OBJECTIONS TO CALVINISTIC REPROBATION.

_In the first place_, we object to it because it impeaches the Divine Fatherhood. G.o.d sustains to the human family the relation of a Father. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, but not their father. Fatherhood carries in it two ideas,--creation and similarity of nature. He is the Creator of the sun and stars, but they do not possess a nature like His. But in man there is a Divine likeness, an epitome of G.o.d. There is the power of thought, will, and feeling. In this broad view every man is a son of G.o.d. He has been created by Him, and, so far, is like Him. It is very true that man has rebelled and ignores the relationship. But denial of relationship does not abolish it. A son may deny his own father, and claim another to be so; and men have denied G.o.d, and acted as the children of the devil.

But although they have rebelled, He earnestly remembers them. They are prodigals, but they are His prodigals. He made them, and He feels for them. A good father feels for all his children. Could we call a father a good father who foreordains that one-half of his offspring should be burned? But this is the doctrine of Calvinistic reprobation! It cannot stand in the light of the parable of the prodigal son. As that father in that parable felt to his prodigal child, so G.o.d _feels_ to every one of His prodigals.

We reject this doctrine of unconditional reprobation,

_In the second place_, because it impeaches the Divine _sincerity_.

Sincerity is descriptive of the harmony that exists between the feelings of the heart and the utterances of the lips.

"Sincerity, The first of virtues, let no mortal leave Thy onward path, although the earth should gape, And from the gulph of h.e.l.l destruction cry To take dissimulation's winding way."

An insincere man, who professes one thing whilst he feels another, is universally despised. Now, when I take up the Bible, what do I find? I find it full of invitations to all men to come and be saved.

"Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved." "Ho, every one that thirsteth; come ye to the waters." "Turn ye, turn ye, why will you die?" Now, these invitations are addressed to all alike.

Their value turns on this--does G.o.d _mean_ what He says? Not so if Calvinistic reprobation be true. But if He does mean what He says --that He really wishes all saved--then these utterances reveal the great heart of G.o.d as it gathers round every human being; and the Calvinistic dogma of unconditional reprobation is a huge lie, that should be thrown back to the place whence it came.

CHAPTER V.

SUMMARY OF THE BIBLE DOCTRINE OF REPROBATION.

THERE is a doctrine of reprobation taught in the Bible. The word, as we have seen, is several times used in the sacred writings. It means, according to cla.s.sic Greek, "not standing the test,"

"spurious, base, properly (1.) of coin, (2.) of persons," "ign.o.ble, mean" (Liddell and Scott). In the Bible it signifies the same thing, "disapproved," "rejected," "undiscerning," "void of judgment."

Cruden says, "This word among metallists is used to signify any metal that will not undergo the trial, that betrays itself to be adulterate or reprobate, and of a coa.r.s.e alloy. . . . A reprobate mind, that is, a mind hardened in wickedness, and so stupid as not to discern between good and evil." We are quite familiar with the idea in everyday life. Ships, horses, land, governments, individuals, are being constantly subjected to trial, and, being found wanting, are rejected, _reprobated_. And what thus takes place in the lower plane of things, takes place in the sphere of morals.

Men are now on trial for eternity. If they act as G.o.d wishes them, they shall walk with him in white, and sit down at the marriage -supper of the Lamb; but if not, then they will be rejected. The great principle is neither more nor less than this--namely, that men shall reap as they sowed. The principle is just. If men sow nettle -seed or the seed of briers and thorns, is it not fair that they should reap the fruit? The great principle, then, of the Bible is this: "If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land; but if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured by the sword"

(Isaiah i. 19, 20).

It is a blessed thing, then, to know that on your head there is no decree of unconditional reprobation. You may be saved. Your heavenly Father wishes you saved, for He is "not willing that you should perish" (2 Peter iii. 9); and He wishes "all men saved" (1 Timothy ii. 4), and therefore you. He has done all He can for you. Will you be saved? It rests with you to build only on Christ, and conform your life after the pattern He has left.

