Section 9.

SECTION 9.

The fifth objection of Zelotes against a reconciliation with Honestus — In answer to it the reconciler shows that the earliest fathers held the doctrine of the Scripture Scales, and that the Rev. Mr. Toplady’s Historic Proof of their Calvinism is quite anti-historical.

THE preceding section seems to embarrass Zelotes almost as much as my second Scale; but, soon recovering his positiveness, he endeavours to set all the preceding quotations aside by the following objection: — OBJECTION V. “I make no great account of the fathers, except those who may be called apostolic, as having lived in or immediately after the apostolic age. Therefore, if Barnabas, who was St. Paul’s fellow apostle; if Clement, who was bishop of the uncorrupted Church at Rome; Clement, whom the apostle mentions not only as his ‘fellow labourer,’ but also as one ‘whose name was written in the book of life,’ Philippians 4:3; if Polycarp and Ignatius, who were both disciples of the apostle St. John, who filled the Episcopal sees at Smyrna and Antioch, and who nobly laid down their lives for Christ, the one in the flames, and the other in the jaws of hungry lions: if these early fathers, I say, these undaunted martyrs are for us as well as St. Augustine; we may, without endangering the truth, allow you that the generality of the other fathers countenanced too much the doctrine of your Scales. And that these fathers were for us, is abundantly demonstrated in the Rev. Mr Toplady’s Historic Proof of Calvinism.”

ANSWER. It is true that when Mr. Toplady promises us “the judgment of the earliest fathers,” concerning Calvinism, he says, (Historic Proof, page 121,) “I must repeat my question, which seems to have given Mr. Sellon and his fraternity so much disquiet: where was not the doctrine of predestination before Pelagius?” But nothing can be more frivolous than this question; since I myself, who oppose Calvinian predestination as much as Mr. Toplady does the second Scripture Scale, would put the question to a Pelagian, i.e. to a rigid free willer. To do the subject justice, and not to mislead his unwary readers into unscriptural tenets by the lure of a Scriptural word, Mr. Toplady should have said, “Where was not, before Pelagius, the Calvinian doctrine of the absolute predestination of some men to unavoidable, eternal life, and of all the rest of mankind to unavoidable, eternal death, without any respect to their voluntary faith and works?” For neither Mr. Sellon, nor any of his “fraternity,” ever denied the predestination which St. Paul mentions. Nay, we strongly contend for it; see section 14. All we insist upon is, that the predestination, election, and reprobation taught by St. Paul, by the earliest fathers, and by us, are as different from the predestination, &c, taught by Calvin, Zanchy, and Mr. Toplady, as the Scripture Scales are different from the Historic Proof. (See our Genuine Creed, article 7.)

We grant also that the ingenious vicar of Broad Hembury has filled a section with proofs that the early fathers were sound Calvinists; but what weight have these proofs? Are they not founded,

(1.) Upon the words our, we, us, and elect, which he fondly supposes to mean us who are Calvinistically elected in opposition to our neighbours, who, from all eternity, were unconditionally and absolutely reprobated from eternal life?

(2.) Upon some phrases, where those fathers mentioned the particular, applicatory redemption, or the particular election and calling of those to whom the Gospel of Christ is preached; a redemption of believers, an election and a calling these, for which I myself, who am no Calvinist, have strongly contended in my answer to Mr. Hill’s Creed for the Arminians?

(3.) Upon some sentences, which, being torn from the context, seem to speak in the Calvinian strain?

(4.) Upon the harmless words will, purpose, requisite, decree, &c, which are fondly supposed to demonstrate the truth of Calvinian necessity and Calvinian decrees?

(5.) Upon the words “brethren, the Church of saints, the new people, my people?” Which (such is the force of prejudice!) Mr. Toplady imagines must mean his Calvinistically elected brethren, &c, just as if people could not be brethren, form a Christian Church, be God’s peculiar, new, Christian people, in opposition to his old people, the Jews, or to those who in every nation fear God and work righteousness, or even in opposition to unconverted people, without the chimerical election, which drags after it the necessary damnation of all the world beside!

