1
10
4
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b3cca79dbeaa83f3cffac54c6c80e89e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=rr6nM9ezxyEhHYJFnXxy3wb-g3XGIpuWrE6u6gEnPlNyxXJoKShLkWji9o4P0cXuQWRrCyFTIS%7EfdotWzSDEqQmeuPM0jdQolPlI-c3He9%7ECupvsplMRzmx%7EloJsiX9DBnBg01wVPlbvjNZRGfibpFMZS7-ENOetVczWcn8CoVbxwyNixrvATX%7ETPXxoISJ3ofveUQR2z5RCqhrEIr77Ry6lqqaRn%7EQoodRQGo%7E4fa4hdkeLlxkIHFg5vdFRmpzxc9eBW%7EFIHMWPgi0QHF00dsbmgh885CVotjdkUPqWhtQzvwCh3vlR-I7U9yeA-69ruXE4VoRaGCow8QSA%7EMcKeg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f33bf8a615fa5f1f91637e91e11c8dd1
PDF Text
Text
GOD’S METHOD OF GOVERNMENT.
A DIALOGUE.
BY THE LATE
BEV. JAMES CRANBROOK,
EDINBURGH.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
��<GOD’S METHOD OF GOVERNMENT.
PROPOSE discoursing this evening upon certain
evangelical or Calvinistical views of God’s method
•of government. And I think I shall be able to treat
the subject more fairly if I throw it into the form of a
supposed dialogue, held between three gentlemen in one
of the private rooms of an Edinburgh hotel. The
gentlemen were comparatively strangers to each other,
and knew nothing of each other’s religious creed. But
they had met in a tour through the Highlands, and
being pleased with each other’s company, they had kept
together, and on their way homewards had stopped in
Edinburgh, to see what sights therein may be seen.
Amongst other places, they had been to John Knox’s
house, and had looked out of the window whence he
had frequently addressed the people. In the course of
some remarks upon the house, the conversation which
I am now to relate to you arose. The three gentlemen
will be distinguished by the names, Orthodoxies, Mysticus, and Dubitans, each expressive of their respective
stand-points. Orthodoxies, a Calvinist of the old ortho
dox school; Mysticus, one of those semi-mystical theo
logians of the present day, who attempt by metaphysics
to explain away or make appear rational and consistent
with modern thought, the essential principles of the old
system; and Dubitans, who has discarded all belief in
a supernatural revelation, and finds his God revealed in
the whole course of nature.
Orthodoxus had just said he thought something
more ought to be done by the civil authorities for the
preservation of the house, and laying open to the public
I
�4
God’s Method of Government.
so precious a memorial of the Reformation, when Dubitans rejoined that as a relic of the Reformation it had
some interest; hut, for his part, that interest became
wholly lost when it became associated with the name
of Knox, the least learned, the least gifted, and there
fore the most narrow and bigotted of all the reformers.
Orthodox'us. I am surprised to hear you say so. To
me it seems all that is free and religious in this land
must be ascribed to Knox and those who were associ
ated with him.
Dubitans. With regard to the freedom, I think that
a great mistake. The leaders of the movement did
nothing but give to it the definite form which it as
sumed. The people were the real source of the living,
free spirit which established the Reformation and the
political revolution which followed it; and had Knox
and the other leaders never existed, the freedom would
have been created in other, and possibly better, forms.
And then, with regard to the religion, what Knox
really did was to narrow the views of Calvin, and rivet
his system upon the nation in harsher and more repul
sive forms.
0. I fear by what you say you do not accept the
doctrines of Calvinism, and have slipped away from
that sure -ground of anchorage for some one of the new
fangled systems which have sprung up in the present
day. If such be the case, I trust you are looking well
to the ground on which you stand, and are not trusting
your precious, immortal soul to the uncertain results of
mere idle speculation.
D. It is because I have renounced idle speculation,
and am resting all my beliefs upon pure and simple
facts, that I have rejected Calvinism and all other forms
of supernaturalism.
0. My dear sir, you surely mistake. Calvinism rests
upon the most indubitable facts in existence. It appeals
to the experience of all mankind in confirmation of its
truths, and is derived from a revelation established by
�A Dialogue.
5
the most certain evidence. If you rested your beliefs
upon facts, you would most assuredly accept the Calvinistical- system.
D. Will you kindly mention to me one or two of
those facts which lie at the foundation of the system 1
0. Readily. And first, and most important of all,,
is the doctrine, or fact rather, of human depravity..
No one can doubt that human nature is depraved.
The evidence of it appears wherever we turn. The
policeman in the streets is a walking testimony to the
sad truth. Our gaols, our gallows, our laws, our judges,
all proclaim it aloud. The little infant just born, by
its cries of angry passion, bears witness. And we all
go astray from our birth, speaking lies. What sadder
proof could we have of the all-important scriptural doc
trine of human depravity ?
D. In conversations upon such subjects it is
absolutely necessary to have clear definitions of the
terms we employ. Will you therefore be kind enough
to explain to me what you mean by human depravity1?
0. By human depravity I mean that state of sin and
wickedness into which we have come by Adam’s trans
gression, in virtue of which all men at all times commit
sin or tend to the commission of sin.
D. And do you mean to say then that our gaols,
policemen, and laws, and the passions of infants, prove
that our nature became corrupted through Adam’s
transgression ?
0. No. They do not exactly prove that; but they
prove that our nature is corrupt.
D. Then you have given me in your definition two
factors, an alleged fact and an opinion.’ The alleged
fact is that all men universally sin. The opinion is
that this fact of sin arises out of the corruption of
men’s original nature through the sin of Adam. Ex
perience establishes the fact, you say. The opinion is
not derived from experience, but from the Bible.
0. You hardly state the fact of experience strong
�6
God’s Method of Government.
enough. Facts show not only that men universally
sin, hut also that their nature itself is sinful and
corrupt.
D. How so ?
0. Why, you must suppose that the nature which
always produces sin is in itself sinful and corrupt.
D. You must suppose—z.e., you must infer, conclude
by reason. So that again I remind you of my former
statement, experience merely gives the fact of universal
sin. The rest is inference, supposition, reasoning,
opinion, grafted upon the fact. Mow, to a certain
extent I admit the fact that men universally sin; but
I altogether contest the opinion that the sin proves a
sinful and corrupt nature.
0. Not prove a sinful and corrupt nature ! Then,
in the name of common sense, what does it prove ?
Does the vine produce thistles ? or the olive, brambles ?
D. The sins which men commit are transgressions
of some one or the other of the laws of their nature,
and they commit them through the want of knowledge
or sufficient self-discipline and control to act according
to the knowledge. They prove, therefore, not depravity,
but imperfection.
M. I do not accept our friend’s full system of
Calvinism, with its doctrine of universal depravity,
but there is the fact of sin existing in the world, the
darkest and most terrible evil, cursing man’s whole
existence.
D. I must confess I do not feel sin to be this dark
and terrible thing you represent it. You orthodox
people always seem to me to speak of it as though it
were a something of a distinct existence poured into
man’s heart and overwhelming his whole being in
ceaseless and unmitigated misery and wretchedness.
It is nothing of the kind. Sin is doing something
which does not lead to happiness. upon the whole and
in the long run. It is neither more nor less than that.
Now the great amount of happiness men enjoy shews
�A Dialogue.
7
me pretty conclusively that after all is said and done,
their wickedness is anything but of the character you
orthodox people make out. Upon the whole, the sum
of their happiness is much greater than the sum of
their miseries.
0. You have very greatly underrated the true
character of sin. Sin is the transgression of, or want
of conformity with, God’s holy and righteous law,
and the soul which sinneth shall die. It involves,
therefore, the eternal death of the soul, whatever
amount of happiness the sinner in his ignorance may
enjoy.
D. Observe, you are now again bringing in specula
tive opinions, and I thought we had agreed to rest our
beliefs upon facts. I have said that sin is trangression
of law, and by that I mean physical and intellectual,
as well as moral laws. As to the effects of sin, we
know them by experience. Whenever we violate a
law, it leads to suffering of some kind. But still,
experience proves that the suffering is much less than
the happiness in the world, and therefore, I say the
sin cannot exist to anything like the extent, or be
anything like so great an evil as you make out.
M. My conviction is, the real character and evil of
sin can only be seen in the incarnation and sacrifice of
the Son of God. When we see God giving up unto
the accursed death of the cross his only begotten Son,
and the Son voluntarily surrendering himself to death
that he may redeem men from sin, it is then that sin
comes out in its true character. And I do not mean
by this merely that it cost the Son of God so much
suffering to redeem men from it, but that its evil
character is seen in its contrast and antagonism to the
pure and holy love of God manifested in the sacrifice
of his Son.
0. I must just put in one word. I think our friend
Mysticus does not sufficiently bring out the infinite
sufferings the Son of God endured on the Cross to
�8
God's Method of Government.
atone for the transgressions of his elect. Those
infinite sufferings show above all things the exceedingly
dreadful and evil character of sin.
D. Of course, gentlemen so thoroughly versed in the
theology of your Church as you appear to be, will be
able to explain a point or two I never could understand
even when I myself was orthodox, but which are
essential to the whole system. Will you tell me in
what sense God made a sacrifice when he gave up his
Son ? and in what sense the Son of God made a sacri
fice when he gave himself up, as you call it 1
0. In what sense God made a sacrifice ? Why, he
sent forth his co-equal and co-eternal son as the infant
of the Virgin Mary, in the humiliating form of sinful
flesh, to live a life of ignominy and reproach, to endure
persecution and suffering, and at last to die the shame
ful death of the Cross, laden with the sins and guilt of
his elect. Surely that was a sacrifice, if ever there was
one !
D. You spoke of the Son as co-equal and co-eternal
with the Father 1 You give him all the infinite perfec
tions of God 1
0. Most certainly.
D. And these infinite perfections belong to him by
reason and necessity of his own proper nature, and are
not conferred or bestowed upon him ?
0. Certainly.
D. Then, of course, these perfections are unchange
able and indestructible.
0. Of course.
D. It is also the property of God not to suffer ; he
is impassible, as the theologians call it ?
0. It is the essential glory of God to live in the en
joyment of his own absolutely perfect being, inde
pendently of all things without himself. Were the
whole universe to perish, he would still be as glorious
and as blessed—rejoicing in his own absolute per
fection.
�A Dialogue.