PART III.--ELECTION.

CHAPTER I.

THEORIES OF CALVINISTIC ELECTION.

IF the question of Calvinistic reprobation is fitted to freeze the blood and repel the mind from G.o.d, that of election, as represented by the same school, is calculated to perplex and disturb the inquirer after truth. At the noonday meeting in Glasgow, some time ago, the prayers of those present were requested on behalf of a lady who was troubled with the doctrine of election! She is, we believe, a type of thousands. Poor woman! had she listened to the teachings of Scripture instead of to those of man, she need have had no trouble in the matter. Heaven's order is--"Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." In other words, believe that G.o.d loves yourself, that Christ made an atonement for thy sin, and thou shalt enter among the saved ones--or the elect.

There are four different theories regarding this subject:--

(1.) There is, _first_, the supralapsarian theory. Those who hold this view are high Calvinists. According to this theory, G.o.d, without any regard to the good or evil works of men, resolved by an eternal decree, _supra lapsum_, antecedently to any knowledge of the fall of Adam, and independent of it, to reject some and save others; or, in other words, that G.o.d intended to glorify His justice in the condemnation of some as well as His mercy in the salvation of others, and for that end decreed that Adam should necessarily fall (Buck).

(2.) The _second_ theory is designated _sublapsarianism_. According to this view, G.o.d permitted the first man to fall into transgression without absolutely predetermining his fall; or, that the decree of predestination regards man as fallen by an abuse of that freedom which Adam had. In other words, they regard the decrees of election and reprobation as having reference to man in his fallen condition.

But according to this theory G.o.d loves only a portion of our race --gives His Son to die for this only, and His converting grace to this only. This portion is designated the elect.

(3.) A _third_ view is that G.o.d loves all men, has given His Son to die for all men, but His saving grace is not given to all, but only to some. This is modern Calvinism. "Election is then," says Dr.

Payne, "G.o.d's purpose to exert upon the minds of certain members of the human family that spiritual and holy influence which will secure their ultimate salvation" (_Lect. on Sovy_.)

(4.) A _fourth_ view is that G.o.d loves all men, that Christ died for all men, and that converting grace is given to all men; and that those of mankind who believe G.o.d's testimony regarding His Son, become His elect or chosen ones. It is this view which we support.

The first three theories have points of difference and agreement, but in their last a.n.a.lysis they come to this, that G.o.d does not wish all men saved, only some--the elect.

CHAPTER II.

CALVINISTIC ELECTION INVOLVES POSITIVE REFUSAL TO PROVIDE SAVING GRACE FOR THE LOST.

Dr. PAYNE, one of the subtlest and most accomplished of modern Calvinists, argues strongly against the notion that the decree of election involves the decree of reprobation. He says "I may determine to relieve one out of twenty dest.i.tute families in my neighbourhood, without positively determining not to relieve the others; and if any one should ask me why others are not relieved, it would be sufficient to reply that the giving of actual relief can only spring from a determination to relieve, which in reference to them does not exist. I may determine to take a book from the shelf, without a positive determination not to take the others. There may, indeed, be such a determination, but it is not necessarily implied in the determination to take, and that is all that I am obliged to prove--the other books may not even be thought of" (p. 40). Dr.

Payne was a very subtle dialectician, but we fear he has here imposed upon himself in these ill.u.s.trations. It is very true that when I determine to select book "A" from my library, that book "B"

may not have been before my mind, and that I did not knowingly determine to reject it. But it may have been, and if it was, then the selection of "A" only, carried with it the rejection of "B." A father sees his two children perishing in the waters. He jumps into a boat, and reaches the scene of disaster. The children are sinking from sheer exhaustion. He takes one into the boat, and returns to sh.o.r.e. He could easily have saved the other, but did not, and he tells the people this on landing, and that he must be simply judged by his act of saving the rescued child, and that he is not to be held as pa.s.sing a decree of reprobation against the other. This, we submit, is Dr. Payne's case. And will it bear looking at? I don't think it. Dr. Payne adds, "This reasoning applies yet with greater force to the great Eternal. There must exist in the mind of G.o.d a determination to do what He actually does, because His actions are the result of His volitions or determinations. But where G.o.d does not act, where He does nothing, He determines nothing. It is childish to suppose that because when He acts, there must be a determination to act, when he does not act, there must be a determination not to act, since a determination is necessary to a state of action, but it surely is not necessary to a state of rest.