The truth is, that the fathers, mentioned in Zelotes’ objection, followed the very same plan of doctrine which is laid down in these pages, although they did not always balance the two Gospel axioms with the scrupulous caution and nicety which the vain jangling of captious, contentious, and overdoing divines obliges me to use. Mr. Toplady himself will hardly deny that the early fathers held the doctrine of our first scale. And that they held the doctrine of the second, I prove by the following f52 extracts from their excellent epistles.

Barnabas says, in his Catholic epistle, “Let us give heed unto the last days, for all the time of our life and faith shall profit us nothing, if we do not endure unjust things, and future temptations. Let us, being spiritual, be made a perfect temple to God, as much as in us lies. Let us meditate upon the fear of God, and endeavour to keep his commandments, that we may rejoice in his judgments: the Lord, accepting no man’s person, judgeth the world; every man shall receive according to his deeds. If he be good, his goodness goes before him; if wicked, the ways of his wickedness follow after him. Take heed lest, at any time, being called, and at ease, we should fall asleep in our sins, and the wicked one getting power over us, &c, exclude us from the kingdom of the Lord. Understand a little more; having seen the great signs and wonders among the people of the Jews, and that the Lord does so leave them; therefore let us take heed, lest haply we be found, as it is written, ‘Many called, few chosen.’ That man shall justly perish, who hath knowledge of the way of truth, and yet will not refrain himself from the dark way.” (Pages 6, 7, 8.)

I grant to Mr. Toplady, that Barnabas says, p. 28, “Thou shalt not command thy maid or man servant with bitterness, especially those who hope in him, lest thou be found destitute of the fear of God, who is over both: for he came not to call men [to the blessings of Christianity] by their persons, [that is, according to the context, he came not to call masters only,] but those whom his Spirit prepared:” [whether they be servants or masters: for God called to Christian liberty the devout soldiers and servants who waited on Cornelius, as well as Cornelius himself; giving them equally” the Spirit of adoption,” because they were equally prepared for it by “the Spirit of conviction and bondage,” which they had not received in vain.] From the last words of this quotation Mr. Toplady fondly infers the Calvinism of Barnabas; whereas from the words which I have produced in Italics, it is evident that this apostle was as far from Calvinism as St. James himself: for they show that Barnabas thought a believer could be “found destitute of the fear of God,” i.e. could so fall away into a graceless state, as to make shipwreck even of “the fear of God,” only by “commanding a servant with bitterness.”

This historic proof of Barnabas’ Calvinism is so much the more surprising, as he says, a few lines below, “Meditate to save a soul by the word. And thou shalt labour for the redemption of thy sins. Give to very one that asketh of thee; but know withal who is the good Recompenser for the reward, &c. It is therefore an excellent thing for him who learns the righteous commands of the Lord, &c, to walk in them. For he who does them, shall be glorified in the kingdom of God; but he who chooseth the other things, shall perish with his works. Therefore there is a resurrection and a retribution. The Lord is at hand, and his reward. I entreat you, again and again, that ye be good lawgivers to yourselves, and that ye remain faithful counsellors to yourselves. Be ye taught of God, seeking out what the Lord requireth from you, and do, that ye may be saved in the day of judgment.” I see no Calvinism in all this; but only the doctrine of the second Scripture Scale, which all Calvinists would abhor, as they do Mr. Wesley’s Minutes, if consistency belonged to their system. Nor was St. Clement more averse to that scale than Barnabas: for although, in the excellent epistle which he wrote to reconvert the wrangling Corinthians, he maintains the Protestant doctrine of faith, as clearly as our Church does in her eleventh article; yet he as strongly inculcates the doctrine of works, as she does in the twelfth. Nay, he so closely connects faith and its works, that what St. Paul calls faith, he does not scruple to call obedience. “By obedience, (says he) he [Abraham] went out of his own land.” And again: “By faith and hospitality was Rahab saved.” Hence it is that he guards the doctrine of obedient free will as strongly as that of prevenient free grace. “Let us remember (says he) the words of our Lord, Forgive, and ye shall be forgiven. Let them [children] learn how great power humility has with God; how much holy love avails with him; how the fear of him is good and great, and saveth all those who, with a pure mind, turn to him in holiness. Let us agonize to be found in the number of them that wait for him, [God,] that we may partake thereof:” that is, of the things which are prepared for them that wait for him.

