Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

This reminds me of a quotation from the eloquent Chrysostom, relative to this subject. Observe the never-failing, but always conspicuous 'character of apostolical modesty: he calls his own 'virtue the gift of God; and, when he has laboured 'much, he attributes the whole to the Lord.'1 It would then, it seems, be decorous, and resemble 'the never-failing conspicuous character of apos'tolical modesty,' to use this kind of language, even if it were not really meant, nor the doctrines from which it flows when genuine, strenuously insisted on. But, if the appearance would be decorous, must not the reality be right and good? Counterfeits of every kind, give the credit of value to the thing counterfeited, and derive their speciousness from it. Hollow politeness is an acknowledgment that humble courteous love is a good thing: hypocrisy confesses the excellency of genuine piety. Yet, after all, if Paul did not fully mean what he said, his apostolical modesty' was far from the language of "simplicity and godly "sincerity;" and not more worthy of commendation or imitation, than the Pharisee's words, " God, "I thank thee that I am not like other men."

'Or he says this,' ("It is God that worketh in "us to will, and to do of his good pleasure,") ' from great piety; as when he says that our right 'actions are graces.'2

It is here again conceded, that the language of those who are now called Calvinists is pious, yea used from great piety,' and used by an inspired

[ocr errors]

1

' Ref. 453, 454

Chrysost. in Ref. 500, 501.

apostle. Yet, at the same time, Chrysostom labours to explain away that very meaning of the apostle's words, which could render this language sincere, and unaffected. It may be a commendation to use this 'pious' language, provided we do not fully mean it, nor contend for the doctrine which stamps sincerity upon it!

[ocr errors]

'He uses the same form in speaking of preaching, in which he had undergone ten thousand ' labours, constant tribulation, inexpressible hardships, daily death! What does he say upon this subject?" I laboured more abundantly than they 'all; yet not I but the grace of God which was ' with me." He does not say, that a part was his, ' and a part God's. This is like a grateful servant, "to consider nothing as his own, but all things his 'master's; to think nothing his own, but all things his Lord's.'1

It seems that, the less is meant by this language, the more it is approved. If we use similar expressions with these of the apostle, accommodated to our very inferior services and exertions; if we give unreservedly to the Lord all the glory of what is good in our conduct, and only acknowledge as our own the sin which intermingles with it; if we will not say of any thing good in the sight of God,' 'a part is ours, and a part is God's,' we are censured. But why are we censured by those who commend similar language in the apostle? Is it because our actions are not sufficiently excellent to be referred to God as the fruits of his grace?

1 Idem, Ref. 454.

This, indeed, might well cause us to pause and reflect, whether we do not ascribe to divine grace what only springs from fallen nature. Or, is it, because, allowing the thing, spoken of to be truly good, we heartily mean all that which we say, in ascribing them to the grace of God, and this too evidently to receive approbation, or even toleration? Yet all the inhabitants of heaven ascribe their salvation unreservedly "to God and the "Lamb." They do not say a part is our's, and 'a part is God's.' Surely then it might be allowed us to use, without censure, similar language, or at least to learn on earth, if it may be, something of that humble adoring love and gratitude which stamps the adoration of the heavenly worshippers.

"We say that of ourselves we can do nothing; 'whence they conclude that we have nothing to 'do. We say that it is the grace of God which ' enables us to do every thing; from whence they 'conclude that every thing must be left to the grace of God, and that we need only work ourselves into a strong persuasion that God is at 'work for us, and may sit still ourselves. And 'this persuasion, which is generally mere enthusiasm, they dignify with the name of Christian 'faith.'2

[ocr errors]

The writer of these remarks knows, by painful experience, that there are persons justly deserving of this censure: as a great part of his life has been employed in protesting and contending against this very antinomian enthusiasm. He cannot,

'Rev. v. 8-11. vii. 9—12. 2 Sherlock, Note, Ref. 48.

66

therefore, but be rather surprised to find himself, after all, included under the same sweeping censure with those whom, he trusts, he has successfully opposed. I apprehend, that by far the greatest part of modern Calvinists, and especially the evangelical clergy, with not very many exceptions, (oh, that there were no exceptions!) are wholly free from this criminality and Calvin himself, with Beza, and all the most eminent writers of that school, are entirely decided against it. Augustine doth rightly conclude,' (concerning the sentence, "it is not of him that willeth, or of him that runneth, but of God that "showeth mercy,") that it is spoken to this 'meaning, that there is no good will of man, un'less it be prepared of the Lord: not but that we ought both to will and to run, but because God 'worketh both in us.'-We require nothing of our opponents beyond a fair discrimination. Let them state the censurable tenets, bring evidence against the accused persons, and proceed to conviction and condemnation; but surely it is not candid, not just, to involve, under one general sentence, so large and multifarious a body as those who now are called the Calvinists;' and to render them all obnoxious, and accountable for the faults of comparatively a small and inconsiderable part of the whole number; though many of them most openly and earnestly protest against the censurable tenets. In fact, it is not merely the want of candour, but also of information.-We publish books on various subjects, but they will

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

'Calv. Inst. B. II c. 5. sect. 17.

not deign to read them: we preach very frequently and publicly, but they disdain to hear us. Here is our disadvantage: we read the books of our opponents, and bestow pains to know what their opinions really are: but we must think that they do not read ours, and so are not acquainted with our tenets, else surely they would never so misstate them!

The orthodox fathers destroyed the books of the ancient heretics; our opponents only consign ours, unexamined, to neglect.-' Epiphanius, at 'the instigation of Theophilus, had condemned 'Ammonius, and some other learned monks, as guilty of Origenism. Ammonius, therefore, and 'his brethren paid him a visit; and being asked by him, Who they were, replied, Father, we are the brethren who are called Longi; and I beg έ the favour of you to tell me, whether you ever 'conversed with any of our disciples, or perused any of our writings? No, said Epiphanius. How then, said Ammonius, could you judge those 'men to be heretics, of whose sentiments you had no proofs? I have been so informed, replied Epiphanius. But we, said Ammonius, have done 'the very reverse of all this: for we have frequently conversed with your disciples, and have 'read over your works: and, having heard many persons make free with your character, and ca'lumniate and censure you as a heretic, we have 'maintained your innocence, and defended

[ocr errors]

<

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

you as 6 our father. You should not therefore have con'demned us, unseen and unheard, upon reports ' and hearsays; nor have made so unsuitable a ' return to us, for our good offices to you.-The

« PreviousContinue »