When Jehovah created the present universe, is it necessary to suppose that there existed in His mind a positive determination not to create any of the other possible universes which were present to His views? Surely not." But we should say, Surely yes. If twenty plans are presented to me, and I select one only, does not this imply the rejection of the others? To the Divine mind there must have been present the conception of many different kinds of worlds than the one we are in; but of the possibles He chose the present system as, all things considered, the best. Had there been a better world and G.o.d did not make it, it must have been, according to the optimists, either because G.o.d did not know of it, or was unable to make it, or was unwilling,--all of which suppositions are either incompatible with the omniscience, the omnipotence, or the goodness of G.o.d. When the Creator selected the present system, He rejected the "possibles" that might have been brought into being. I am surprised that Dr. Payne should say that "determination" is not necessary to a state of rest, or non-action. In thousands of instances non-action--rest--is as much the result of volition as is the most determined activity. The old divines used to divide sin into acts of commission and omission. But in every sin of omission there was action implied. If I do not help the needy when he crieth, my non-help--my rest as regards aid--carries action in it --determination. Dr. Payne again says, "When G.o.d determined to save man, did that volition necessarily imply a positive determination not to save the angels who kept not their first estate? No one, it is presumed, Will answer in the affirmative. It implies, indeed, that fallen angels were not included in the merciful purpose of G.o.d, that there was no volition to save them; but no degree of ingenuity can gather any conclusion beyond this from the facts of the case.

Why, then, should a positive determination, on the part of G.o.d, to save some of the human family be supposed to imply of necessity a counter and positive determination not to save the other members of the family. Not to save men is not to act, it is just doing nothing." But this is a very partial view of the case. What G.o.d did in the case of the fallen angels we know nothing, and can affirm nothing. But one may do nothing from one side of things, and do a great deal from another. The priest and the Levite just did nothing as far as helping the man was concerned. They rested, but in this rest there was action which has covered them with obloquy for all time. And if G.o.d has special influence at His disposal, and determines to give it to some when He KNEW that others needed it as much, and yet withholds it from them, His withholding it is as much an act as the gift of it. He pa.s.sed the non-elect over in applying the influence, and no ingenuity can make it otherwise. But what He does in time He determined to do in eternity--He determined to pa.s.s them over. The ill.u.s.tration, therefore, of the book is worthless.

CHAPTER III.

CALVINISTIC ELECTION CONSIDERED IN REFERENCE TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF G.o.d.

THE Divine sovereignty may be said to be the great foundation on which the various shades of Calvinists take their stand. Here they think they are as safe as if they stood on adamant. But a.s.sertion is not argument, and he who a.s.serts must prove.

Dr. Payne, in his preliminary lecture, discusses the question of sovereignty, and endeavours to show that there is a difference between supremacy and sovereignty. By the former punishment is inflicted, by the latter good. If by sovereingty we mean that G.o.d has absolute power to do whatsoever He pleases, then it will comprehend the penalty of transgression, as well as the bestowment of good. And this, as we apprehend, is the correct view of the case.

The Divine sovereignty being one of the main pillars of his system, Dr. Payne gives various ill.u.s.trations of it.

(1.) He instances the varied mental powers bestowed on men. He says, "The mind of one man is marked by infantile weakness, of another by a giant's strength. Nothing can elevate the former, nothing permanently depress and overpower the latter. . . . In the case of certain persons, the reasoning powers preponderate; in that of others, the imagination. One man has little judgment, but an exuberant fancy. Another has received the gift of a piercing intellect; but if it be clear as a frosty night, it is also as cold.

