according to some, is a judgment, or decree of God, by
which he has resolved, from all eternity, to save a certain number of
persons, hence named elect. Others define it, a decree to give faith in
Jesus Christ to a certain number of men, and to leave the rest to their
own malice and hardness of heart. A third, more Scripturally, God’s
eternal purpose to save all that truly repent and unfeignedly believe
his holy Gospel,”--according to the Apostle Paul, Whom he did foreknow”
as believers them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son;” to his moral image here, and to the image of his glorified
humanity in heaven. According to the Calvinistical scheme, the reason of
God’s predestinating some to everlasting life is not founded in a
foresight of their faith and obedience; nevertheless, it is also
maintained on this scheme, that the means are decreed as well as the
end, and that God purposes to save none but such as by his grace he
shall prepare for salvation by sanctification. The Remonstrants define
predestination to be God’s decree to save believers, and condemn
unbelievers. Some represent the election and predestination spoken of in
Scripture, as belonging only to nations, or, at least, bodies of men,
and not to particular persons. The greatest difficulties with which the
modern theology is clogged turn on predestination; both the Romish and
Reformed churches are divided about it; the Lutherans speak of it with
horror; the Calvinists contend for it with the greatest zeal; the
Molinists and Jesuits preach it down as a most dangerous doctrine; the
Jansenists assert it as an article of faith; the Arminians,
Remonstrants, and many others, are all avowed enemies of absolute
predestination. Those strenuous patrons of Jansenism, the
Port-royalists, taught, that God predestinates those whom he foresees
will coöperate with his grace to the end. Dupin adds, that men do not
fall into sin because not predestinated to life, but they are not
predestinated because God foresaw their sins. See CALVINISM.
This doctrine has been already treated of. We shall here therefore
merely subjoin a sketch of its history previous to the Reformation. The
apostolic fathers, men little accustomed to the intricacy of
metaphysical disquisition, deeply impressed with the truth of the
Gospel, powerfully influenced by its spirit, and from their particular
situation naturally dwelling much upon it as a system of direction and
consolation, do not, in their writings, at all advert to the origin of
evil, or to predestination, so closely allied to it. They press, with
much earnestness, upon those in whom they were interested the vast
importance of practical holiness, exhibit the motives which appeared to
them calculated to secure it, and represent the blessedness which awaits
good men, and the condemnation reserved for the wicked; but they do not
once attempt to determine whether the sin which they were solicitous to
remove could be accounted for, in consistency with the essential
holiness and the unbounded mercy of the Deity. In short, they just took
that view of this subject which every man takes when he is not seeking
to enter into philosophical disquisition; never for one moment doubting
that whatever is wrong was ultimately to be referred to man, and that
the economy of grace proceeding from God was the most convincing proof
of the tenderness of his compassion for mankind.
When, however, the church received within its communion those who had
been educated in the schools of philosophy, and to whom the question as
to the origin of evil must, while they frequented these schools, have
become familiar, it was not to be supposed that, even although they were
convinced that we should be chiefly solicitous about the formation of
the Christian character, there would be no allusion to what had formerly
interested them, or that they would refrain from delivering their
sentiments upon it. Agreeably to this, we find, in the works of Justin
Martyr, Tatian, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, sufficient intimations
that they had directed their attention to the difficulty now under
review; and that, whether upon adequate grounds or not, they had come to
a decision as to the way in which it should be explained consistently
with the divine perfections. It is evident that they did not investigate
the subject to the depth to which it is requisite for the full
discussion of it to go; and that various questions which must be put
before it can be brought completely before us, they either did not put,
or hastily regarded as of very little moment: but it is enough to dwell
upon the fact, that they did employ their thoughts upon it, and have so
expressed themselves as to leave no doubt of the light in which it was
contemplated by them. Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, remarks that
“they who were foreknown as to become wicked, whether angels or men, did
so not from any fault of God, ἀιτίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, but from their own blame;”
by which observation he shows it to have been his opinion that God
foresaw in what manner his intelligent creatures would act; but that
this did not affect their liberty, and did not diminish their guilt. A
little after he says more fully, that God created angels and men free to
the practice of righteousness, having planted in them reason, through
which they knew by whom they were created and through whom they existed,
when before they were not, and who prescribed to them a law by which
they were to be judged, if they acted contrary to right reason.
