CALVINISM
48
CALVINISM
of Bfe is dosed bj a Just and ineprehensible, but m- emfinkamhU Judgment. In the elect, we consider cilliiig as an evidence of election ; and Justification as tnodier token of its manifestation, till they arrive in ^017, which constitntesits completion. As God Mak his efoct by vocation and Jostiflcation, so, by exdndrng the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and isnctification of his Spirit, he affords another indication of the Judgment that awaits them."^/iM<itt(<«, bk. ili, cLzsL
(9k) As to the theory that predestination depends on fbnknowkdge of holiness, Calvin says: ** It is a no- tion commonly entertained that God, foreseeing what would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a correspondent distinction between different pUBons : that he adopts as his children such as he fbre- knows will be deserving of his grace, and devotes to the dsmnation of death others whose dispositions he lecs will be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure election by covering it with the veil of forelmowledge, but pretend that it originates in soother cause" (bk. iii, ch. xzii). Consistently with this, he a fittle further on asserts that election does not flow firom holiness, but holiness firom elec- tion: **For ^en it is said that the fidthftd are elect- ed that diey should be holy, it is ftilly impUed that the liolinefls they were in future to possess liad its origin in electkm.'* He proceeds to quote the example of Jacob and Esau, as loved and hated before they had done good or evU, to show that the only reason of elec- ticQ and reprobation is to be placed in God's " secret coonteL" (Bk. iii, ch. xxHi.)
(S.) So, as to the ground of reprobation : '* * God hsth mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.' Tou see how he (the apostle) attributes both to the men wiU of God. If; therefore, we can assign no reason why he grants mercy to his people but because such is hb pleasure, neither shall we find any other cause but hit vrSU for the reprobation of otheit. For when Grod is said to harden, or show mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught by this declaration to seek no catm beside hit tdlL" (Ibid.) ** Many, indeed, as if they wished to avert odium fhim God, admit election in such a way as to deny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, be^ cause election itself could not exist without being op- posed to reprobation : whom God/xwsM 6y he there/ore nfirobatm; toAfrom no other ocaue than his determi- nation to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his children." (Bk. Hi, ch. xxiii.)
(4.) Calvin denies that his doctrine makes God the author of on, asserting that the ruin of sinners is tiieir own work: ** Their perdition depends on the divine piedestination in sudi a manner that the caute and sMttsr of it are found w> ihemtehet. For Ihefirti man fiUbeoaBnelJ^LordhiddetermimedUAouUtohegjpen, The reason of thb determination is unknown to us. Man, therefore, falls according to the appointment of IMrine PMvidence, but he falls by hit own/atdt. The Iflrd had a little before pronounced every thing that he had made to be * very good.* Whence, then, comes the depravity of man to revolt from his God? Lest it ihonld be thought to come from creation, God ap- proved and coDunended what had proceeded from him- self. By his own wickedness, therefore, man corrupt- ed the nature he had received pure from the Lord, and bjr his frn he drew all his posterity with him to de- atmetion."
(5.) In much the same manner he contends that the Mnarity of sinning is laid upon the reprobate by the ofdinatlon of God, and yeiidenies God to be the author of tiieir sinftil acta, since the corruption of men was Mved from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God. He exhorts ns *' rather to contemplate the evi- dent cause of condemnation, which is nearer to us, in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in the
predestination of God.** ** For though, by the eternal providence of God, man was created to that misery to which he is subject, yet the gromd of it he has derived fh>m himself, not God, since he is thus ruined solely in consequenoe of his having degenerated fh>m the pure creation of God to vicious and impure depravity.*' See espedaUy JnttiUOety bk. iii, ch. x^dii, § 27, and ch. xxiv, § 8.
From the above passages it will be seen that Calvin went beyond the Augustinian theory of predestination, and held to the supralapsarian view. Supralapsarian- ism regards man, before the fall, as the object of the unconditional decree of salvation or damnation ; Sub- lapsarianism, on the other hand, makes the decree subordinate to the creation and fall of man. Ac- cording to Dr. Shedd's definition, *' supralapsarianism holds that the decree to eternal b^ss or woe precedes, in the order of nature, the decree to apostasy ; infhi^ lapsarianism holds tliat it succeeds it" (Hittcry ofDoC" trinetj U, 192). The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam ; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it. Some writers have maintained that Cal- vfai was not a supralapsarian, but that view of his teaching is hardly tenable. Calvin terms " the exclu- sion of the fall of the first man f^m the divine pre- destination hfiigidtm commenimi,** (iii, ch. xxHi, § 7). So also, § 4, he says, ** Quum ergo fai sua corruptione pereunt ^omines), nihil aliod quam poenas luunt ejus- dem calMnitatis, in quam ^mut pradettincUionem lap^ tut ett Adam^ ac posteroe suos pnecipites secum traxit. It is on this particular point that Calvin goes farther than Augustine, who did not include the foil of Adam in the divine decree** (Smith's Hagenbach's History of Doctrinet, § 249). Amyraldus (q. v.) sought to re- duce Calvin's system to sublapsarianism, but was ef- fectually answered by Curcellnus in his tractate de jure Dei in Creaturat. But Fisher {New Englandery April, 1868, p. 805) holds that Calvhi was not a supra- lapsarian. (See Chritt. Remembrancer^ Jan. 1856, art iv; Warren, hi Metkoditt Quarterly Rmew, July, 1857, art. i; M5hler, Symbolitm, § 4.)