His description of love is so highly anti-Calvinistic, that it amounts even to Christian perfection. “By love were all the elect of God made perfect: no words can declare its perfection — all the generations, from Adam to this day, are passed away; but those who were made perfect in love, are in the region of the just, and shall appear in glory. f53 ‘Love covereth a multitude of sins.’ Happy then are we, beloved, if we fulfil the commandments of God in the unity of love, that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. Following the commandments of God they sin not.”

So far was he from Calvinian narrowness and reprobation, that when he exhorts the Corinthians to repentance, he does it in these words: — “Let us fix our eyes on the blood of Christ, and see how precious it is before God, which, being shed for our salvation, brought the grace of repentance to all the world. Let us look diligently to all ages, and learn that our Lord has always given place for repentance to all who desired to turn to him. Noah preached repentance, and they who hearkened to him were saved. Jonah denounced destruction upon the Ninevites; yet they, repenting of their sins, appeased God by their prayers, and received salvation, although they were strangers to the covenant of God. Wherefore let us, &c, turn ourselves to his mercy.”

In all this I see no more Calvinism than I do in Mr. Wesley’s Minutes. However, Mr. Toplady’s “Historic Proof” is gone forth; and it is now demonstrated that St. Clement was an orthodox and a sound Calvinist; while the author of the Minutes is a heretic, and almost every thing that is bad! O Solifidianism! is thy influence over those who drink of thy enchanting cup so great that they can prove, believe, and make people believe almost any thing?

By the same frivolous arguments Mr. Toplady attempts to evince the Calvinism of Polycarp, whose epistle, in some places, is rather too much anti-Calvinistical. Reader, judge for thyself, and say which of Calvin’s peculiarities breathe through the following passages of his Epistle to the Philippians: page 2, “Who [Christ] shall come to judge the quick and the dead, and whose blood God will strictly require at the hands of those who do not believe on him. But he, who raised him from the dead, will raise us up also, if we do his will, and walk in his commandments, &c, remembering what the Lord said, teaching in this wise, ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged: forgive, and it shall be forgiven you: be merciful, that ye may obtain mercy: in what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again,’ &c. These things, brethren, I write unto you concerning righteousness.”

Polycarp, far from recommending the Calvinian imputation of Christ’s righteousness, openly sides with those who are reproached as perfectionists in our days; for in the next page he says, “If any man is possessed of these, [faith, followed by hope, and led on by love,] he hath fulfilled the command of righteousness. He who is possessed of love, is free from all sin. Let us arm ourselves with the armour of righteousness, and teach ourselves in the first place to walk in the commandments of the Lord:” “from whom,” says he, in the next page, “if we please him in this world, we shall receive a [or the] future reward. For he has engaged for us, to raise us from the dead: and if we have our conversation worthy of him, we shall also reign with him, as we believe.” Nor is he ashamed to urge the practice of good works from a motive which Zelotes would call downright popery. For after observing that “Paul, and the rest of the apostles, have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness; and having obtained the place due unto them, are now with the Lord,” &c, he adds: “When ye can do good, do not defer it, for alms delivereth from death.” If Mr. Wesley said this, he would be a heresiarch. Polycarp says it; but, no matter, Polycarp is a famous martyr; and therefore he must be a sound Calvinist.

And so must Ignatius, who, from the same motive, is pressed into the service of the Calvinian doctrines of grace. To show that Mr. Toplady is mistaken, when he asserts that Ignatius was Calvinistically orthodox, I need only prove that Ignatius enforced the second Gospel axiom as well as the first. And that he did so, is evident from the following quotations. He writes to the Smyrneans: — “Let all things abound among you in grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have every way refreshed me, and Jesus Christ will refresh you. Ye have loved me, &c. God will requite you; and if ye patiently endure all things for his sake, ye shall enjoy him. Being perfect yourselves, mind the things which are perfect. For if ye have but a will to do good, God is ready to assist you.” He writes to Polycarp: — “The more the labour is, the more the gain. It is necessary for us patiently to endure all things for God, that he may patiently bear with us. Ministers of God, do things pleasing to him, &c, whose soldiers ye are, from whom ye expect your salary. Let none among you be found a deserter of his colours. Let your baptism arm you; let faith be your helmet, love your spear, patience your whole armour, and your works your gage [your depositum] that you may receive a reward worthy of you. When ye shall have despatched this business, the work shall be ascribed to God and to you,” according to the doctrine of free grace and free will. And, at the end of his letter, he exhorts the presbyters and Polycarp to write edifying letters to the neighbouring Churches, “that ye may all be glorified by an eternal work, as thou art worthy.”