9
D. Precisely, and the Son being God, possesses the
same self-sufficiency, independence, and unchangeable
glory and blessedness 1
0. Most assuredly.
D. Then when he became incarnate through the
Virgin Mary, his real and true glory and blessedness
remained unchanged; he continued as perfect and as
happy as he had been through all the past eternity ?
0. That is the doctrine of the church.
D. Then I return my 'former question, Wherein was
the sacrifice made by the incarnation ? Sacrifice is the
giving up of something; what did the Son of God
give up 1 Not his own true and proper glory and
blessedness, you say ; that he could not do as God.
0. He did not give them up, but he veiled them in
the garment of flesh—the infinite condescended and
humiliated himself to appear as the finite.
D. To whom were his perfections veiled ? To the
Father and himself?
0. Of course not.
D. To angels ?
0. No; for even the devils saw his glory and dis
cerned him to be the Son of God.
D. How then was his glory veiled ?
0. Men did not see it. There was no form or
comeliness that they should desire him.
D. Had they seen it before his incarnation 1
0. That depends upon whether we are to consider
the manifestations of God under the Old Testament as
made by the Son.
D. However, that is a critical point you cannot
solve. And at all events, they did not know it was
the Son as distinct from the Father. So that it is
perfectly correct to say the glory or perfections of
the Son as the Son were not discerned before his
incarnation.
0. It seems so.
D. Then how can you call the incarnation a veiling
�io
God's Method of Government.
of his perfections—a hiding of them ? These werediscerned by God the Father, by himself, by angels, by
devils, by all who had ever discerned them before
they only continued to be undiscerned by those who
had never discerned them. I cannot see what humilia
tion or lowering himself there is in that. Nay, I must
go further; according to your theory, the incarnation
became a means through which the perfections of the
Son of God were manifested to men—not at the time
being, but afterwards, when the Spirit enabled the
disciples to discern the meaning of all that he did and
suffered. So that upon your own showing the incar
nation, instead of humiliating, glorified him. And
therefore, I ask again, where was the sacrifice ?
0. You are forgetting all that he suffered on the
Cross.
D. All that who suffered ?
0. The Son of God.
D. The Son of God suffer ! Dreadful! I thought
you told me a little time ago that he possessed the
infinite perfections of God, inalienable and unchange
able. How then could he suffer ?
0. Well, it was not exactly the Son of God who
suffered, but the man Christ Jesus; but in virtue of
the mystical union of the divine and human in his
person, it is counted and is as though the divine
suffered.
D. It is counted and is as though the divine suffered !.
But did the divine nature suffer or not 1
0. The divine nature cannot suffer.
D. Then the Son of God did not suffer, and the
sufferings of the Cross were only the finite sufferings of
the man Christ Jesus. Again, I ask, where is the
sacrifice ?
M. I think our friend Orthodoxus has given you an
undue advantage by adhering to the old Calvinistical
system too closely. I regard the incarnation and death
of Christ as a pure and simple manifestation of God’s
�A Dialogue.
11
love. You will surely admit that it was an act of
infinite condescension upon the part of God when he
took upon himself our nature, and in the person of the
son lived amongst us, teaching, healing all manner of
disease and sickness, enduring the opposition of man,
and at last laying down his life upon the Cross. All
this was done to shew men the evil of sin, and to win
them hack into the paths of holiness. It was the outcoming of God’s infinite pity and grace to us ; and
therefore, I say, “Behold what manner of love the
Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called
the sons of God.”
D. You have spoken of all this as being done and
endured by the Son of God. Of course you mean it
was done by Christ Jesus. The Son of God, as has
been admitted, could not in himself suffer, &c. Taking
that for granted, the Son of God merely inspires,
animates, or moves the man Jesus to do these things.
They are still finite actions, although done by a divine
impulse.
M. I admit that; but it was infinite love and con
descension of God to so enter into union with the
human nature as to become its impulse and animating
principle.
D. But you must now admit that it does not differ
from other manifestations of God’s love and condescen
sion, except in degree. All excellent men, all the
saints, are manifestations of God’s love in that way.
He animates their good actions and is the impulse of
them. And they are precisely of the same outward
form and character. It is human goodness, kindness,
truthfulness, love, and endurance which we see, although
of a divine impulse.
M. Yes ; but they possess divine dignity and glory
because of the union of the divine and human in his
person.
D. You give me an opinion superinduced upon the
fact. You do not see the divine dignity and glory in
�12
God's Method of Government.
the acts ; you merely see what is human. Afterwards,
the theological dogma about the union of the natures
leads you to infer the dignity and glory. But that can
have no practical influence whatsoever. The influence
is derived directly from the facts. So that it seems to
me this modern theory which you seem to have embraced
is the weakest of all the theories. You admittedly have
none but human love, goodness, purity, and truthful
ness manifested in Christ. You then add on, to give
effect to these things, the doctrine of the incarnation,
by which you suppose the human actions obtain a
divine glory. You call the Son of God’s being thus
connected with and animating the man Christ Jesus an
act of infinite love and self-sacrifice, and yet you have
to admit the Son of God gives up no single item of
his perfections, glory, and blessedness in the act. You
give up the old doctrine of the atonement.
M. I beg pardon, I do not. I hold it in a modified
form.
D. What form ?
M. Why, I think that Christ, by offering himself
a victim in obedience to the Father’s will, performed
the highest act of sacrifice, and all those who believe
in him have such fellowship with him in the sacrifice,
that it becomes their own, whereby they are delivered
from sin and made to partake of the blessedness of
eternal life.
I). Your terms are very vague. But at all events,
the sacrifice is not the endurance of suffering in lieu
of suffering; it is simply the exertion of a moral
influence which saves from suffering merely by purify
ing and bringing the mind of the saved into sympathy
with the mind of the Saviour. Now this is an abandon
ment of the old ideas of atonement and sacrifice, and,
disguise it as you will, the substituting for them of
merely the influence of a holy example. I admit that
is more rational, but it is less scriptural; and the
nationality is all merged by the introduction of the
�A Dialogue.
*
13
incarnation, in order to enforce the example which is
just as efficacious without it.
0. I perfectly agree with you. If I gave up my
Calvinism, I would give up the whole system of revela
tion which falls to pieces without it. But let me
remind you that, notwithstanding all you have said,
there remains the grand doctrine of the atonement
wherein Christ endured for his elect the infinite suffer
ings due to their sins.
D. You mean the man Christ Jesus endured them.
How could a being who is necessarily finite endure
what is infinite ?
0. By reason of his connection with Deity.
D. But you cannot infuse infinite properties into a
finite nature, else that would be making a man into a
Cod. Whatever that mysterious union you talk of in
the person of Jesus Christ of the divine and human,
the divine nature could not suffer at all; and the
human nature could not suffer what is infinite. So
that, after all, your infinite sacrifice for the elect
becomes a mere finite sacrifice offered by a man.
Orthodoxus—who had lately shown considerable signs
of uneasiness, here gathered himself up in his chair
with great dignity, and looking upon his companion
very gravely, begged, in the most pompous manner, to
say-—My dear sir, you and I have enjoyed many pleasant
days together in our recent tour, and to-morrow we
separate, perhaps never to meet again in this lower
world; but we shall meet hereafter at the judgment
bar of God. At the risk of even offending you, which
I should be unwilling to do, I must deliver myself from
the blood of your soul. You seem to me to be entirely
lost in a maze of carnal reasonings, which the Evil One
is always ready to lead self-sufficient intellects into. As
a friend, I therefore warn you of the danger in which
you stand. My brother, your precious soul is in jeo
pardy ! Yes ! your precious, never-dying, immortal
soul. There is only one name given under heaven
�14
God's Method of Government.
whereby men. can be saved, and yon are rejecting that
name. In yonr pride of intellect, you say, I will not
have this man to reign over me. What must be your
doom ? Ah ! already I seem to see the events of the
last great day. There sits the Judge, no longer the
meek and lowly Saviour you despise, but the righteous
and holy One, with eyes like a flame of fire, piercing
through and through you. Around him stand ten
thousand times ten thousand angels, ready to conduct
his elect to the joys of Paradise, and thrust down the
unbelievers to Hell. There, my friend, must you
stand and pass your last solemn trial. You reject
Christ, you put from you his precious sacrifice.
Nothing, therefore, can save you from the sentence,
which already methinks I hear pronounced—“Depart
from me, ye cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for
the Devil and his angels.” Then will you realize the
woes in the hymn of that devout servant of God, Dr
Bonar:—
“ Descend, 0 sinner, to the woe!
Thy day of hope is done;
Light shall revisit thee no more,
Life, with its sanguine dream, is o’er,
Love reaches not yon awful shore;
For ever sets thy sun.
“ Call upon God, he hears no more;
Call upon death, ’tis dead;
Ask the live lightnings in their flight,
Seek for some sword of hell and night,
The worm that never dies, to smite,
No weapon strikes its head.
“Descend, 0 sinner, to the gloom!
Hear the deep judgment knell
Send forth its terror-shrieking sound
These walls of adamant around,
And filling to its utmost bound
The woful, woful hell!
“ Depart, 0 sinner, to the chain!
Enter the eternal cell;
, To all that’s good, and true, and right,
To all that’s fond, and fair, and bright,
To all of holiness and light,
Bid thou thy last farewell! ”
�A Dialogue.
J5
Alas 1 my friend, there shall he weeping, and wailing.,
and gnashing of teeth. Already I seem to hear the
despairing cry of your soul—I am lost, I am lost for
ever.
Orthodoxus had delivered his speech with great ex
citement, rising out of his chair in the midst of it,
waving his hand about in the air, and using most
vehement gesture. He sat down bathed in perspira
tion. When a minute’s silence had followed, Mysticus
turned towards Dubitans, and said : I cannot concur
with those denunciatory terms our friend has used, and
I think they misrepresent the character of God’s govern
ment. I have hope that at last the worst will be
rescued and saved. But, my dear sir, I am not less
■concerned about your soul than is he. I would rather,
however, draw you by the tender love and grace of our
God. I can hardly believe that you have ever fairly
looked at that grace as manifested in his beloved Son,
nr surely your heart would have long ago been melted
and won. Think, my dear sir, of all he has done for
you. See him born in poverty, a tiny infant in the
manger of Bethlehem. See him toiling along the lanes
of Palestine, and through the hot sun-scorched streets
of its cities, during the whole of a weary life, to do
good to men. Oh, precious Jesus 1 how he endures so
meekly the stupidity of his disciples, the treachery of
false friends, the sneers of the self-righteous Pharisees,
the contempt of infidel Sadducees, the brutality of the
mob ! How he hungers and thirsts, and has not where
to lay his head ! How ready he is to forget himself in
the service of others! Then, come to the last sad
scenes. Ah! see through shadows of the trees of
Olives that prostrate form in prayer. Hear what in his
agony he cries : “ Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou
wilt.” Ah! what is that which bedews his forehead, his
cheeks, and falls upon the ground 1 It is the sweat of
agony in great drops of blood ! Follow him to Pilate’s
�16
God's Method of Government.
judgment-hall. See him there spit upoD, and crowned
with thorns. Stand now on Calvary : behold the
victim of man’s sin and the gift of God’s love. Oh,
dark hour of sorrow ! What agonies the sinless One
endures, and how lovingly he bears it all! Not the
nails, not the laceration of the flesh, produce that dole
ful agony, but a deeper sorrow, poured forth in those
memorable words, “Eli, Eli, lama sabacbthani,” &c.