A third is all impetuosity and fire, but it is a fire that scorches and consumes everything that comes in its way. We can account for these diversities by the principle of sovereignty alone. G.o.d 'divideth to every man severally as He will,' 'He giveth none account of these matters,' 'He has a right to do what He will with His own.'" Now, we do not question G.o.d's right to do what He will with His own, but is this difference in mental calibre purely an arbitrary act? Has brain, nerve, habit, nothing to do with the case?

and marriage? and education? Look at the biographies of prominent men, and what do we find? Much depends evidently on the mother, as in the case of Bacon, Erskine, Brougham, Cromwell, Canning, Byron.

The last-mentioned, writing of himself, says, that his "springs of life were poisoned." His mother was a most pa.s.sionate woman, and is reported to have died of a fit of ill-nature at the sight of her upholsterer's bills. The possession, then, of talent is not purely arbitrary, but dependent on parentage, training, surroundings. There was one question, indeed, which would have upset the whole of these ill.u.s.trations. It was this:--Whence comes insanity? It would never be contended that G.o.d made some individuals insane and others sane, by a merely arbitrary act. We find, in hundreds of instances, that it is hereditary. One observer considers that six-sevenths of the cases arise from this one cause. When, then, Dr. Payne quotes the words, "He giveth none account of these things," we ask, is it so?

Has He not written His mind in the providence around us? Let certain habits be encouraged, certain marriages entered into, and we require no ghost to rise and tell us what the issue will be. G.o.d is telling it to us every day. Departure on the part of parents from organic laws entails misery, even to imbecility, on the children. We do not, of course, deny that there are diversities among men; but we do deny that these are purely arbitrary, like the gift of special grace, and are therefore inept as ill.u.s.trative of it.

(2.) Dr. Payne refers to providential blessing as ill.u.s.trative of sovereignty. He remarks, "That inequalities in the external condition and circ.u.mstances exist, is manifest to all. The questions, then, which force themselves upon our attention are these: Do these inequalities originate with G.o.d, or with man?" He asks, "Why one is born rich, and another poor? How is it to be explained that two persons equal in talent and moral worth, obtain such unequal measure of success? . . . The facts are entirely to be resolved into Divine sovereignty. G.o.d is here exercising the right of testimony, the bounties of His providence upon men, as it seems good in His sight." It is very true that G.o.d is the source of all the good in the world, but does He bestow it arbitrarily? If a man neglects being _thrifty_, and lives beyond his means, his offspring will inherit his poverty. There are economic as well as physical laws in the world, and the non-observance of them descends unto the third and fourth generations.

Dr. Payne appeals to health as ill.u.s.trating his position. He says, "It is impossible to account for the fact that of two individuals equal in point of moral worth, one is the constant subject of bodily infirmity, and the other the habitual possessor of health; but by admitting that the hand of sovereignty confers upon the latter a measure of good to which he has no claim" (p. 32). Doubtless, health is a precious blessing; but is it given arbitrarily, like special grace? Every one knows that its possession depends upon the observance of laws, both in parents and offspring. It is the result of complying with _conditions_, and there is no a.n.a.logy between it and the gift of special influence, which is entirely unconditional.

The chief ill.u.s.tration which Dr. Payne gives of Divine sovereignty is, "The exertion of that holy influence upon the minds of the chosen to salvation, by which they are brought to the knowledge and belief of the Gospel, together with the Divine purpose to exert this influence of which it is at once the index and the accomplishment"

(p. 33). We shall, however, endeavour to show that there is no such irresistible influence as that for which the doctor contends. G.o.d is a sovereign--the only absolute sovereign in existence; but He is all-wise and all-good, not willing that any should perish.

We have thus examined those ill.u.s.trations of Dr. Payne. They are a kind of stock in trade of those who build their faith upon the dogmas of Calvin.