Wherefore, we, angels and men, are through ourselves convicted as being
wicked, if we do not lay hold of repentance. But if the Logos of God
foretels that some angels and men would go to be punished, he does so
because he foreknew that they would certainly become wicked by no means,
however, because God made them such.” Justin thus admits that man is
wholly dependent upon God, deriving existence and every thing which he
has from the Almighty; but he is persuaded that we were perfectly able
to retain our integrity, and that, although it was foreseen that we
should not do so, this did not abridge our moral power, or fix any
imputation on the Deity in consequence of our transgression. Tatian, in
his oration against the Greeks, an excellent work which, although
composed after the death of Justin, was written, in all probability,
before its author had adopted the wild opinions which he defended toward
the conclusion of his life, expresses very much the same sentiments
avowed by Justin. He says, Both men and angels were created free, so
that man becoming wicked through his own fault may be deservedly
punished, while a good man, who, from the right exercise of his free
will, does not transgress the law of God, is entitled to praise; that
the power of the divine Logos having in himself the knowledge of what
was to happen, not through fate or unavoidable necessity, but from free
choice, predicted future things, condemning the wicked and praising the
righteous.”
Irenæus, in the third book of his work against heresies, has taken an
opportunity to state his notions about the origin of evil. The
seventy-first chapter of that book is entitled, A proof that man is
free, and has power to this extent, that of himself he can choose what
is good or the contrary.” In illustration of this he remarks, God gave
to man the power of election as he did to the angels. They, therefore,
who do not obey are justly not found with the good, and receive deserved
punishment, because God having given them what was good, they did not
keep it, but despised the riches of the divine mercy.” The next chapter
is entitled, A proof that some men are not good by nature, and others
wicked, and that what is good is within the choice of man.” In treating
on this subject, Irenæus observes, that if the reverse were the case,
the good would not merit praise nor the wicked blame, because being
merely what, without any will of theirs, they had been made, they could
not be considered as voluntary agents. But,” he adds, since all have the
same nature, and are able to retain and to do what is good, and may, on
the other hand, lose it and not do it, some are, even in the sight of
men, and much more in that of God, deservedly praised and others
blamed.” In support of this he introduces a great variety of passages
from Scripture. It appears, however, that the real difficulty attending
the subject had suggested itself to his mind; for he inquires in the
seventy-third chapter, why God had not from the beginning made man
perfect, all things being possible to him. He gives to this question a
metaphysical and unsatisfactory answer, but which so far satisfied
himself as to convince him that there could not, on this ground, be any
imputation justly cast on the perfections of the Almighty, and that,
consequently, a sufficient explanation of the origin of evil and of the
justice of punishing it, was to be found in the nature of man as a free
agent, or in the abuse of that liberty with which man had been endowed.
Tertullian had also speculated upon the moral condition of man, and has
recorded his sentiments with respect to it. He explicitly asserts the
freedom of the will; lays down the position, that, if this be denied,
there can be neither reward nor punishment; and, in answer to an
objection, that since free will has been productive of such melancholy
consequences, it would have been better that it had not been bestowed,
he enters into a formal vindication of this part of our constitution. In
reply to another suggestion, that God might have interposed to prevent
the choice which was to be productive of sin and misery, he maintains
that this could not have been done without destroying that admirable
constitution by which alone the interests of virtue can be really
promoted. He thus thought that sin was to be imputed wholly to man, and
that it was perfectly consistent with the attributes of God, or rather
illustrated these attributes, that there should be a system under which
sin was possible, because without this possibility there could have been
no accountable agents.
From what has been stated on this subject, it seems unquestionable that
the apostolic fathers did not at all enter upon the subject of the
origin of evil; that the writers by whom they were succeeded were
satisfied that, in the sense in which the term is now most commonly
used, there was no such thing as predestination; that they uniformly
represented the destiny of man as regulated by the use or abuse of his
free will; that, with the exception of Irenæus, they did not attempt to
explain why such a creature as man, who was to fall into sin, was
created by a Being of infinite goodness; that the sole objection to
their doctrine seemed to them to be, that prescience was incompatible
with liberty, and that, when they answered this, they considered that
nothing more was requisite for receiving, without hesitation, the view
of man upon which they often and fondly dwelt, as a free and accountable
agent, who might have held fast his integrity, and whose fall from that
integrity was to be ascribed solely to himself, as it did not at all
result from any appointment of the supreme Being.