And now, let earth be clothed in darkness, for the
Son of God bows his head, and gives up the ghost!
And why ? Why all this sorrow ? Ah ! my friend,
for you, for you, for you he dies, that you may be won
to God, and be blessed for ever. Oh ! turn, turn unto
him, and yield your heart in recompence for such love,.
“Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my heart, my life, my all.”
During both these addresses Duhitans had sat very
quietly, resting his head upon his hand, and listening
with great, though apparently amused, attention.
When Mysticus had done, he quietly moved round
his chair, facing them more directly, and said: I
suppose I ought to be grateful to you both for the
deep anxiety you have shown for the salvation of my
soul. I am afraid my gratitude is not so deep as it
ought to be, but I will prove it to the full extent in my
power, by making a speech to you in return for your
own. Bear with me, then, while I say I think, Orthodoxus, the whole system of Calvinism, with its doc
trines of human depravity, predestination, atonement,
and punishment, one of the most grossly immoral and
degrading systems that ever was propounded by man.
It represents God as an omnipotent fiend, without the
sense of common justice, and much less of goodness
and love. Here he creates and sends into this world
millions upon millions of wretched beings, with natures
�A Dialogue.
<7
so depraved that they cannot but sin. Amongst them
he has a select few, for whom he made his Son endure
the sufferings due to the sins they could not help; these
he changes into saints by a supernatural power called
grace, and at last brings to blessedness. The rest—the
millions upon millions, being denied the grace, without
which they could not be changed into saints—perish,
and perish everlastingly. Hopelessly they are thrust
into eternal torments, and that for crimes they could
not possibly avoid, since Adam fell. Such a system is
perfectly fiendish; and a god who could so govern the
world would be a monster of iniquity, deserving to be
scouted out of the universe by all the creatures he has
made. Bor my part, if I were the creature of such a
god, all the torments he could inflict upon me by his
omnipotence should not make me cease to look upon
him with loathing and disgust. And as for your
system, Mysticus, it has but few more charms in my
eyes than that of Orthodoxus. You deny, indeed, the
iniquitous doctrine of eternal punishment, but you have
no right to do so. It is the doctrine of the New Testa
ment. To deny that seems to me a disgraceful tamper
ing with words to suit a necessity created by your
false position. You endeavour, by the help of your
moral and spiritual instincts, to get a system of religion
out of the Bible consistent with the thought and spirit
of the present day. Your attempt is in vain. The
system of the New Testament is an embodiment of
thought and spirit of the second century, not of the
nineteenth. I have read all that your leaders, Maurice,
Robertson, and the rest, have to say. It is vague,
illogical, and will not bear the test of analysis for one
moment. Your words are full of mysticism, which,
as soon as explained, throws you back on the old
Calvinism, or reduces your system to merely human
elements. The truth of it is, my friends, you are both
of you leaning on a broken reed. You are resting upon
the infallible inspiration of the Bible, the one of you
�18
God’s Method of Government.
endeavouring to sustain by it the theology of the six
teenth and seventeenth centuries, and the other a
mongrel system you have devised in the nineteenth,
out of a patchwork of modern metaphysics and old
theologies. But for that infallibility you have not the
shadow of a proof. The evidence altogether breaks
down when it is thoroughly examined. The books you
rest upon mostly belong to the second century. Their
statement of facts is mingled with myths; and most
•certainly they are directly opposed to all the conceptions
of modern science and the whole spirit and thinking of
this age. I exhort you, therefore, in return for the ex
hortations you have addressed to me, to throw off these
terrible superstitions by which your reason is enthralled.
Look the facts fairly and fully in the face, and then you
will learn that these notions of yours are only the con
ceptions of ignorant and barbarous times, and that by
far higher and better laws than you have dreamed of
God governs the world.
Here the waiter brought in their supper, soon after
which they retired to bed. Next morning they break
fasted separately, in order to suit the time of their re
spective trains, and went their way each one to his own
home. Which of them upheld the truth in their dis
cussion, I shall leave you all to judge.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
God's method of government: a dialogue
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Cranbrook, James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 18 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1874
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1598
CT157
Subject
The topic of the resource
God
Calvinism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (God's method of government: a dialogue), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Calvinism
Conway Tracts
God
Heaven
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/5a7bb7e347950d015d9378774e0a302d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uzoRF0F7NwQNzUIXl5ZtEBrJvDWNWonViqLU7izKsaOr1fzRWAuoSvN9Mp6SDF2vvS92vKTGz5loiBYEKtzQjf8Cd%7ETv4MniSRwkIhBvVCCmiQumKcXh3T0tzYF8DiP-dls2BxT5j2Rlu%7EuRSOktBKrEcU%7E67QFHimTPbdeGHAgNaliARlAGwrR8ccFBr9EAmKhxfRfTIqx8dDvMk44Otej6yGFsPkcahi9MtyEsEOfCa8oveAybWufYypMFK8S9fwmVXKjPzk4hKu-EdVdOqqMDDFZ5DniX2BSZjnONLEJfN4KuEpMKwP6MY6sFAmVC4JuK7LNrUQO%7ERFUBRUC6sw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
483a75826e6765c06c64cb7de79ed0ff
PDF Text
Text
THE
CARDINAL DOGMAS OP CALVINISM
TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN.
MATT.
M A C FIE.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Sixpence.
��THE CARDINAL DOGMAS OF CALVINISM
TRACED TO THEIR ORIGIN.
T is not my business at present to dogmatise. I
propose to submit to the reader a historical sketch,
rather than a doctrinal disquisition. A rational mind
finds the ground on which to reject orthodox dogmas
conclusive enough, in the fact that they are felt to be
at variance with reason. But it cannot fail to strengthen
the convictions which spring directly from the exercise
of common sense, to be assured that those convictions
are supported by history. The inductive method to be
applied here in disproving the doctrine of unconditional
and eternal election, may be applied with equal success
in demolishing, point by point, the entire system of
Calvinistic theology. Ex uno disee omnes.
It is much more rare to hear the repulsive dogmas
of Calvinism preached now than it was a quarter of a
century ago. They still linger, however, under a more
or less austere aspect in town and country. They are
publicly taught by not a few clergymen who received
them as a traditional inheritance, which they would
deem it sacrilegious to inquire narrowly into. They
are professed by many laymen also. Some of these
laymen have outlived Calvinism in heart, though they
are unable to muster the courage necessary to avow
their opinions openly; others of them, with yet less
independence of thought, cling to the system with
simply a blind sentimentalism which rests in the wor
ship of the past.
I
�4
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
The doctrine of eternal and unconditional election
would have no place in Calvinistic theology, but for the
alleged “fall” of Adam, and the supposed fatal conse
quences of this catastrophe to the human race. The
doctrine under notice represents God as foreseeing that
such an untoward event would happen, and as, in con
sequence, proposing in a past eternity to save a limited
portion of mankind from the eternal ruin which their
own sin directly, and the imputed sin of the first man
indirectly, should bring upon them. This deliverance
of the elect from the ceaseless punishment of hell, to
which the non-elect were exposed, was determined
upon by God unconditionally—one might almost say,
arbitrarily, according to Calvinism. The choice is
said to have been sovereign, absolute, spontaneous,__
without any perception on the part of Deity of’in
herent merit as distinguished from ill-desert in the
elected persons, in order that all pretext for their
taking any credit to themselves in the transaction
should be excluded, and that the unreasoning pre
ference of the infinite chooser might be vindicated
and extolled. The web of metaphysical exposition
that has been woven round this tenet of orthodoxy is
indescribably ingenious and complicated. The profound
treatises which have attempted to deal with the topic
during the last fourteen centuries, have been legion.
The controversies that have been waged all through
that period about it, are they not familiar to every
student of that most unsatisfactory branch of theolo
gical learning- Churcli History ? "Who can number
the honest minds that have been narrowed and twisted
by the dismal teaching of the creed of which this
doctrine is the central element!
The Pantheist is consistent and intelligible, however
strongly we may disagree with him, when he frankly
says that “he cannot frame to himself the conception
of a personal God j that he cannot understand sin as
real, but only as apparent in the universe, and that
�Traced to their Origin.
5
what physical and moral disorder exists no power can
remove, till, in the slow progress of events, the world
has gained sufficient scientific knowledge and experience
to swamp what we are accustomed to call wrong-doing
and folly. All error, absurdity, and evil work their own
cure by wearing themselves out. What we technically
call sin, marks the fact that mankind has on certain
matters to pass from a state of ignorance to a state of
knowledge.” This view may be right, or it may be
wrong, but it has at least the advantage of leaving out
all implied moral imputations upon the character of a
personal deity. The assertion that an intelligent God
predestined only a certain number to everlasting life
necessarily carries with it the anterior condition, that
he must have fated the circumstances which made that
predestination inevitable. Unless the Calvinist is pre
pared to believe that there is a devil in the universe
equally potent with the Almighty—a conception as im
possible as it is monstrous,-—he is bound to hold that
God deliberately arranged for corruption and death,
material, spiritual, and everlasting, to flood the world.
For without this supposition the theory of a media
torial ransom for the favourites of the Calvinistic deity
would be meaningless. I pass over the horrid but
necessary counterpart of the doctrine of the eternal and
unconditional election of some, namely, the eternal and
unconditional reprobation of others. With such a
representation of God constantly before the mind, the
Predestinarians must from the first have been unique
in the grounds of their reverence for their deity. Con
flict with reason could surely no further go than appears
in the spectacle of their professed devotion and affec
tion for his character and will, in spite of the crimes
and cruelties ascribed to him by their creed, which
traces to his agency and permission acts totally irreconcileable with the principles of human reason, right, and
benevolence. That there should be found in Europe
and America a section of civilised men venerating the
�6
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
Calvinistic God, despite characteristics in him which
would be denounced as intolerable if seen in a human
being, is itself an unanswerable reply to all the theolo
gical rant about the universality of human depravity.
