty with his conscience and his God. We do not feel
bound to attempt what would be impracticable, to construct a church
which should suit the caprices of all, and whose flexible creed,
like the vane which surmounts the steeple, should shift with "_every
wind of doctrine_;" but we allow the discontented to depart without
molestation, and we honour their conscientious scruples, while we
regret and condemn their errors.
With charity so large yet discriminating, founded on principles
which approve themselves to the judgment and the heart, we solemnly
protest against every charge of intolerance and bigotry that is
brought, by friend or foe, against our National Church.
But this does not satisfy Mr. Noel, who proposes, what appears at
first sight, a charity still more generous and comprehensive. The
Anti-paedobaptist and the Presbyterian, with all their germane
varieties, are not only to be treated with forbearance and regarded
with charity, but are all to form one fellowship, united and co
-operating in the great cause of their common Christianity. Take the
following passage. "And these" _Baptism_ and _Church government_,
"are two of the most important points which separate Christians.
Should they separate them? As well might the brothers of a family be
separated by the most trifling difference on some question of taste
or literature. . . . . . Episcopalians and Presbyterians, Baptists
and Paedobaptists, with all others, who differ on obscure and
undecided points, ought, if they have one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God, and one hope, under the influence of one Spirit,
who sanctifies them all, to be one in profession, in action, and in
heart." This passage, which is in the spirit of the entire tract, is
open to grave animadversion.
1. The points mentioned as being "most trifling differences," are
regarded by all theologians of any reputation as questions of great
moment, although not equally so with those which immediately touch
our salvation. Mr. Noel is altogether original in regarding either
the construction that is to be put on the sacrament of baptism, or
the degree of importance to be attached to the episcopal office, as
matters "most trifling."
2. The Baptists and Presbyterians, who look on these points with
other feelings than those of Mr. Noel, have considered them of
sufficient moment to justify their separation from the communion of
our Church. That separation is _their own_ "act and deed." And to
charge the Church, on this account, with bigotry, intolerance, and
want of charity, proves either consummate ignorance of ecclesiastical
history, or deliberate injustice to serve a party. Nevertheless,
the entire argument of the tract, proceeds on the assumption that
the Church is the guilty and impenitent party.
3. Under these circumstances, it is impossible that there should be
but "one profession," unless one of the differing parties can deny
its own faith, and profess what it does not believe. The Catholic
Church of England cannot, and will not, be guilty of that turpitude.
The members of _Mr. Noel's Church_ have declared, by their voluntary
separation, their determination to profess their own principles.
4. That which is most reprehensible in this charitable project of
hailing all sects as brethren is, that it is, after all, deceptive
and hollow. Mr. Noel does not intend a promiscuous fellowship with
various denominations. His charity is extended to those, and to
those exclusively, who, within these several communions, hold "the
doctrines of grace." All others he denounces as not being children
of God. That is, his union includes all those who think with
himself; Calvinists of every persuasion, and not a soul besides!
These are his "one body," and this one body is "the church." How
beautiful, how noble, how godlike is the charity of the Church of
England, which exists in unison with the love of truth, but embraces
with Christian affection even those who have quitted her fellowship,
contrasted with the drivelling and sectarian partialities of the
Calvinist who pronounces every man who differs from himself to be no
child of God! The charity of Mr. Noel resolves itself into
Calvinistic exclusiveness and intolerance.
If in these remarks there is any apparent severity, they are not to
be applied to the author, but to the principles of his work.
Calvinism obscures the finest intellect, and gives a false direction
to the most humane and generous feelings which can impart graceful
dignity to the Christian character.
THE END.
Gilbert & Rivington, Printers, St. John's Square, London.
_By the same Author_.
I.
DISCOURSES on some important Theological Subjects, Doctrinal and
Practical. 7_s_.
II.
ECCLESIASTICAL ESTABLISHMENTS not inconsistent with
CHRISTIANITY. Part I. 2_s_. 6_d_. Part II. 2_s_.
III.
The CONSOLATIONS of CHRISTIANITY, in four Discourses. 3_s_. 6_d_.
IV.
On BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 3_s_. 6_d_.