Although opinions respecting original sin, directly tending to a very
different view of the subject than had been previously taken, had been
stated by Cyprian, yet a thorough investigation of it, and the
sentiments which afterward were widely received in the Christian church,
took their rise from the discussions to which the Pelagian controversy
gave occasion. Previous to the part which Augustine took in that
controversy, he seems to have been very much of the same sentiments with
Origen and the other early fathers. But, either from what he considered
as a more deliberate and complete examination of Scripture, or from
perceiving the necessity imposed on him, in consequence of some of the
positions which he had laid down in his writings against Pelagius, he
soon changed his opinion, and advanced a notion more in harmony with
these positions. Having to show the absolute necessity of divine grace,
he inculcated that, in consequence of original sin, man was infallibly
determined to evil, and was therefore in a state of condemnation, and he
thus took away the foundation upon which the prevailing tenets rested;
because it was impossible that men could be predestined to life, or the
reverse, from prescience of their actions, when, without the special
grace of God, they were absolutely incapacitated for obedience to the
divine law. To get rid of this difficulty, Augustine, in some degree,
transferred the search for the origin of sin from the state of man to
the purposes of God, asserting that from all eternity the Almighty had
determined to choose from the mass of mankind, lost in guilt and
corruption, a certain number to be transformed to holiness, and to be
admitted after this life to eternal happiness; that he did this to
promote his own glory; and that, by the operation of his Spirit, granted
of his own free and undeserved mercy, he produced in the elect or chosen
the fruits of righteousness, and qualified them for the enjoyment of
heaven. The whole of the remainder of the human race were, according to
this system, left in their condition by nature, or in other words, were
given up to endless misery. There immediately arose out of this view of
the subject, the formidable and heart-rending objection, that God was
really the author of sin; that, having so created mankind that of
themselves they could not be holy, there was on the part of those
delivered no virtue, as there was on the other part no blame; the case
being quite different from what it would have been had God interposed
with respect to creatures who had not received from himself their
physical and moral constitution. Accordingly, it has been asserted that
a sect did arise, which, carrying out, as the members of it affirmed,
the principles of Augustine, maintained that God not only predestinated
the wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the guilt and
transgression for which they were punished; that the human race was thus
wholly passive, the good and bad actions of men, or what were commonly
termed such, being determined from all eternity by a divine decree, or
fixed by hopeless, irresistible necessity. These opinions it is said
that the venerable and enlightened bishop of Hippo zealously opposed,
labouring to show that they were not fairly deduced from what he had
taught, making a distinction probably between his account of free will
and the necessity here confounded with it, and perhaps reluctant to push
his tenets so far as apparently they might be carried. The fact is, that
although the doctrine of absolute predestination is occasionally clearly
taught by Augustine, and obviously follows from his other principles,
yet he does not always write consistently with regard to it; or, at
least, there is sometimes so much vagueness in his assertions and
illustrations, that his authority has been claimed in support of their
peculiar tenets both by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, opposite to each
other as the sentiments of these two orders are upon the subject of
which we are treating. Still it is beyond a question that this
celebrated theologian did fix the attention of the church upon that
subject much more closely than before his age had been the case, and
gave rise to those discussions in relation to it which have so often
agitated Christians, and tended much more to destroy the mild and
tolerant spirit of the Gospel, than to throw light upon its momentous
truths. The subject of predestination, however, was long regarded as one
which it was not esteemed requisite absolutely to define, and which
might be very much left open to speculation; for although in different
countries decrees were passed, guarding against what were viewed as
errors resulting from it, it is plain, from what took place upon the
revival of the controversy in an after age, that there had not been
formed any standard to which ecclesiastical authority required that all
who were esteemed orthodox should strictly conform. See AUGUSTINE.
In the ninth century, Godeschalchus, a man of illustrious birth, who
had, contrary to his inclinations, been devoted by his parents to a
monastic life, and who had, with unwearied diligence, studied the
science of theology, inflamed by an unhappy desire to unravel all the
difficulties with which that science abounds, occupied his mind with the
consideration of the question of predestination, and finally adopted,
with regard to it, the doctrine of Augustine. Not satisfied with having
convinced himself, he conceived it to be his duty to labour for the
conviction of others; and he accordingly openly and zealously inculcated
that the elect were predestinated to life, and the rest of mankind to
everlasting misery. Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, who had for some
reason before this been inspired with enmity to Godeschalchus, having
been informed of the tenets which he was publishing, and, as has too
often been the case, veiling private antipathy under the cloak of
anxiety for the purity of divine truth, opposed him with the utmost
vehemence; and, having assembled a council in his own metropolitan city,
procured the condemnation of the views which he reprobated. The matter
was afterward taken up by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who was the
zealous friend of Rabanus; and he also having procured the meeting of a
council, confirmed the sentence that had been already passed. Not
satisfied with this, he degraded Godeschalchus from the priesthood; and,
with an inhumanity infinitely more detestable than heresy, he put the
unfortunate monk to the torture. The fortitude of Godeschalchus was for
a moment overpowered, and he consented to commit to the flames a
justification of his opinions which he had presented to his execrable
tormentors. It was not to be supposed that by atrocious violence like
this sincere conviction could be produced in the person against whom it
was directed, or that others would be disposed universally to submit to
it. The controversy, accordingly, soon was renewed; writers on both
sides of the question contended with the utmost warmth, and eagerly
displayed the extent of their erudition. New councils were summoned, by
which the decrees of former councils were reversed, and the tenets of
Godeschalchus were confirmed; and the whole agitation terminated by
leaving the subject in the same undefined state on the part of the
church in which it had been before it was thus intemperately and cruelly
discussed.