If ever argument was wanting to retrieve the libelled
character of mankind, and atone for its imperfections,
it is abundantly supplied in the worship and consecra
tion shown by so many to the God of eternal and un
conditional election ! Never was the mantle of charity
so forbearingly thrown over the vices of man by man,
as has in this case been thrown over the vices of deity
by man.
The dogma under consideration is somewhat anachronously designated when associated with the name of
Calvin; The origin of the doctrine dates back just
eleven centuries before the Reformation, and, to no
earlier a period. Its real author was Augustine,
Bishop of Hippo, who flourished in the fifth century;
The system known as Calvinism is little more than a
revival of Augustinianism. A section of the Roman
Catholic Church in the time of the Genevan Reformed
had veered round into the track of practical Pelagianism, and in order to beat down what Calvin held to be
deadly error, he repaired to the armoury of Augustine,
and furbished up the old weapons of the saint to fight
over again the battle of Grace versus Works. The
question returned, “ Can man think or do any right
thing of himself ? ” “ Yes, certainly,” said the semi
Pelagian of Calvin’s day. “ No, nothing,” replied
Calvin, “ without the inspiration of the sovereign,
eternal, and electing grace of God.” The two postu
lates on which the entire predestinarian scheme, as
originated by Augustine, and revived by Calvin, rested,
were original sin inherited from Adam, and the irrespon
sible sovereignty of God. Prom these premises it was
plausibly argued by Augustine that “ an absolute
election of certain individuals to eternal life, though
resulting from the divine will purely, is not on the
�Traced to their Origin.
7
part of the supreme ruler abstractedly unjust. For
since, both by original and actual sin, all are trans
gressors of God’s law, it were assuredly no injustice if
all had been left to perish. Therefore, if all might
justly be left to perish, clearly no breach of justice can
be committed in the free election of some to eternal
life.” Strange metaphysical infatuation to blind a
great mind like Augustine’s ! What caused “ original
sin ? ” The predetermination of God. What caused
“ actual sin ? ” Proximately it miist have been original
sin. Therefore, for God to save a few sinners, and to
hold the rest responsible fortheir doom—-a doom which
could only be averted either by his predestinating that
sin should not enter in any shape into the world, or
by his exerting some irresistible influence in redeeming
the non-elect, is a palpable and cruel injustice. But
the exigencies of a theological system with a polemical
divine are vastly more urgent than any scruples about
the moral issues of the system. Consequently, Augus
tine, with all the partisan zeal of a retained counsel,
rushed blindly on in the narrow ruts of his scholasti
cism, and we need not be surprised, therefore, to read
these words of his respecting the elect and the repro
bate :—“ Although in the present state we cannot cer
tainly know the elect from the reprobate (for as
the reprobate may seem for a time to be leading holy
lives, so the elect, anterior to their effectual calling
may for a time appear to be in nowise actuated by
godliness), yet a definite number of individuals, as well
from among the existing members of the visible church
as from the great mass of the unbelieving world at
large, who shall hereafter become members of the
visible church, are, by the mere sovereign pleasure
of God, personally elected to eternal salvation.” So
strong a passage prepares us for one still stronger in
the same direction, written apparently under the in
fluence of a remorseless logic which utterly tramples
on the sentiments of even common humanity, to say
�8
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
nothing of deity. “ Since the number of the elect can
neither can be increased or diminished, all the rest of
mankind, equally by the mere sovereign pleasure of
God, being ultimately given over to the unrestrained
exercise of their own free will, are personally repro
bated to eternal damnation.”
In natural sequence to this terrific assertion we next
encounter the theory of “particular redemption,” the
necessity for which latter dogma previous links in the
chain of argument had created. “ When it is said,” says
Augustine, “that God will have all to be saved, though in
point of fact, all men are not saved, this language relates
exclusively to the elect, who, through God’s sovereign
pleasure are out of all classes of men predestined to
eternal life.” True to his favourite tenet of originale
pjeccatum, which he believed to involve the mass of men
in hopeless spiritual insensibility, Augustine summons
to his aid the correlated dogma of “ effectual calling ”
and dovetails it into his system. “ In due season,” he
says, “vrhile to the reprobate reproof acts only as a
penal torment, to the elect that same reproof is instru
mentally blessed as a salutary medicine.” Having
thus reasoned out to his own satisfaction the remote
and proximate causes of human depravity ; having set
forth the outward provision for the cure of this evil
which he tells us was expressly and exclusively
ordained for the benefit of the elect; having further
put forward the doctrine that the elect were supernaturally inspired with an inclination to appropriate
effectually the provided cure, only one more theological
extravagance was wanted to round off and cap this
dismal system. Augustine taught “the final perse
verance of all the elect through the indefectible grace
of God; ” that is to say, their safe conduct to heaven.
This synopsis of the bishop’s theory, stated for the
most part in Iris own words, covers all that need be
said now in the way of preliminary exposition.
It is not generally known, however, that the contem-
�Traced to their Origin.
9
poraries of Augustine rejected the views which I have
summarized, as “ novelties,” and demanded his authority
for dogmas so unheard of in the previous experience of
the church. But the following facts will enable us
to judge for ourselves the actual -worth of the testimony
he laboured to adduce in their support.
The first occasion on which he is known to have
promulgated his peculiar theories was in his contro
versy with Pelagius, Celestius, Julian, and their
followers, on “ Divine grace and human nature.” The
points at issue between the combatants are briefly as
follows: the Church asserted first that “ the grace of
God is not given according to man’s antecedent merits.”
Secondly, that “whatever may be the comparative
righteousness of one man in particular, no person lives
in this corruptible body without incurring the actual
guilt of a certain degree of positive sinfulness.”
Thirdly, that “we are all born obnoxious to the sin
of the first man, and consequently are all subject
to damnation unless the guilt which is contracted in
our generation be removed by our regeneration.”
These were the points stoutly argued by Augustine in
.behalf of the church. The Pelagians, on the contrary,
insisted that “we only sin by vicious imitation and
that grace is given according to antecedent merit.”
Augustine appealed in favour of his views—which all
orthodox people have done ever since—to the bible,*
* What orthodox ism cannot be proved from the bible?
It is on record that a Cambridge professor a century or two
back, got the notion into his head that the book of Psalms
could be interpreted throughout on a new hermeneutical
principle, viz.: that of rain. He solemnly believed and
maintained that the Psalmist had before his mind the idea of
moisture in composing every verse of his Psalms, and when
the Professor comes upon the beautiful words, “Light is
sown for the righteous • and gladness for the upright in
heart,” as might be expected, he canters easily over critical
difficulties. He gravely explains, “ Light was produced among
the Orientals by oil expressed from the castor tree, and the
castor tree was nourished and refreshed by rain!”
�io
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
as interpreted by the fathers, and in particular, as
interpreted by Polycarp (who was reported to have
received his theology direct from the Apostle John),
St Cyprian of Carthage, and his own personal friend
and patron, Ambrose of Milan.
In the course of the controversy Augustine was
induced to publish a treatise on “ Correction and
Grace ” for the purpose of crushing the heresy against
which he fought. This treatise contains theological
speculations never before elaborated in support of ortho
doxy. Id this work the doctrinal system now known
as Calvinism first saw the light, and the theories of unconditionalism and necessitarianism, now for the first
time propounded, were strongly objected to by the
author’s most intimate friends and denounced by the
great majority of Augustine’s orthodox contemporaries
as “novelties.”
When this work on “ Correction and Grace ” reached
Gaul, Augustine’s notions in the book which were ac
counted “novel” were openly opposed. Prosper of
Aquitane, formerly a disciple of the bishop of Hippo,
and Hilary of Arles remonstrated with Augustine in
letters which they addressed to him on the subject
in the name of the believers of Massilia. In one of
these epistles we are told that many of “ the servants
of Christ ” who lived in Marseilles and in other parts
of Gaul (the description is given by Prosper himself)
had instructed Prosper and Hilary to expostulate with
Augustine. The following are the words of the ex
postulation: “We heartily approve of your general
confutation of Pelagius and his followers. But why
do you superfluously mingle with it a system of novel
peculiarities which we cannot receive 1 [The reference
here is to the distinctive Augustinian dogmas of uuconditionalism and necessitarianism now known as the
fundamentals of Calvinistic theology.] To say nothing
of what we at least deem the utter inconsistency of
that system with scripture, it is, in truth, quite new
�Traced to their Origin.
ii
to us. We never even so much as heard of it before.
We find it unsanctioned by any of the preceding
fathers, and we perceive it to be contrary to the sense
of the whole Catholic church.” The weight attaching
to this communication of the Massalian believers con
sists in the fact that they were general admirers of the
bishop of Hippo, whom, in this instance, however, they
felt bound to take to task, and they were not likely to
be animated by silly prejudice against him. For the
letter referred to, concludes in these flattering terms :
“ Be assured, however, that, this one matter excepted,
we cordially admire your holiness both in all your
doings and in all your sayings.”
Now the gist of the inquiry turns upon this point:
were the suspicions of the Massilians as to Augustine’s
novelties well-founded ? If they were, clearly the
dogmas of unconditionalism and necessitarianism had
no existence within the knowledge of the orthodox
church prior to the Pelagian controversy.
The remonstrance of Prosper and Hilary called forth
from the irrepressible bishop a published defence of
the “ novel ” positions he had taken up, in a second
treatise entitled “The predestination of the Saints and
the gift of Perseverance.” How does he attempt to
vindicate himself from the charges brought against his
doctrine by the Christians of Marseilles ? He falls back
on two sources of proof: the authority of the Catholic
church, and the testimony of the preceding fathers,
though the Massilian Christians denied that support
could be found for his views either in the one quarter
or in the other. In reference to the former of these
sources of proof he admits that the church “ was not
wont to bring forward in preaching, the doctrine of
predestination, because formerly there were no adver
saries to answer.” But yet he maintains that “not
withstanding her habitual silence on the topic, she
must have held the doctodne in question because she
has always prayed that unbelievers might be converted
�12
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
to the faith and that het levers might persevere to the
end.” So much for church authority and Augustine’s
way of manipulating it!