Footnotes
[1] Dr. Griffin in his "Lectures on Important Doctrines," broadly
charges the rejectors of Calvinism with embracing _another Gospel_,
and with being on the high road to infidelity. "And when they have
gone this length," he says, "in frittering away man's dependence on
grace, they are just prepared to place him completely on his own
works, to deny justification by faith, and of course, the proper
influence of the atonement; short of this these systems never stop:
and when they have gone thus far, there is but one step to a denial
of the divinity of Christ and the infinite demerit of sin. The next
step is _universalism_, and the next _infidelity_." Every
intelligent reader will know how to appreciate this senseless
dogmatism. The infidel might with equal propriety charge the
professors of Scriptural Christianity with being on the high road to
Calvinism, and prepared, by their faith in the corruption of human
nature, and the atonement of Christ, for the most extreme views of
the Divine decrees. Yet these bold and baseless assertions have
their weight with those for whom they are intended, and many weak
but good persons are held in passive bondage to these teachers and
their creed, through the holy fear of moving a step towards
infidelity. On the other hand, we might retort the charge. Calvinism
has made more infidels than any other corruption of Christianity,
excepting Popery. But we suggest this only in the way of _fair
retaliation_.
The rejectors of Calvinism do not reject "the doctrines of grace,"
but the corruptions by which they have been dishonoured. They
maintain, that on the absolute predestinarian scheme, there is no
room for grace, such as the Gospel exhibits to the sinful and the
lost; and that their own views are not only more accordant with the
justice, but with the unmerited and infinite mercy of God. They
ascribe all true holiness to the Divine Spirit.
[2] Dr. Coplestone, now the Bishop of Llandaff, denies that the
foreknowledge of an event proves the _event to be necessary_. "_We_
may be unable to conceive how a thing not necessary in its nature
can be foreknown; for _our_ foreknowledge is in general limited by
that circumstance, and is more or less perfect in proportion to the
fixed or necessary nature of the things we contemplate, with which
nature we become acquainted by experience, and are thus able to
anticipate a great variety of events: but to subject the knowledge
of God to any such limitation is surely absurd and unphilosophical,
as well as impious; and, therefore, to mix up the idea of God's
foreknowledge with any quality in the nature of the things
foreknown, is even less excusable than to be guilty of that
confusion when speaking of ourselves."
But, with due deference to his lordship, this does not contradict
the statement in the text, that we are ignorant of any principle on
which _such prescience_ can be explained. Assuming, indeed, that any
events are contingent, that human actions proceed from freedom, and
not from necessity, we cannot deny that they come within the range
of infinite knowledge.
But the philosophical necessarian does not grant this postulate. He
assumes the existence of an infinite mind, to whose knowledge all
events are open, and thence infers the _necessity_ of these events.
He pleads that omniscience and contingency are incongruous ideas,
and, on the ground of pure metaphysics, it would be difficult to
refute him. But we demolish his theory by an appeal to facts. We
oppose the moral constitution and history of man, to the plausible
speculations of philosophy. In other words, the mere metaphysician
is a fatalist; and his position, in the present state of our
intellectual philosophy, can be successfully attacked only by an
appeal to facts and consciousness, and by moral argument. That sound
metaphysics and just moral reasoning cannot really be at variance is
certain, since there cannot exist contradictory truths. Our
metaphysics therefore are wrong, or there must be an unknown _third
principle_, by which they are to be reconciled with our moral
reasonings. But until we can detect the fallacies of the
metaphysician, or supply the _connecting link_ which is now wanting,
we must rest in the unsatisfactory conclusion that abstract
philosophy is with the necessarian, and that liberty and its
ennobling consequences, moral agency, and moral responsibility, rest
on the solitary basis of moral argument.
[3] On the "special _teaching_" claimed, in connexion with "special
grace," by the most popular writers of the Calvinistic school, the
reader may find some just and forcible remarks in Essays by W. and
T. Ludlam. Their fearless exposure of the erroneous statements given
by Milner, Robinson, Newton, Harvey, and others, more particularly
on the subject of divine influence, awakened the indignation of a
party whose pretensions, when tested by reason and revelation, were
proved to be groundless. Without attempting an indiscriminate
defence of their opinions or their arguments, we may recommend these
essays as being eminently worthy of attention in the present day,
when two distinct but zealous parties are aiming to establish
exclusive doctrines, by discountenancing the legitimate use of human
reason in religious inquiries--one resting on tradition, the other
on individual inspiration; neither of them seeming to remember, that
tradition may be pleaded for and against the same dogmata, and that
the private persuasions of one good man may be opposite to those of
another, who has, with equal earnestness and humility, prayed to be
directed into the knowledge of saving truth. The man of independent
mind will find in these essays, much to admire in their elucidation
of truth and detection of error, but more in their dauntless
defiance of those who represent the Bible as a "sealed book" to all
who are not visited with a special faculty for discerning its mystic
characters and hidden sense. In that case, the Scriptures are a
revelation _only to the elect_, who, to satisfy themselves and the
world, that _their interpretation_ is the only sound one, ought to
produce miracles as proof of their own inspiration, not less
unequivocal than those which vindicated the authority and
infallibility of the Apostles. Such opinions, although held by
religious men, are dishonourable to the Scriptures, and needlessly
degrading to the human mind.