To the schoolmen, who delighted much more in losing themselves amidst
inextricable difficulties and endless distinctions, than in opening the
sources of knowledge and removing the difficulties with which these were
surrounded, this subject, from its intricate or inexplicable nature, was
admirably adapted; and they did not fail to exercise upon it their
diligence and their ingenuity. Thomas Aquinas, who flourished during the
thirteenth century, was a man who in more enlightened times would have
really merited the high reputation which he enjoyed, and which procured
for him from his contemporaries the appellation of the Angelic Doctor.
He was capable of vast mental exertion, and, amidst all his avocations,
produced works so voluminous that in modern days even students would
shrink from the perusal of them as an overwhelming task. He wrote
largely upon the nature of grace, and predestination, so intimately
connected with it. His opinions upon these subjects were nearly the same
with those of Augustine; and so much, indeed, was he conceived to
resemble in genius and understanding that distinguished prelate, that it
was asserted the soul of Augustine had been sent into the body of
Aquinas. He taught that God had, from all eternity, and without any
regard to their works, predestinated a certain number to life and
happiness; but he found great delight in endeavouring to reconcile this
position with the freedom of the human will. His celebrated antagonist,
John Duns Scotus, an inhabitant of Britain, surnamed, from the acuteness
and bent of his mind, the Subtile Doctor, also directed his attention,
in the subsequent century, to the same thorny speculations, taking a
different view of them from Aquinas; and we find in the works of these
two brilliant lights of the schoolmen all that the most learned in the
dark ages thought upon them.
It is unnecessary to trace the various shades of opinion which existed
in the church as to predestination from this era till the Reformation:
it is enough to remark, that, after all which had been written upon it,
it does not appear that any peculiar sentiments with respect to it were,
by the reformers, judged essential to orthodoxy. It was more wisely
considered that, upon a point involved in impenetrable difficulties, and
raised far above human comprehension, men might be allowed to differ,
while their attachment to the best interests of pure religion could not
be called in question. See CALVINISM and LUTHERANS.
The seventeenth article of the church of England is often adduced by
Calvinists as favourable to their peculiar views of absolute
predestination; but such a representation of it is rendered plausible
only by adding to its various clauses qualifying expressions to suit
that purpose. Under the articles _Church of England_, _Confessions_, and
_Calvinism_, have been exhibited the just and liberal views of Cranmer
and the principal English reformers on this subject,--the sources from
which they drew the _articles of religion_ and the public formularies of
devotion,--and some of the futile attempts of the high predestinarians
in the church to inoculate the public creed with their dogmas.
Cartwright and his followers, in their second Admonition to the
Parliament” in 1572, complained that the articles speak dangerously of
falling from grace;” and in 1587 they preferred a similar complaint. The
labours of the Westminster Assembly at a subsequent period, and their
abortive result, in relation to this subject, are well known. Long
before Arminius had turned his thoughts to the consideration of general
redemption, a great number of the English clergy had publicly taught and
defended the same doctrine. It was about 1571 when Dr. Peter Baroe, a
zealous Anti-Calvinian,” as one of our church historians observes, was
made Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge; and
“he went on teaching in his lectures, preaching in his sermons,
determining in the schools, and printing in several books, divers points
contrary to Calvinism. And this he did for several years, without any
manner of disturbance or interruption. The heads of the university, in a
letter to the Lord Burleigh, dated March 8, 1595, say, he had done it
for fourteen or fifteen years preceding and they might have said twenty;
for he printed some of his lectures in 1574, and the prosecution he was
at last under, which will be considered hereafter, was not till 1595. In
1584, Mr. Harsnet, afterward archbishop of York, preached against
absolute reprobation at St. Paul’s Cross, the greatest audience then in
the kingdom; as did the judicious Mr. Hooker at the Temple in the year
following. In the year 1594, Mr. Barret preached at St. Mary’s in
Cambridge against Calvinism, with very smart reflections upon Calvin
himself, Beza, Zanchy, and several others of the most noted writers in
that scheme. In the same year, Dr. Baroe preached at the same place to
the same purpose. By this time Calvinism had gained considerable ground,
being much promoted by the learned Whitaker and Mr. Perkins; and several
of the heads of the university being in that scheme, they complained of
the two sermons above mentioned to the Lord Burleigh their chancellor.