Let us now see how he manages to manufacture en
couragement for his “ novelties ” out of the testimony
of the fathers. Strange to say, from the whole host
of them he can only find three names as pillars for the
fabric of his “ novel peculiarities : ” Cyprian, GregoryNazianzen, and Ambrose, and the only assistance his
ingenuity could extract from these fathers consists only
of a very few brief and extremely ambiguous passages
from their writings. From these few vague passages
he draws the sweeping inference that “ these all har
moniously teach his system of predestination.” He
had already based his necessitarian dogmas on the
plea that the church had held the doctrine of final
perseverance, forgetting, as he did, that such a doctrine
as that of final perseverance might be logically enough
held by persons who repudiated altogether the notion
of unconditional election and predestination. We shall
soon find that his appeal to the fathers is as meagre,
frivolous, and unsatisfactory, as his appeal to the autho
rity of the church. We may be quite sure, from the
vast array of ancient names he opposed to Pelagianism that had he been able to bolster up his predestinarian system, especially by patristic authority, he would
not have contented himself, as he felt compelled to do
in this instance, with naming only three solitary fathers
as favouring his side of the question.
Now for the testimony from the fathers which he
adduces. Cyprian, the first of the three cited by
Augustine, flourished about the middle of the third
century, and the two others—Gregory Nazianzen and
Ambrose—in the latter part of the fourth century,
the two last named fathers actually belonging to the
patristic generation immediately preceding his own. So
that, after all his boasted claims for the antiquity and
inspired authority of his theories, he relied upon fathers,
�Traced to their Origin.
13
the earliest of whom lived as late as a century and a
half, at least, after the death of St John, and the latest
of whom was only his own senior by about twenty
years.
Had these three fathers yielded any distinct support
to the Augustinian theories, we might have been dis
posed to lay less stress on their remoteness from the
Apostles. But the passages the bishop of Hippo brings
forward from their writings, are found to be utterly
irrelevant, and show the desperate shifts to which he
was driven in attempting to make out his case.
What says Cyprian, on this subject of eternal and
unconditional election 1 He simply prayed along with
the “ Church Catholic ” that “ infidels might be con
verted, and that believers might persevere to the end.”
‘‘Therefore,” concludes Augustine, “this father must
have held my sentiments respecting Election and Re
probation.” Could logic be more completely set at
defiance ?
Again, Gregory-Nazianzen, exhorting his flock to
confess the Trinity in Unity, stated that “ he who gave
them in the first instance to believe that doctrine would
also give them in the second instance to confess it.”
A conclusion similar to the one just indicated, is
instantly drawn also from these words. Gregory is
supposed to be at one with Augustine.
Ambrose said that “ when a man became a Christian
he might fairly allege his own good pleasure in so
doing, without, in anywise, denying the good pleasure
of God; for it is from God that the will of man is pre
pared, and Christ calls him whom he pities.”
For any man in his senses—and especially a man of
the unquestioned talent of Augustine—-to clutch at such
a pretence of proof as is afforded by this passage, of the
doctrines of unconditional election and reprobation—reveals an ignorance of the first principles of reasoning
perfectly astounding.
Another passage from the writings of the same
�14
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
father, is quoted by the Bishop of Hippo for the same
purpose. It occurs in a comment by Ambrose on a
certain verse in St Luke’s gospel. Ambrose expresses
himself thus : “ Learn, also, that Christ would not be
received by those whom he knew had not been con
verted in simplicity of mind. For if he had so pleased,
he might, from being undevout, have made them devout.
But why they did not receive him, the Evangelist him
self shows us, when he says, ‘ because his face was as of
one going to Jerusalem.’ For the disciples were wish
ing him to be received into Samaria. God calls them
whom he deigns to call, and him whom he wills he
makes religious.”
On these two statements of Ambrose unitedly,
Augustine, with touching simplicity, based the opinion
that this father and himself were agreed on necessitarian
doctrines. But, in point of fact, so far from Cyprian,
Gregory and Ambrose intending to lend any counte
nance to Augustinian “ novelties,” passages might easily
be adduced from the works of all three demonstrating
that they were flatly opposed to these novelties. But
even had their teachings been apposite to Augustine’s
purpose, when it is remembered that the very earliest
of these witnesses was not born till a hundred and fifty
years after the last of the Apostles, the value of their
testimony becomes seriously impaired.
There are one or two further considerations worthy to
be noted as supplying evidence that the origin of the
specious opinions of Augustine could only be traced to
himself.
After Augustine’s death, Prosper, who became a
convert to the dogmas of Augustinianism, and was
carried away by heroic loyalty to the memory of his
great teacher, continued to defend them zealously. This
being the case, an appeal was made to the judgment
of Pope Celestine on the subject, and that pontiff, while
commending the skill and earnestness of Augustine
in contending with the Pelagians for “ the doctrines of
�Traced to their Origin.
J5
grace,” significantly enough passed over in silence the
two elaborate treatises which develop his “novel” views,
viz., “ Correction and Grace,” and “The predestination
of the saints and the gift of perseverance.” The Pope,
sensible of the obligation under which the Church of
Pome was laid to the learning, ability, and devotion of
Augustine, was naturally unwilling to deal out formal
censure against his controverted opinions, and thus ex
pose his memory to reproach. Celestine and his suc
cessors, therefore, chose to evade the appeals made to
them to pronounce against the necessitarian dogmas of
the Bishop of Hippo. From an early preface to “ the
Predestination of the Saints and the gift of persever
ance,” we learn that, in the time of Leo the Great,
the dispute as to Augustine’s new views, was still un
settled in the church, and ultimately this pope adopted
the evasive method of referring it to the Council of
Orange, which sat in the year 441, that the Council
might bear the responsibility of gravely deliberating
and of finally deciding on the subject. It must be
candidly owned that the judges in this council were as
far removed from prejudice as men of their type and
times could possibly be, and yet they found Augustine’s
sentiments to be contrary to the most ancient and
authorised interpretations of the Bible, and though
they make no direct allusion to his “ novelties ” in the
first twenty-four canons framed by them, still, in the
closing canon, they assert in manifest opposition to
these novelties, that “ all baptised Christians may,
through grace, if they will only labour faithfully,
accomplish those things which appertain to their salva
tion, and that the doctrine of God’s predestination of
some certain individuals to evil is not only to be dis
believed, but also TO BE ANATHEMATISED WITH ALL
detestation.” The Council of Orange met expressly
to consider all matters relating to the Pelagian contro
versy, but nevertheless, when they had occasion to
mention the Augustinian dogmas in question, it was
�16
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
only to repudiate them. This Council searched, in
vain, the records of the four preceding Councils of the
church for support to the views of the Bishop of
Hippo, and were forced to the conclusion that these
views were at variance with the received articles of
the Catholic faith.
John Calvin appeared about eleven centuries after
Augustine, revived the 11 novelties ” of his great theo
logical master, and followed in the wake of his argu
ments. But, with clearer and more discriminating per
ceptions than the bishop seems to have had of the com
parative weight of patristic authority on the side of
predestinarian tenets, Calvin rejected the testimony of
two of Augustine’s witnesses—Cyprian and GregoryNazianzen—altogether on this head. But Calvin laid
special emphasis on the statements of Ambrose, as a
certain writer remarks, “ with more complacency than
fairness.” We have already seen that the citations
from this father are just as futile as a buttress for
Augustinianism or Calvinism, as are the citations from
the other two fathers mentioned above. Yet, with a
strange inconsistency, Calvin speaks as if the Bishop of
Hippo were united in opinion with all his ecclesiastical
predecessors and contemporaries ; for, says the Genevan
Reformer, “ Augustine does not suffer himself to be
disjoined from the rest, but, by clear testimonies, shows
that any such discrepancy from them as that with the
odium of which the Pelagians attempted to load him, is
altogether false. For out of Ambrose he cites : ‘ Christ
calls him whom he pities,’ and also, ‘ if He had pleased,
he might from undevout have made them devout; but
God calls those whom he deigns to call, and him whom
he wills, he makes religious.’ ”
So that in spite of Calvin’s assertion that Augus
tine was in harmony with the entire body of the
preceding fathers, he himself only ventures to quote
from one of them, for the obvious reason that he could
obtain no plausible show of aid from any of the rest;
�Traced to their Origin.
17
and the one brief passage he does cite is essentially
vague, and even inappropriate.
Again, with more zeal for his cause than pure regard
for fairness, Calvin attempts, in his remarks on this
subject, to produce the impression upon his readers
that the only persons who accused Augustine of error
were the Pelagians, whereas the plain truth is, that this
charge was made against him by individuals whom he
himself, on several occasions, addressed as “ Christians,”
and who were designated “servants of Christ” by his
disciple Hilary, as well as by the judicious Council of
Orange.
There is a further consideration of some importance
as bearing on the same point. In the reply which
Augustine sent to the letters of Prosper and Hilary,
when they wrote in the name of the Massilian Chris
tians, and expressed their surprise at his “ novel pecu
liarities ” (while approving his general confutation of
the Pelagians), the following passage occurs: “ Pro
vided they (j.e., the believers of Marseilles) walk in
such doctrines (viz., as those with which he opposed
the Pelagians), and pray to Him who giveth under
standing if they differ from us, He will also reveal this
to them ! ” In the whole of his epistle he never once
attempts to strengthen the faith of his wavering friends,
by supplementing the empty show of historical proof he
had before adduced, but takes the easy method—so fre
quently resorted to in all ages by ecclesiastics when in
similar straits—of making the acceptance of his dogmas
a test of their general fidelity to truth. If they walked
in the right path they would be sure to become dis
posed to embrace his novel tenets ! What does this
imply, but that with all the acquaintance of the Chris
tians of Marseilles with the historical foundations of
their faith, the favourite necessitarian theories of Augus
tine had never before been heard of by them !
I will mention a circumstance, in conclusion, which
stamps Augustine, beyond the possibility of doubt, as
�18
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
the originator of the cardinal points of the system more
recently known as Calvinism. This father distinctly
avers in the treatise, “ The Predestination of the Saints,”
that he had “diligently searched it (his necessitarian
system) out and discovered it,” and frankly owns that
there was a time when he had maintained entirely dif
ferent opinions. But if, as he elsewhere holds, these
peculiarities were recognised as orthodox by the Chris
tian Church in his day and before it, with what con
sistency can he be said to have diligently searched them
out and discovered them? Besides, if they were not
new in the theological world, how comes it that none
of his religious compeers had happened to hear of them
previous to the Pelagian controversy, and that it was
so difficult for him to find a single definite passage favour
ing his views in the writings of preceding fathers 1
Such is a brief, but, as I cannot help believing, a
convincing summary of the facts connected with the
rise and progress of what still passes under the name
of Calvinistic theology. The father who has been
justly credited with the paternity of the system was
a superior type of the class of controversial theoi gians who have become distinguished in church his
tory. He inherited the fiery temper of his father,
blended with something of the gentleness and dreamy
piety for which his mother was remarkable. Up to
manhood he held aloof from dogmatic fetters of all
kinds, and gave his mind to bold and free thought*
in all directions, equally proof against the influence of
bribes on the one hand, and of threats on the other.