[4] "There can be no approaches towards regeneration in the
antecedent temper of the heart. The moment before the change, the
sinner is as far from sanctification, as darkness is from light, as
death is from life, as sin is from holiness."
"Regeneration is an instantaneous change, from exclusive attachment
to the creature, from supreme selfishness, from enmity against God,
to universal love, which fixes the heart supremely on Him; and there
is no previous abatement of the enmity, or approximation towards a
right temper; the heart being at one moment in full possession of
its native selfishness and opposition, at the next moment in
possession of a principle of supreme love to God; acquiring thus, in
an instant, a temper which it never possessed before."--_Lectures on
Important Doctrines by Dr. Griffin_.
How extravagant in theory, how false in fact! The doctrine of the
Anglican Church on this; and all similar points, never appears so
wise, and sound, and scriptural, as when contrasted with the
speculative systems of men, who, to give harmony and consistency to
their notions, close their eyes to the real world of man, and create
for themselves an ideal universe, peopled by another order of
beings, and governed by a power unknown but to the dreamers
themselves.
[5] The Presbyterian Church of Scotland is both Calvinistic and
National. But this fact does not militate against the argument of
this section; that Calvinism is opposed to the constitution and
purposes of a visible Church. Her creed and her discipline are at
variance. Her ministers are required to believe in the Westminster
Confession. And the great body of her people are said to be attached
to that system of doctrine. But her more educated classes reject it,
and the Scottish Church is a divided house.
[6] The prominent part taken by the doctrinal Puritans, in the
revolutionary movements which brought Charles I. to the block, is
proved by the concurrent testimony of the writers of those times. It
is amply illustrated and confirmed by Mr. Nichols in his "Calvinism
and Arminianism Compared."
The "Memoirs of Colonel Hutchinson," by his widow Lucy, is not only
a work of great general interest, beautifully composed, and
combining with the life of an eminent person vivid sketches of the
times; but it illustrates the subject discussed in the text. Colonel
Hutchinson was a doctrinal Puritan, and one of the regicides. In
himself we behold all the elements of a great and noble character,
devout, humane, scrupulously conscientious, and of heroic courage;
every quality that might adorn the gentleman, the patriot, the
Christian. But his extreme principles induced a mistaken sense of
duty, which embittered his own days, and added to the calamities of
his country; after having been spared at the restoration, his gloomy
reserve and supposed readiness to act again the part of a rebel, if
opportunity should occur, led to his imprisonment in Sandown Castle,
where he died more ignobly than if he had been brought to the block.
It would have been more to the honour of the king, if he had at
first doomed him to a public execution, the proper death of a
regicide, or had left him afterwards unmolested; but the second
Charles was not less mean and malignant than his sire was
unfortunate. Of the character of the humbler class of the doctrinal
Puritans, the following hints are incidentally given in this work.
The name of Roundhead "was very ill applied to Mr, Hutchinson, who,
having naturally a very fine thick sett head of hair, kept it clean
and handsome, so that it was a greate ornament to him, although _the
godly of those dayes_, when he embrac'd their party, _would not
allow him to be religious_, because his hayre was not in their
cutte, nor his words in their phraze, nor such little formalities
altogether fitted to their humour; who were, many of them, so weake
as to esteeme rather for such insignificant circumstances, then for
solid wisdom, piety, and courage, which brought reall ayd and honor
to their party; but as Mr. Hutchinson chose, not them, but the God
they serv'd, and the truth and righteousness they defended, so did
not their weaknesses, censures, ingratitude, and discouraging
behaviour, with which he was abundantly exercised all his life, make
him forsake them in any thing wherein they adher'd to just and
honourable principles and practizes; but when they apostatized from
these, none cast them off with greater indignation, how shining
soever the profession were that gilt, not a temple of living grace,
but a tomb which only held the carkase of religion." In other words,
like other partisans, whose principles have degenerated into the
spirit of faction, he overlooked the baseness of ingratitude, and
worse immoralities, in his associates, so long as they maintained
the just and honourable character of traitors and rebels.