按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
truth he seizes upon； and hence he appears to many gifted and
learned critics to draw conclusions from accepted premises which
apparently conflict with consciousness or natural reason； and hence
there has ever been repugnance to many of his doctrines； because it
is impossible； it is said； to believe them。
In general； Calvin does not essentially differ from the received
doctrines of the Church as defended by its greatest lights in all
ages。 His peculiarity is not in making a digest of divinity；
although he treated all the great subjects which have been
discussed from Athanasius to Aquinas。 His 〃Institutes〃 may well be
called an exhaustive system of theology。 There is no great
doctrine which he has not presented with singular clearness and
logical force。 Yet it is not for a general system of divinity that
he is famous； but for making prominent a certain class of subjects；
among which he threw the whole force of his genius。 In fact all
the great lights of the Church have been distinguished for the
discussion of particular doctrines to meet the exigencies of their
times。 Thus Athanasius is identified with the Trinitarian
controversy； although he was a minister of theological knowledge in
general。 Augustine directed his attention more particularly to the
refutation of Pelagian heresies and human Depravity。 Luther's
great doctrine was Justification by Faith； although he took the
same ground as Augustine。 It was the logical result of the
doctrines of Grace which he defended which led to the overthrow； in
half of Europe； of that extensive system of penance and self…
expiation which marked the Roman Catholic Church； and on which so
many glaring abuses were based。 As Athanasius rendered a great
service to the Church by establishing the doctrine of the Trinity；
and Augustine a still greater service by the overthrow of
Pelagianism； so Luther undermined the papal pile of superstition by
showing eloquently；what indeed had been shown before； the true
ground of justification。 When we speak of Calvin； the great
subject of Predestination arises before our minds； although on this
subject he made no pretention to originality。 Nor did he differ
materially from Augustine； or Gottschalk； or Thomas Aquinas before
him； or Pascal and Edwards after him。 But no man ever presented
this complicated and mysterious subject so ably as be。
It is not for me to discuss this great topic。 I simply wish to
present the subject historically；to give Calvin's own views； and
the effect of his deductions on the theology of his age； and in
giving Calvin's views I must shelter myself under the wings of his
best biographer； Doctor Henry of Berlin； and quote the substance of
his exposition of the peculiar doctrines of the Swiss； or rather
French； theologian。
According to Henry； Calvin maintained that God； in his sovereign
will and for his own glory； elected one part of the human race to
everlasting life； and abandoned the other part to everlasting
death； that man； by the original transgression； lost the power of
free…will； except to do evil； that it is only by Divine Grace that
freedom to do good is recovered； but that this grace is bestowed
only on the elect； and elect not in consequence of the
foreknowledge of God； but by his absolute decree before the world
was made。
This is the substance of those peculiar doctrines which are called
Calvinism； and by many regarded as fundamental principles of
theology； to be received with the same unhesitating faith as the
declarations of Scripture from which those doctrines are deduced。
Augustine and Aquinas accepted substantially the same doctrines；
but they were not made so prominent in their systems； nor were they
so elaborately worked out。
The opponents of Calvin； including some of the brightest lights
which have shone in the English church；such men as Jeremy Taylor；
Archbishop Whately； and Professor Mosley；affirm that these
doctrines are not only opposed to free…will； but represent God as
arbitrarily dooming a large part of the human race to future and
endless punishment； withholding from them his grace； by which alone
they can turn from their sins； creating them only to destroy them：
not as the potter moulds the clay for vessels of honor and
dishonor； but moulding the clay in order to destroy the vessels he
has made； whether good or bad； which doctrine they affirm conflicts
with the views usually held out in the Scriptures of God as a God
of love； and also conflicts with all natural justice； and is
therefore one…sided and narrow。
The premises from which this doctrine is deduced are those
Scripture texts which have the authority of the Apostle Paul； such
as these： 〃According as he hath chosen us in him before the
foundation of the world；〃 〃For whom he did foreknow he also did
predestinate；〃 〃Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated；〃 〃He hath
mercy on whom he will have mercy； and whom he will he hardeneth；〃
〃Hath not the potter power over his clay？〃 No one denies that from
these texts the Predestination of Calvin as well as Augustinefor
they both had similar viewsis logically drawn。 It has been
objected that both of these eminent theologians overlooked other
truths which go in parallel lines； and which would modify the
doctrine；even as Scripture asserts in one place the great fact
that the will is free； and in another place that the will is
shackled。 The Pelagian would push out the doctrine of free…will so
as to ignore the necessity of grace； and the Augustinian would push
out the doctrine of the servitude of the will into downright
fatalism。 But these great logicians apparently shrink from the
conclusions to which their logic leads them。 Both Augustine and
Calvin protest against fatalism； and both assert that the will is
so far free that the sinner acts without constraint； and
consequently the blame of his sins rests upon himself； and not upon
another。 The doctrines of Calvin and Augustine logically pursued
would lead to the damnation of infants； yet； as a matter of fact；
neither maintained that to which their logic led。 It is not in
human nature to believe such a thing； even if it may be
dogmatically asserted。
And then； in regard to sin： no one has ever disputed the fact that
sin is rampant in this world； and is deserving of punishment。 But
theologians of the school of Augustine and Calvin； in view of the
fact； have assumed the premisewhich indeed cannot be disputed
that sin is against an infinite God。 Hence； that sin against an
infinite God is itself infinite； and hence that； as sin deserves
punishment； an infinite sin deserves infinite punishment；a
conclusion from which consciousness recoils； and which is nowhere
asserted in the Bible。 It is a conclusion arrived at by
metaphysical reasoning； which has very little to do with practical
Christianity； and which； imposed as a dogma of belief； to be
accepted like plain declarations of Scripture； is an insult to the
human understanding。 But this conclusion； involving the belief
that inherited sin IS INFINITE； and deserving of infinite
punishment； appals the mind。 For relief from this terrible logic；
the theologian adduces the great fact that Christ made an atonement
for sin；another cardinal declaration of the Scripture；and that
believers in this atonement shall be saved。 This Bible doctrine is
exceedingly comforting； and accounts in a measure for the
marvellous spread of Christianity。 The wretched people of the old
Roman world heard the glad tidings that Christ died for them； as an
atonement for the sins of which they were conscious； and which had
chained them to despair。 But another class of theologians deduced
from this premise； that； as Christ's death was an infinite
atonement for the sins of the world； so all men； and consequently
all sinners； would be saved。 This was the ground of the original
Universalists； deduced from the doctrines which Augustine and
Calvin had formulated。 But they overlooked the Scripture
declaration which Calvin never lost sight of； that salvation was
only for those who believed。 Now inasmuch as a vast majority of
the human race； including infants； have not believed； it becomes a
logical conclusion that all who have not believed are lost。 Logic
and consciousness then come into collision； and there is no relief
but in consigning these discrepancies to the realm of mystery。
I allude to these theological difficulties simply to show the
tyranny to which the mind and soul are subjected whenever
theological deductions are invested with the same authority as
belongs to original declarations of Scripture； and which； so far
from being systematized； do not even always apparently harmonize。
Almost any system of belief can be logically deduced from Scripture
texts。 It should be the work of theologians to harmonize them and
show their general spirit and meaning； rather than to draw
conclusions from an