He had mastered in his twentieth year, by his own
efforts, as he tells us, “ omnes libros artium quos libe_ * As an instance of the once rationalistic tendency of Augus
tine’s mind, we find the following indisputably theistic senti
ment in his writings : Res ipsa quae nunc Religio Christiana
nuncupatur, erat apud antiquos, nee defuit ab initio generis
humani, quousque Christus veniret in carnem unde vera Reli
gio quae jam erat, ccepit appellari Christiana.—(Awpwsi. Retr.,
�Traced to their Origin.
r9
rales vocant,” but the organising and logical attributes
of his mind inspired him specially with a love of Aris
totle, and soon inclined him strongly towards the Manichseans. After a time he made the acquaintance of
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, and under the influence of
the bishop’s kindness, eloquence; and piety, Augustine
was induced to renounce Manichseanism. But it was
not till he had long struggled in the abysses of scepti
cism that he received Christianity, and was baptised.
His aspiring and unquiet spirit, ever panting for some
high occasion to put its powers on tension; seized the
opportunity offered by the heresy of Pelagius to render
eminent service to the church, and achieve fame in de
feating the heresiarch. The germ of fatalism which
had been nourished in him under Manichaeanism was
singularly developed in the heat of controversy. In
fact, his supreme effort consisted of incorporating fatal
ism with the dogmas of the church But in the learn
ing requisite to trace the history of church dogmas, as
well as in the patience of an inductive student, he
was essentially wanting. He understood the Latin
language, and had read extensively in it ; but with
much naivett he states that he “ hated the Greek,”
probably owing to its being to him a foreign tongue,
and to the fact of the harshness of his teacher, who
enforced his lessons “ saevis terroribus ac poenis.” Of
Hebrew he knew absolutely nothing.
Calvinism, or, more -correctly, Augustinianism, has
cropped up on four successive occasions in the history
of religious controversy, and each time has been asso
ciated for a while with intense religious activity. In
the fourth century, the attempt to unravel the alleged
eternal decrees of a personal God brought together on
one side Augustine, Fulgentius, and othersj and on the
other side Chrysostom; Ambrose, and other bishops of
the Greek and Latin Churches. Next, the necessitarian
dogmas of Augustine were the subject of keen debate
among the Schoolmen, and were long the cause of bitter
�2o
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
strife between the Franciscan and Dominican orders.
Again, at the Reformation, there was a diversity of
opinion on the subject of divine predestination. Calvin,
Reza, and Knox, defended the Augustinian view; and.
Luther, Erasmus, Melancthon, Bullinger, Sacerius, Lati
mer, and other leaders of the Reformed faith, op
posed it.
At the end of the seventeenth century, that ten
dency to rationalism set in, which, in the course of
a generation or two, swept 6ver all Europe. This
change in theological thought was largely due in Eng
land to the inductive method of inquiry applied to
science by Newton in his Principia, and applied to
psychology by Locke in his Essay; both of which
works, finished in the same year, inaugurated an epoch,
not only in the history of science and literature, but
also of theology. In Germany a similar sceptical spirit
was developed by the works of Leibnitz. In France
the rebound from church faith to human reason culmi
nated in Voltaire and the Encyclopaedists. In this in
fluence of inductive science and inductive philosophy
we have a remarkable illustration of the superior
potency of these two agencies as compared with theo
logy. There is no instance on record since the induc
tive method was first propounded by Bacon, of science
and philosophy following theology. On the other
hand, for all the progress theology has made and is
making towards truth, courage, and freedom, it is solely
indebted to the inoculating power of philosophy and
science. The stern aspect of dogma gradually becomes
softened in an age distinguished for scientific research
and philosophic analysis ; but theology has no influence
in moulding science and philosophy. The wave of free
thought just referred to overtook all evangelical churches
throughout Europe, and a real though unavowed Arian
ism prevailed among the Lutherans of Germany, the
Calvinists of Switzerland, the Reformed Church of
Holland, the Established Churches of England and
�Traced to their Origin.
Q. I
Scotland, the Presbyterians of Ireland, and even the
English Evangelical Dissenters. Beligious fervour
throughout the whole of Protestant Christendom was
in consequence wholesomely moderated by the rational
istic spirit which then predominated.
It was in recoil from “ moderatism ”—as the sober
religious condition of this period was called—that
Augustinianism for the fourth time revived. Vice and
sensuality abounded in the masses of the people; the
middle class, as a rule, were indifferent about the dogmas
and ceremonies of the church, and thus an opening was
made for some stern dealing with the universal religious
indifferentism that existed. Hence arose the “Pietists”
of Germany, the “ Evangelicals ” of England, and the
followers of Jonathan Edwards in America. These
parties made a capital point of “ personal ” and “ sub
jective” religion. The adherents of- Whitfield and
Wesley equally did so. But, for a while at least, the
Calvinistic dogmas of Edwards, Whitfield, and Simeon
took a deeper hold of the “ low church party ” north
and south of the Tweed, and of the Evangelical Non
conformists than the Arminianism of Wesley did. All
the old terrorism of threatened fire and brimstone against
the “unbeliever,” and of the restricted provision of “sal
vation ” for “ the elect; ” all the mystery of “predestina
tion,” “ reprobation,” and “ irresistible grace,” was once
more brought to bear in order to awe the penitent, and
narrow the way to heaven. The temptations to sin and
eternal death were represented as many and strong, and
the chances of being saved as few and weak 1 Under this
latest phase of Calvinism religion became a dismal
business, and up till recently it has in general con
tinued to be so, wherever “ the doctrines of grace ”
have been logically held by the orthodox. The altered
phase of religious controversy within the last twenty
years is the accident that mainly keeps Calvinistic
dogmas in the background. But these dogmas have
not yet died out. "They are still avowed, however
�22
The Cardinal Dogmas of Calvinism
tacitly, by a considerable section of the religious
world, and a certain school of professional religious
teachers are still expected, by way of saving their
theological reputation, now and then to declare their
belief in them. But the day of Calvinism, as a theo
logical power, is nearly over. It is at best but a
metaphysical relic of the dark ages, and has no mission
to the strongest minds of the present, far less to the
ordinary minds of the future. Like most other ques
tions capable of being treated inductively, theology is
now dealt with from its historical side. Even highchurchmen are faintly imitating the inductive method in
their inquiries, for they profess to go back to the early
fathers for their faith and their ceremonials. The
doctrines of the Reformation professed by the “ Evan
gelicals ” are too modern and uncertain for high church
acceptance. High-churchmen ground their very reasons
for receiving the authority of the Bible on the traditions
of the church. Theological sceptics are pursuing a
similar course, only with a more unbiassed and un
sparing historical analysis. These last claim the right
of searching out the history of The Canon of Scrip
ture itself as well as the history of the church, and of
rejecting whatever asserted facts cannot stand the test of
rational consistency, and produce satisfactory evidential
vouchers in their favour. The biblical criticism of to
day is not of the flimsy character of “ Paley’s Evi
dences ” or “ Lardner’s Credibility of Gospel History.”
These works are now impotent and effete, as far as they
claim to prove a supernatural Christianity. Paley and
Lardner now seem antiquated indeed, in defending the
dogma of New Testament infallibility on the plea that
some scraps of passages contained in Irenaeus and Justin
Martyr-resemble certain sayings in the Gospels. Tradi
tional authority in the matter of churches and doctrines
is now with all independent and cultured minds a thing
of the past, and only statements in the “ Canon ” which
will bear the sifting of modern historical criticism and
�'Traced to their Origin.
23
dispassionate reason are accepted as true by enlightened
scholars. No array of tradition or gush of sentiment
can possibly supply the deficiency of historical evidence.
For “supernatural Christianity,” as a historical system,
must stand or fall by historical tests. Dogmatic theo
logy is fast being relegated to the last resting-place of
exploded superstitions. The intellectual power and
spiritual life of civilized communities in the future will
be nourished and developed from a totally different
source. Theological dogma, with the countless figments
of the priestly brain, will be superseded by the inspi
ration of devout genius, the manifold discoveries of
science in the realms of material and spirit life, and by
the universal religion of the moral intuitions, another
name for which is The Religion of Humanity.
TURNBULL AND SPEAKS, PKINTEBS, BDINBUKGH.
��RECENT THEOLOGICAL ADDRESSES.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The cardinal dogmas of Calvinism traced to their origin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Macfie, Matthew
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 23 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT162
Subject
The topic of the resource
Calvinism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The cardinal dogmas of Calvinism traced to their origin), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Calvinism
Conway Tracts
Dogma
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b7e7ff2fc89d786c57dbe0c62babca16.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KbFNzipLJfB7CWX8smh-CboLaw8WkG4YaxxFRryGnSRbKx8IVDkwslaw1pVHeKABn5KQyk2A8860FrrM2e-PmBvlTjvfdSp%7E76F1rNNpaYiewe3pEshaFd9tC-uV4tXWcPgV61dIyZquqxIU79WEQ8gMYVTUYAXVrKgaRpysJQrlRWevh3WytkaUI47fbfa-7Uu3RWPn7B5Z3dj7u-rfaNESQSrQtkv7Z%7E8Qxqr%7EsEOHFH-2%7EPXyunpr-rHVJFLj5H%7EviM6yRN6o938tCVtIM1UsTL9OehZAkkMoUKIpk6qOr0Hz7-D-w84Mu5sngLwdzFdMk6DfLvl6937wIyLyRw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fa67014d7901e58de6f37b8005124440
PDF Text
Text
Gi
'Vq
DIVERGENCE OF CALVINISM
FROM
PAULINE DOCTRINE.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED
BY THOMAS
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
1871.
SCOTT,
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET, W.
�DIVERGENCE OF CALVINISM
FROM
PAULINE DOCTRINE.