Their heads endeavoured to bring Barret to a retraction, to which
whether he ever submitted according to the form they drew up, may
reasonably be doubted. At length the matter was laid before Archbishop
Whitgift, who was offended at their proceedings, and writes to the Lord
Burleigh, that some of the points which the heads had enjoined Barret to
retract were such as the most learned Protestants, then living, varied
in judgment upon; and that _the most ancient and best divines in the
land were in the chiefest points in opinion against the heads and their
resolutions_. Another letter he sent to the heads themselves, telling
them that they had enjoined Barret to affirm that which was contrary to
the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in
the church of England, and in other churches likewise men of best
account; and that which for his own part he thought to be false and
contrary to the Scriptures; for the Scriptures are plain, that God by
his absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might be
impiety in believing the one, there could be none in believing the
other; neither was it contrary to any article of religion established by
authority in this church of England, but rather agreeable thereto. This
testimony of the archbishop is very remarkable; and though he afterward
countenanced the Lambeth articles, that is of little or no weight in the
case. The question is not about any man’s private opinion, but about the
doctrine of the church; and supposing the archbishop to be a Calvinist,
as he seems to have been at least in some points, this only adds the
greater weight to his testimony, that our church has no where declared
in favour of that scheme. The archbishop descended to the particulars
charged against Barret, asking the heads what article of the church was
contradicted by this or that notion of his; and Whitaker in his reply
does not appeal to one of the articles, as against Barret, but forms his
plea upon the doctrines which then generally obtained in pulpits. His
words are, ‘We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth,
if not against the articles, yet against the religion, of our church,
publicly received, and always held in her majesty’s reign, and
maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.’ And even this
pretence of his, weak as it would have been though true, is utterly
false, directly contrary, not only to what has been already shown to be
the facts of the case, but also to what the archbishop affirmed, and
that too, as must be supposed, upon his own knowledge. As to Dr. Baroe,
he met with many friends, who espoused his cause. Mr. Strype
particularly mentions four, Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Harsnet, Dr.
Andrews; all of them great and learned men, men of renown, and famous in
their generation. How many more there were, nobody can tell. The heads
in their letter to the Lord Burleigh do not pretend that the preaching
against Calvinism gave a general offence, but that it offended many;
which implies that there were many others on the opposite side; and they
expressly say there were divers in the Anti-Calvinian scheme, whom they
represent as maintaining it with great boldness. But what put a stop to
this prosecution against Baroe was, a reprimand from their chancellor,
the Lord Burleigh, who wrote to the heads, that as good and as ancient
were of another judgment, and that they might punish him, but it would
be for well doing.”
But Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, could not
endure the farther prevalence of the doctrines of general redemption in
that university; he therefore, in 1595, drew up nine affirmations,
elucidatory of his views of predestination, and obtained for them the
sanction of several Calvinian heads of houses, with whom he repaired to
Archbishop Whitgift. Having heard their _ex parte_ statement, his grace
summoned Bishops Flecher and Vaughan, and Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, to
meet Dr. Whitaker and the Cambridge deputation at his palace in Lambeth,
on the tenth of November, 1595; where, after much polishing and
altering, they produced Whitaker’s affirmation in the following form,
called the Lambeth Articles,” from the place in which their secret
sittings had been held:--“1. God from eternity hath predestinated
certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or
efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of
faith or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in
the person predestinated; but it is only the good will and pleasure of
God. 3. A certain number of the predestinate is predetermined, which can
neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true,
living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not
extinguished, doth not fall off, or vanish away, in the elect, either
totally or finally. 6. A man who is a true believer, that is, one who is
endued with a justifying faith, is assured with a plerophory, or firm
persuasion, of faith concerning the remission of his sins, and his
eternal salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is neither given,
communicated, nor granted to all men, by which they can be saved if they
will. 8. No one is able to come unto Christ unless it shall be given
unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not
drawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not
placed in the choice, will, or capacity of every one to be saved.” Dr.
Whitaker died a few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine
articles to which he had procured the patronage of the primate. After
his demise, two competitors appeared for the vacant King’s
Professorship, Dr. Wotton, of King’s College, a professed Calvinian, and
Dr. Overal of Trinity College, almost as far,” says Heylin, from the
Calvinian doctrine in the main platform of predestination as Baroe,
Harsnet, or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the vote of
the university, the place was carried for Overal by the major part;
which plainly shows, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly
stickled here by most of the heads, yet the greater part of the learned
body entertained them not.” “The Lambeth articles,” it is well observed,
are no part of the doctrine of the church of England, having never had
any the least sanction either from the parliament or the convocation.