To the Ephesians, whom he calls “elect by real sufferings,” as well as “through the will of God,” he writes: — “Keeping the melody of God, which is unity, ye shall with one voice glorify the Father by Jesus Christ, that he may also hear you, and acknowledge you by what you do, to be the members of his Son. So that it is profitable for you to continue in immaculate unity, that ye may always be partakers of God. Keep yourselves in all purity and temperance, both in flesh and spirit, through Jesus Christ.”

To the Magnesians he says “All works have some end; two [ends] are proposed, DEATH and LIFE; and every man shall go to his proper place,” through his works of faith or unbelief.

To the Trallians indeed he writes: — “Flee therefore evil plants [Atheists and infidels] which bring forth deadly fruit, which if a man tastes of, he dies presently. For these are not the plantation of the Father; if they were, they would appear branches of his cross, and their fruit would be incorruptible,” or rather, not rotten, not unsound. Mr. Toplady depends much on the latter part of this quotation: but all we see in it is, that Ignatius believed none are actually plants of righteousness but they who actually appear such, by actually bearing good fruit, which he calls afqartov, in opposition to rotten fruit: for if the word fqeirw means “to spoil, to corrupt, to rot,” afqartov means as well “not rotten” as “incorruptible.” And that it means so here is evident from the motive urged by Ignatius in the context, to make the Trallian believers flee from those evil plants, these Atheistical apostates’ “If a man,” that is, if any one of you, believers, (for unbelievers being dead already, have no spiritual life to lose,) “if a man tastes their deadly fruit, he dies presently;” so far is he from being sure to recover, and sing louder in heaven if he apostatizes, and feasts for months upon their deadly fruit! This important clause renders the quotation altogether anti- Calvinistical, especially if we compare it to a similar caution which this very father gives to the Ephesians: — “Let no one among you be found an herb of the devil; keep yourselves in all purity,” &c. That is, let none of you apostatize by tasting the deadly fruit of these evil plants, which have apostatized. Both quotations evidently allude to these words of Jeremiah 2:21, “I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine!” Both are strongly anti-Calvinistical; and yet the former is produced by Mr. Toplady as a proof of Calvinism! Need I say any more to make Zelotes himself cry out, Logica Genevensis?

From the whole, I hope that unprejudiced readers will subscribe to the following remarks:

(1.) Barnabas, Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius undoubtedly held the first Gospel axiom, or the godly, Scriptural doctrine of free grace; so far we agree with Mr. Toplady. But to prove them fathers after his own heart, this gentleman should have proved that at least by necessary consequence they rejected the second Gospel axiom, which necessarily includes our doctrines of moderate free will, of the works of penitential faith, and of the reward of eternal salvation annexed to the unnecessitated, voluntary obedience of faith.

(2.) If Mr. Toplady dismembered the “Equal Check,” and broke the “Scripture Scales;” taking what I advance against the proper merit of works, and in defence of free grace; producing my arguments for the covenants of peculiarity, and for the election of distinguishing grace; and carefully concealing all that I have written in favour of assisted free will, and evangelical morality: if Mr. Toplady, I say, followed this method, in those two pieces only, he would find a great many more proofs of Calvinism, i.e. of mangled, immoral, Antinomian Christianity, than he has found in all the writings of the earliest fathers, to whom he so confidently appeals.

(3.) We must then still go down so low as the fourth or fifth century, before we can find Calvin the First, I mean HEATED St. Augustine. And how inconsistent a Calvinist COOL St. Augustine was, has already been proved. I therefore flatter myself, that Mr. Toplady’s anti-historic proof of the Calvinism of the primitive Church will no longer keep Zelotes from a Scriptural reconciliation with Honestus. But I see that the time is not yet come; for he turns over two octavo volumes, and prepares another weighty objection, which the reader will find in the following section.