------- +-------
T is with the greatest unwillingness that Chris
tians, who look all round in religion, ever give
assent to the Calvinistie doctrine of Election; which,
however, is Lutheran and Augustinian, not Calvin’s
only. Election, as reasoned out in the ninth chapter
of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, if interpreted as by
Calvin, seems to turn God into the ideal of hideous
injustice, and to overthrow all moral ground of
homage. It is not wonderful that in every univer
sity Christian students arise who struggle for another
interpretation of the apostle’s words ; and, in general,
the attempt is made to show that the election, on
which he dwells, is not an election of individuals to
salvation and glory, but the election of a nation to
the performance of a work. If such an interpreta
tion could be made grammatically consistent, it may
be regarded as certain that the entire Christian
Church would long since have joyfully embraced it;
for the opposite view is alike distressing and perni
cious. What is called the Arminian interpretation is
I
�6 .
Divergence of Calvinism
in direct contrariety to chapter viii., which chapter
ix. continnes and justifies. In chapter viii. nothing
is clearer than that the elect are individuals, and that
they are first foreknown, therefore predestined, there
fore called, therefore justified, therefore glorified. A
second attempt to evade the unpalatable inferences, is
by saying that the first step in the series was a fore
knowing that the individuals would be meritorious.
This second effort of Arminianism equally fails ; first,
because in chapter ix. it is insisted that the election
of Jacob over Esau took place before the children had
done good or evil (clearly implying that their rela
tive merit did not affect the election) ; secondly,
because the interpretation lays self-righteousness as
the basis against the whole current of the epistle;
thirdly, because, in fact, there is no sharp separation
of human merit into two classes, such that a Being
who foreknew it could justly resolve to glorify one
portion of mankind eternally, and eternally punish
the rest. In the result, Arminianism is scarcely less
offensive to common sense and common conscience
than Calvinism; since it upholds what is the nucleus
of the whole difficulty—the doctrine of an eternal
Hell, which, with eternal Misery, implies eternal and
ever-growing Sin, and a signal permanent triumph of
Evil over Good in the works of the Creator. What
avails it then to call Him Almighty, All-knowing
and All-loving ?
When we discern the nucleus of offence to reside
in this point, it is natural to ask how it was that
Paul did not see and feel it.
On reaching chapter xi. of the epistle, we find just
the reverse of what an English reader (possessed by
the doctrine of Hell) expects. Not only does the
apostle insist that in every age there has been an
election out oj~ Israel, all through the time in which
�from Pauline doctrine.
7
collective Israel was cast aside ; but he authoritatively
reveals an after-mystery, which is to be accomplished
when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in—namely,
Universal Salvation is to follow. In the contempla
tion of this blessed result, the apostle reaches flu al
satisfaction of heart and conscience, and bursts into
admiration of the mercy and wisdom of God, as if in
perfect ignorance that any doctrine of an eternal
Hell could embarrass any of his readers. Does not
this force us to ask what right we have to suppose
that Hell was, in Paul’s day, a part of the Evangel,
or Good News ?
The advocates of an Eternal Hell are very strong
in their logic, while resting on Matt. xxv. 46, “ These
shall go away into eternal (aionian) punishment, and
the righteous into life eternal (aionian).” It is
argued :—“ All agree that the life of the righteous is
to be absolutely eternal, so, then, is the punishment
of the other side: the doom of each is aionian; it is
then commensurate, coeval, by parallelism of the
clauses.” Let this be granted, yet what is it to Paul ?
Had he ever read the chapter ? There is no just
reason for believing that our Gospel of Matthew was
in existence till long after Paul’s death. On the
other hand, the logic is at least as forcible when
applied to parallel clauses in Paul; “ God hath con
cluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy
upon all.” By universal confession the former clause
was intended by Paul to apply to all nations and
every individual: “ For there is no difference; for all
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Obviously then, the all in the second clause is co
extensive with the all in the first, and cannot in any
way be confined to an elect portion. Indeed, any
attempt so to confine it makes void the contemplated
satisfaction and profound homage with which the
apostle winds up. We must conclude therefore, so
�8
Divergence of Calvinism
far as the evidence of this epistle goes, that the
destruction of God’s enemies, in which Paul believed,
was an event in time, wholly transitory, and to be
followed by the day of restitution and universal sal
vation ; and that the opposite idea has been unduly
obtruded on Paul from writings of later date. In the
first epistle to the Corinthians the same doctrine
appears. Christ is to come in glory, to receive to
himself his dead and living saints at a Pirst Resur
rection, is to reign until all enemies are destroyed
(among whom Death is included, and much more
therefore Sin), and after he has thus subjected all
things to God, he is to become subject himself, that
God may be all (and) in all. This is the intense
opposite of Arminianism, as well as of Calvinism.
It is more like the Oriental idea of the absorption of
all things into the Deity. It makes the Sonship of
Christ anything but a state co-eternal, according to
Athanasius, with the Divine existence, or an essence
implying equality with God. Nay, this Sonship is in
Paul a state assumed for a purpose, and laid aside
when the purpose is fulfilled—the purpose, namely,
of restoring all things into harmonious obedience to
the Universal Father. To sum up : in Paul’s view,
all being sinful, and through sin liable to death, no
one was injured by being passed over in election;
guilty men, who are violently destroyed, do but meet a
just doom ; but when the reign of Christ, with his risen
saints (1 Cor. vi. 2), shall at length have brought
in the fulness of the Gentiles, a universal reconcilia
tion is obtained. In the Apocalypse we read, “ Blessed
and holy is he who hath part (Rev. xx. 6) in the
First Resurrection; ” and Paul to the Philippians
says, “ If by any means I might attain to the Resur
rection of the dead ; ” which may lead one to believe
that he expected a Second and Final Resurrection,
though he does not definitely say it, in the eleventh
of Romans.
�from Pauline doctrine.
9
The Christian doctrine of Hell rests on the first
three Gospels, and on the Apocalypse: but in the
Apocalypse the solid imagery is figurative. The
Beast and False Prophet, who are destined to eternal
flames and torment, are not persons, but systems—
Tyranny and Priestcraft, and perhaps it is unjust to
press the doctrine further. But I see not how it can
be denied by historical criticism, that the three
Gospels (so called) have in this respect added to,
and disastrously damaged, the original Gospel as
known to Paul, and sent forth to the world a spurious
representation of the message of Salvation and the
Gospel of the Kingdom. The enigmatical teaching
in which Jesus indulged, may have been the fatal
cause; but (account for it as you will) mankind
(whom the Gospel was to enlighten) have not yet had
a fair chance of knowing what the Gospel was.
On discovering how the doctrine of Hell was fas
tened on to Christianity in the second age, after the
death of Paul, it is inevitable to cast an eye back
ward, and ask what was its origin ? It was not part
of Mosaism, future life was a doctrine unknown even
to Hezekiah, and first rose into belief among the
Jews, as confined to the righteous. Nay, in the
fourth Gospel, “I will raise him up at the last day,”
is equivalent to “ I will save him”—resurrection of
the wicked being an idea or thought absent from the
mind. Since the doctrine of Tartarus was Egyptian,
Greek, Roman, Etruscan, and apparently Oriental;
since the Jews, before their dispersion, had no belief
in it, and only after the cessation of prophecy received
it during their contact with the heathen, and even
then it was no part of the national Creed (for the
Sadducees rejected entirely the very foundation, and
the Pharisees were free to believe future existence in
any such form as commended itself to their con
sciences) ; there is no escape from the conclusion, that
�io
Divergence of Calvinism, &c.
the doctrine (whatever it was), into which Jesns and
the twelve apostles grew np concerning future resur
rection and judgment, had been imbibed from the
surrounding nations. The doctrine of Hell has no
pretence of Jewish inspiration and revelation any
more than Christian. Whether true or false, it is
Pagan in origin; and now has become the weight
which will totally sink Christianity, if it cannot be
cut away. Of course I see clearly why Christians,
who shudder at it, are so slow to rid themselves of it:
they can only do so, by confessing writings called
canonical to be the nidus of pernicious error. By an
obstinate clinging to a sacred letter, they sustain the
fatal divisions of Protestantism. Not until the pre
tensions of the letter are rejected, will it be possible
for that spirituality which is the glory of Chris
tianity, to rally into union for the purification and
ennoblement of the world.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline doctrine
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 10 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT147
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline doctrine), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Calvinism
Christianity
Calvinism
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Pauline Christianity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/62d9f255d25749fecf375e9b341d5fa9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=hXOhoU7tUPglYh4vIFWq2l%7EA-pChRFuPFcXHyWZzgEf%7E%7EQ33j5azHV9shj0JGE6VOVY5jZs%7EWuNo79qvf4EI3UwpJ9YN-Sh8VTCSGvxB3vJyAQNaMsdfu7S-2UGlq4ctz7wEDkxOVJZMmPSqLWRg9euhikd-so%7E-BMd5BmWx7dUkTd9LtC8J2iw7R434g3Sq9x8SQNksQBWdAfzUKoI5x01e0Z3fy%7EsKJ5qXRqzZ9mt3ut1Ks3cy-8WfRWtHaEDtlzeAbAvKDjFQnWpehMKYpEXnQv1EpKX-1TySP7sXyzzb-211zrkZiekuin0fIbfFpmYZW8j2h3y4oaDS6c0qig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
6ffe0e6b68c76dd63e26ad62be15546b
PDF Text
Text
DIVERGENCE OF CALVINISM
FROM
PAULINE DOCTRINE.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
1871.
SCOTT,
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET, W.
�DIVERGENCE OF CALVINISM
FROM
PAULINE DOCTRINE.
T is with the greatest unwillingness that Chris
tians,
look all round in
Iassent towho Calvinistic doctrinereligion, ever give
the
of Election; which,
however, is Lutheran and Augustinian, not Calvin’s
only. Election, as reasoned out in the ninth chapter
of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, if interpreted as by
Calvin, seems to turn God into the ideal of hideous
injustice, and to overthrow all moral ground of
homage. It is not wonderful that in every univer
sity Christian students arise who struggle for another
interpretation of the apostle’s words; and, in general,
the attempt is made to show that the election, on
which he dwells, is not an election of individuals to
salvation and glory, but the election of a nation to
the performance of a work. If such an interpreta
tion could be made grammatically consistent, it may
be regarded as certain that the entire Christian
Church would long since have joyfully embraced it;
for the opposite view is alike distressing and perni
cious. What is called the Arminian interpretation is
�6
Divergence of Calvinism
in direct contrariety to chapter viii., which chapter
ix. continues and justifies. In chapter viii. nothing
is clearer than that the elect are individuals, and that
they are first foreknown, therefore predestined, there
fore called, therefore justified, therefore glorified. A
second attempt to evade the unpalatable inferences, is
by saying that the first step in the series was a fore
knowing that the individuals would be meritorious.