They were drawn up by Professor Whitaker; and though they were afterward
approved by Archbishop Whitgift, and six or eight of the inferior
clergy, in a meeting they had at Lambeth, yet this meeting was only in a
private manner, and without any authority from the queen; who was so far
from approving of their proceedings, that she not only ordered the
articles to be suppressed, but was resolutely bent for some time to
bring the archbishop and his associates under a _premunire_, for
presuming to make them without any warrant or legal authority.” Such, in
brief, was the origin and such the fate of the Lambeth articles, without
the countenance of which the defenders of Calvinism in the church of
England could find no semblance of support for their manifold
affirmations on predestination and its kindred topics. These articles
afford another instructive instance of the extreme ignorance of the real
sentiments of their opponents, which often betrays itself in the conduct
of many eminent men, when they rashly begin to fence off the reputed
heterodoxy of their brethren from the sacred precincts of their own
orthodoxy. Two of the ablest and most consistent Arminians of the old
English school, Baroe and Plaifere, have lucidly shown how every one of
these nine assertions may, without difficulty, be interpreted in
accordance with their individual belief. Baroe’s clever dissertation on
this subject will be found in Strype’s Life of Whitgift;” and that of
Plaifere, in his own unanswerable _Apello Evangelium_.”
PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is his existence before he was born of the
Virgin Mary. That he really did exist, is plain from John iii, 13; vi,
50, &c; viii, 58; xvii, 5, 24; 1 John i, 2; but there are various
opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the
orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational
soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His
body was formed in the virgin’s womb; but his human soul, they suppose,
was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought
into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy
union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his
incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the
latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold
his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who
believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation: they differ
from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also
from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ’s human soul
began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that
likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii, 17. The
writers in favour of the preëxistence of Christ’s human soul recommend
their opinion by these arguments: 1. Christ is represented as his
Father’s messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by
his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem
to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ
to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man
really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Yahweh, had a
peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal
union. 2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several
passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he
had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time
nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could
not properly have divested itself of any glory, John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor.
viii, 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely
self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and
glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he
were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It
seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of
Jesus Christ should preëxist, that it might have an opportunity to give
its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of
making atonement for our sins. On the other side, it is affirmed that
the doctrine of the preëxistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and
subverts that of his divine personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit,
the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures,
created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the
second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the
least difference except in name. 2. This preëxistent intelligence,
supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other
intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking
this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to
consist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like
the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make
him a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the preëxistence of
the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which
others allege in proof of the preëxistence of all human souls. 5. This
opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this
sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the
last as passive as the first is active. 6. This notion is contrary to
the Scripture. St. Paul says, In all things it behoved him to be made
like unto his brethren,” Heb. ii, 17: he partook of all our infirmities,
except sin. St. Luke says, He increased in stature and wisdom,” Luke ii,
52. Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties
which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones.
This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of
resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God.
PRESBYTERIANS are those that affirm there is no order in the church, as
established by Christ and his Apostles, superior to that of presbyters;
that all ministers, being ambassadors, are equal by their commission;
and that elder, or presbyter, and bishop, are the same in name and
office, and the terms synonymous. Their arguments against the
Episcopalians are as follows:--With respect to the successors of the
Apostles, they seem to have been placed on a footing of perfect
equality, the διάκονοι, or deacons, not being included among the
teachers. They were inferior officers, whose province it originally was
to care for the poor, and to discharge those secular duties arising out
of the formation of Christian communities, which could not be discharged
by the ministers without interfering with the much higher duties which
they had to perform. These ministers are sometimes in the New Testament
styled ϖρεσϐύτεροι, or presbyters, at other times ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops;
but the two appellations were indiscriminately applied to all the
pastors who were the instructers of the different churches. Of this
various examples may be given from the sacred writings. The Apostle
Paul, upon a very affecting occasion, when he was convinced that he
could never again have an opportunity of addressing them, sent for the
elders or presbyters of Ephesus, the persons to whom the ministry in
that church had been committed; and after mentioning all that he had
done, and intimating to them the sufferings which awaited him, he
addressed to them what may be considered as his dying advice, and as
comprehending in it all that he judged it most essential for them to do.
Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which
the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops or overseers, to feed the church of
God,” Acts xx, 17, 28. Here they whose duty it was to feed the church of
God, as having been set apart through the Holy Spirit for that
interesting work, are termed by the Apostle presbyters and bishops, and
there is not the slightest allusion to the existence of any other
ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, superior to those ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops, to whom
he gives the moving charge now recorded. In his epistle to Titus, St.