This second effort of Arminianism equally fails; first,
because in chapter ix. it is insisted that the election
of Jacob over Esau took place before the children had
done good or evil (clearly implying that their rela
tive merit did not affect the election) ; secondly,
because the interpretation lays self-righteousness as
the basis against the whole current of the epistle;
thirdly, because, in fact, there is no sharp separation
of human merit into two classes, such that a Being
who foreknew it could justly resolve to glorify one
portion of mankind eternally, and eternally punish
the rest. In the result, Arminianism is scarcely less
offensive to common sense and common conscience
than Calvinism; since it upholds what is the nucleus
of the whole difficulty—the doctrine of an eternal
Hell, which, with eternal Misery, implies eternal and
ever-growing Sin, and a signal permanent triumph of
Evil over Good in the works of the Creator. What
avails it then to call Him Almighty, All-knowing,
and All-loving ?
When we discern the nucleus of offence to reside
in this point, it is natural to ask how it was that
Paul did not see and feel it.
On reaching chapter xi. of the epistle, we find just
the reverse of what an English reader (possessed by
the doctrine of Hell) expects. Not only does the
apostle insist that in every age there has been an
election out of Israel, all through the time in which
�from Pauline doctrine.
7
collective Israel was cast aside ; but he authoritatively
reveals an after-mystery, which is to be accomplished
when the fulness of the Gentiles is come in—namely,
Universal Salvation is to follow. In the contempla
tion of this blessed result, the apostle reaches final
satisfaction of heart and conscience, and bursts into
admiration of the mercy and wisdom of God, as if in
perfect ignorance that any doctrine of an eternal
Hell could embarrass any of his readers. Does not
this force us to ask what right we have to suppose
that Hell was, in Paul’s day, a part of the Evangel,
or Good News ?
The advocates of an Eternal Hell are very strong
in their logic, while resting on Matt. xxv. 46, “ These
shall go away into eternal (aionian) punishment, and
the righteous into life eternal (aionian).” It is
argued:—“ All agree that the life of the righteous is
to be absolutely eternal, so, then, is the punishment
of the other side: the doom of each is aionian ; it is
then commensurate, coeval, by parallelism of the
clauses.” Let this be granted, yet what is it to Paul ?
Had he ever read the chapter ? There is no just
reason for believing that our Gospel of Matthew was
in existence till long after Paul’s death. On the
other hand, the logic is at least as forcible when
applied to parallel clauses in Paul; “ God hath con
cluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy
upon all.” By universal confession the former clause
was intended by Paul to apply to all nations and
every individual: “ For there is no difference ; for all
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.”
Obviously then, the all in the second clause is co
extensive with the all in the first, and cannot in any
way be confined to an elect portion. Indeed, any
attempt so to confine it makes void the contemplated
satisfaction and profound homage with which the
apostle winds up. We must conclude therefore, so
�8
Divergence of Calvinism
far as the evidence of this epistle goes, that the
destruction of God’s enemies, in which Paul believed,
was an event in time, wholly transitory, and to be
followed by the day of restitution and universal sal
vation ; and that the opposite idea has been unduly
obtruded on Paul from writings of later date. In the
first epistle to the Corinthians the same doctrine
appears. Christ is to come in glory, to receive to
himself his dead and living saints at a First Resur
rection, is to reign until all enemies are destroyed
(among whom Death is included, and much more
therefore Sin), and after he has thus subjected all
things to God, he is to become subject himself, that
God may be all (and) in all. This is the intense
opposite of Arminianism, as well as of Calvinism.
It is more like the Oriental idea of the absorption of
all things into the Deity. It makes the Sonship of
Christ anything but a state co-eternal, according to
Athanasius, with the Divine existence, or an essence
implying equality with God. Nay, this Sonship is in
Paul a state assumed for a purpose, and laid aside
when the purpose is fulfilled—the purpose, namely,
of restoring all things into harmonious obedience to
the Universal Father. To sum up : in Paul’s view,
all being sinful, and through sin liable to death, no
one was injured by being passed over in election;
guilty men, who are violently destroyed, do but meet a
just doom ; but when the reign of Christ, with his risen
saints (1 Cor. vi. 2), shall at length have brought
in the fulness of the Gentiles, a universal reconcilia
tion is obtained. In the Apocalypse we read, “ Blessed
and holy is he who hath part (Rev. xx. 6) in the
First Resurrection; ” and Paul to the Philippians
says, “If by any means I might attain to the Resur
rection of the dead ; ” which may lead one to believe
that he expected a Second and Final Resurrection,
though he does not definitely say it, in the eleventh
of Romans.
�from Pauline doctrine.
9
The Christian doctrine of Hell rests on the first
three Gospels, and on the Apocalypse: but in the
Apocalypse the solid imagery is figurative. The
Beast and False Prophet, who are destined to eternal
flames and torment, are not persons, but systems—
Tyranny and Priestcraft, and perhaps it is unjust to
press the doctrine further. But I see not how it can
be denied by historical criticism, that the three
Gospels (so called) have in this respect added to,
and disastrously damaged, the original Gospel as
known to Paul, and sent forth to the world a spurious
representation of the message of Salvation and the
Gospel of the Kingdom. The enigmatical teaching
in which Jesus indulged, may have been the fatal
cause; but (account for it as you will) mankind
(whom the Gospel was to enlighten) have not yet had
a fair chance of knowing what the Gospel was.
On discovering how the doctrine of Hell was fas
tened on to Christianity in the second age, after the
death of Paul, it is inevitable to cast an eye back
ward, and ask what was its origin ? It was not part
of Mosaism, fnture life was a doctrine unknown even
to Hezekiah, and first rose into belief among the
Jews, as confined to the righteous. Nay, in the
fourth Gospel, “ I will raise him up at the last day,”
is equivalent to “ I will save him”—resurrection of
the wicked being an idea or thought absent from the
mind. Since the doctrine of Tartarus was Egyptian,
Greek, Roman, Etruscan, and apparently Oriental;
since the Jews, before their dispersion, had no belief
in it, and only after the cessation of prophecy received
it during their contact with the heathen, and even
then it was no part of the national Creed (for the
Sadducees rejected entirely the very foundation, and
the Pharisees were free to believe future existence in
any such form as commended itself to their con
sciences) ; there is no escape from the conclusion, that
�io
Divergence of Calvinism, &c.
the doctrine (whatever it was), into which Jesus and
the twelve apostles grew up concerning future resur
rection and judgment, had been imbibed from the
surrounding nations. The doctrine of Hell has no
pretence of Jewish inspiration and revelation any
more than Christian. Whether true or false, it is
Pagan in origin; and now has become the weight
which will totally sink Christianity, if it cannot be
cut away. Of course I see clearly why Christians,
who shudder at it, are so slow to rid themselves of it:
they can only do so, by confessing writings called
canonical to be the nidus of pernicious error. By an
obstinate clinging to a sacred letter, they sustain the
fatal divisions of Protestantism. Not until the pre
tensions of the letter are rejected, will it be possible
for that spirituality which is the glory of Chris
tianity, to rally into union for the purification and
ennoblement of the world.
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
A Lay Sermon, for the Benefit of Clergy. Price 6d.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the
Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South
Australia. Price 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of
Jesus. Price 6d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M.A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d,
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete
in Six Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion. By Prof. Francis W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the Scriptures.
By the Right Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Bbneficed
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free.
On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Professor F. W. Newman. 6d.
The “Church and its Reform.” A Reprint. Price Is.
The Church of England Catechism Examined. By Jeremy Bentham. A Reprint. Is.
Original Sin. Price <5d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles a.'d Prophecies. Price 6d.
Babylon. By the Rev. P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d.
Thoughts on a Free and Comprehensive Christianity. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records; with special
reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synopticsand the Fourth
Gospel. Price Is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. 6d.
The Meaning of the Age. By the Author of ' The Pilgrim and the Shrine.’ 6d.
“James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks.
By Edward Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price Is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy, By Rev. John Oxleb. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c.,
Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price is.
Practical Remarks on “ The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Anno
tations by a Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman
of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators.
In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
Bishop of Norwich. Part I., price is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church
of England. Price Is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
By a Country Parson. Parts I., II., and III. Price 6d. each Part.
�List of Publications—continued.
A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot
Rely on the Bible ? ” By Professor F. W. Newman,
Another Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we
cannot Rely on the Bible 1 ” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Norwich. Price 6d.
The Utilisation of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “ The
Pilgrim and the Shrine,” “ The Meaning of the Age,” &c. Price 6d.
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of Necessity.” 6d.
A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revelation, what
is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death?” By Samuel Hinds,
D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Cd.
Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church of England.”
By W. G. Clark, M. A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Price 6d.
TnE Twelve Apostles. Price 6d.
Is Death the End of all Things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher. 6d.
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A.,
F.R.S., Rector of Croft. Parts I. and II. Price 6d. each Part.
The Finding of the Book. By John Robertson, Coupar Angus. Price 2s.
On Moral Evil. Price 6d.
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation,
Considered. By William Jevons. Price 6d.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Esta
blished Church. Price 6d.
Clergymen made Scarce. A Letter to the Bishop of London, by a Presbyter. 6d,
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion. By the Rev. W. R.
Worthington, M.A. Price 6d.
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I.—“ Its
Influence on the Intellect.” Part II.—“ Its Influence on the Development of the
Conscience.” Price 6d. each Part.
On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price 6d.
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds,
D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts Land II. Trice
6d. each Part.
The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edw Maitland. Price 6d.
Reason versus Authority. By W. O. Carr Brook. Price 3d.
An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. 3d.
The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price Cd.
Realities. By P. A. Taylor, M.P.
The Beliefs of Unbelievers. By Rev. O. B. Frothingham. Price 3d.
On the Causes of Atheism. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price Cd.
The Bible; is it the Word of God ? By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High
Court of Madras. Price 6d.
A Woman’s Letter. Price 3d.
An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Chas. Voysey. 6d.
Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Price 6d.
Thirty-Nine Questions concerning the Thirty-Nine Articles. By John
Page Hopps, Editor of ‘The Truthseeker.’ Price 3d
Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline doctrine. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 3d.
Friends to the cause of “Free Inquiry and Free Expression” are earnestly requested
to give aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline doctrine
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 19, [2] p. ; 19 cm
Notes: Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4854
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline doctrine), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Calvinism
Calvinism
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Pauline Christianity