Paul thus writes: For this purpose I left thee in Crete,” where, as yet,
it is probable that no teachers had been appointed, that thou shouldest
ordain elders, or presbyters, in every city.” He then points out the
class of men from which the presbyters were to be selected, adding, as
the reason of this, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of
God,” Titus i, 5, 7. It is quite plain that the epithet bishop is here
applicable to the same persons who were a little before styled elders,
and both are declared to be the stewards of God, the guardians and
instructers of his church. The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle
addressed to the Jewish converts, has these words: “The elders which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder, ὁ συμπρεσϐύτερος, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, feed the flock of God which is
among you, taking the oversight of it, ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops of
it, not by constraint but willingly,” 1 Peter v, 1, 2. This passage is a
very strong one. The Apostle speaks of himself in his extraordinary
capacity, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and in his ordinary
capacity as a teacher; showing, by the use of a very significant term,
that as to it he was on a footing of equality with the other pastors or
presbyters. He gives it in charge to them to feed the flock of God; the
charge which, under most particular and affecting circumstances, he had
received from the Lord after the resurrection, and which includes in it
the performance of every thing requisite for the comfort and the
edification of Christians; and he accordingly expresses this by the word
ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops over them. It cannot, with any shadow of
reason, be supposed that the Apostle would exhort the elders or
presbyters to take to themselves the office, and to perform the duties,
of a bishop, if that term really marked out a distinct and higher order;
or that he would have considered the presbyters as fitted for the
discharge of the whole ministerial office, if there were parts of that
office which he knew that it was not lawful for them to exercise.
It seems, by the passages that have been quoted, to be placed beyond a
doubt, that, in what the Apostles said respecting the ministers of
Christ’s religion, they taught that the ἐπίσκοποι and the ϖρεσβύτεροι
were the same class of instructers; and that there were, in fact, only
two orders pointed out by them, bishops or presbyters, and deacons. This
being the case, even although it should appear that there were bishops,
in the common sense of that term, recognized in the apostolic age, all
that could be deduced from the fact would be, that the equality at first
instituted among the teachers, had, for prudential reasons, or under
peculiar circumstances, been interrupted; but it would not follow either
that the positive and general declarations on the subject by the
inspired writers were not true, or that it was incumbent at all times,
and upon all Christians, to disregard them. It has been strenuously
contended that there were such bishops in the infancy of the church, and
that allusion is made to them in Scripture; but without directly
opposing the assertion, this much must be admitted, that the proof of it
is less clear than that bishops and presbyters were represented as the
same in rank and in authority. Indeed, there does not appear to have
been any occasion for this higher order. To presbyters was actually
committed the most important charge of feeding the church of God, that
is, of promoting the spiritual improvement of mankind; and it is
remarkable that their privilege of separating from the people by
ordination the ministers of religion, is explicitly acknowledged in the
case of Timothy, whom the Apostle admonishes not to neglect the gift
that was in him, and which had been given by prophecy, and by the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery; by which can be meant only the laying
on of the hands of those who were denominated presbyters or bishops. But
although all the parts of the ministerial duty had been intrusted to
presbyters, it is still contended that the New Testament indicates the
existence of bishops as a higher order. There has, however, been much
diversity of opinion in relation to this point by those who contend for
the divine institution of episcopacy. Some of them maintain that the
Apostles, while they lived, were the bishops of the Christian church;
but this, and upon irrefragable grounds, is denied by others. Some urge
that Timothy and Titus were, in what they call the true sense of the
term, bishops; but many deny that, founding their denial upon these
evangelists not having resided within the bounds, or been limited to the
administration of any one church, being sent wherever it was resolved to
bring men to the knowledge of divine truth. Many conceive that the
question is settled by the epistles in the book of Revelation being
addressed to the angels of the respective churches named by the Apostle.
But it is far from being obvious what is implied under the appellation
angel; there has been much dispute about this point, and it is certainly
a deviation from all the usual rules by which we are guided in
interpreting Scripture, to bring an obscure and doubtful passage in
illustration of one, about the import of which, if we attend to the
language used, there can be no doubt. It may, therefore, be safely
affirmed that there is nothing clear and specific in the writings of the
New Testament which qualifies the positive declarations that bishops and
presbyters were the same officers; that the ground upon which the
distinction between them is placed, is, at least, far from obviously
supporting it; and that there is not the slightest intimation that the
observance of such a distinction is at all important, much less
absolutely essential to a true Christian church, insomuch that, where it
is disregarded, the ordinances of divine appointment cannot be properly
dispensed. If therefore it be established,--and some of the most learned
and zealous advocates for the hierarchy which afterward arose have been
compelled to admit it,--that Scripture has not recognized any difference
of rank or order between the ordinary teachers of the Gospel, all other
means of maintaining this difference should be with Protestants of no
force. It may be shown that the admission of the distinction is not
incompatible with the great ends for which a ministry was appointed, and
even in particular cases may tend to promote them; but still it is
merely a matter of human regulation, not binding upon Christians, and
not in any way connected with the vital influence of the Gospel
dispensation. The whole of the writers of antiquity may be urged in
support of it, if that could be done; and, after all, every private
Christian would be entitled to judge for himself, and to be directed by
his own judgment, unless it be maintained that where Scripture has
affirmed the existence of equality, this is to be counteracted and set
at nought by the testimonies and assertions of a set of writers, who,
although honoured with the name of fathers, are very far, indeed, from
being infallible, and who have, in fact, often delivered sentiments
which even they who, upon a particular emergency, cling to them, must
confess to be directly at variance with all that is sound in reason, or
venerable and sublime in religion. It also follows, from the Scriptural
identity of bishops and presbyters, that no church in which this
identity is preserved, can on that account be considered as having
departed from the apostolic model, or its ministers be viewed, at least
with any good reason, as having less ground to hope for the blessing of
God upon their spiritual labours; because if we admit the contrary, we
must also admit that the inspired writers, instead of properly
regulating the church, betrayed it into error, by omitting to make a
distinction closely allied with the essence of religion. What is this
but to say that it is safer to follow the erring direction of frail
mortals, than to follow the admonitions of those who, it is universally
allowed, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or commissioned by him to be
the instructers of the world?
It is to be observed, however, that although bishops and presbyters were
the same when the epistles of the New Testament were written, it would
be going too far to contend that no departure from this should ever take
place; because, to justify such a position, it would be requisite that a
positive injunction should have been given that equality must at all
times be carefully preserved. There is, however, no such injunction.
Unlike the Old Testament, which specified every thing, even the most
minute, in relation to the priesthood, the New only alludes in general
terms, and very seldom, to the ministry; and the reason probably is,
that, being intended for all nations, it left Christians at liberty to
make such modifications in the ecclesiastical constitution as in their
peculiar situation appeared best adapted for religious edification. The
simple test to be applied to the varying or varied forms of church
government is that indicated by our Lord himself: By their fruits ye
shall know them.” Wherever the regulations respecting the ministry are
such as to divert it from the purposes for which it was destined, to
separate those who form it from the flock of Christ, to relax their
diligence in teaching, and to destroy the connection between them and
their people, so as to render their exertions of little or of no use,
there we find a church not apostolical. But wherever the blessed fruits
of Gospel teaching are in abundance produced, where the people and the
ministers are cordially united, and where every regulation is calculated
to give efficacy to the labours of those who have entered into the
vineyard, we have an apostolical church, or, to speak more properly, a
church of Christ, built upon a rock, because devoted to the beneficent
objects for which our Saviour came into the world.
The form of church government among the Scotch Presbyterians is as
follows:--The kirk session, consisting of the minister and lay elders of
the congregation, is the lowest ecclesiastical judicature. The next is
the presbytery, which consists of all the pastors within a certain
district, and one ruling elder from each parish. The provincial synods,
of which there are fifteen, meet twice in the year, and are composed of
the members of the several presbyteries within the respective provinces.
From the kirk sessions appeal lies to the presbyteries, from these to
the synods, and from them to the general assembly, which meets annually,
and is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the kingdom. This is
composed of delegates from each presbytery, from every royal borough,
and from each of the Scotch universities; and the king presides by a
commission of his own appointment. The Scotch ordain by the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery,” before which persons may be licensed to
preach as probationers, but cannot administer the sacraments. The clergy
are maintained by the state, and nominated to livings by patrons, as in
other establishments. Those properly called the English Presbyterians,
have no connection with the Scotch kirk. They are now indeed broken into
separate churches, and follow the same form of church government as the
Congregationalists or Independents. The name Presbyterian, therefore, is
now inapplicable to them although retained. So Dr. Doddridge: Those who
hold every pastor to be so a bishop or overseer of his own congregation,
as that no other person or body of men have, by divine institution, a
power to exercise any superior or pastoral office in it, may, properly
speaking, be called, so far at least, congregational; and it is by a
vulgar mistake that any such are called Presbyterians.” See
EPISCOPALIANS.
which he has resolved, from all eternity, to save a certain number of
persons, hence named elect. Others define it, a decree to give faith in
Jesus Christ to a certain number of men, and to leave the rest to their
own malice and hardness of heart. A third, more Scripturally, God’s
eternal purpose to save all that truly repent and unfeignedly believe
his holy Gospel,”--according to the Apostle Paul, Whom he did foreknow”
as believers them he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image
of his Son;” to his moral image here, and to the image of his glorified
humanity in heaven. According to the Calvinistical scheme, the reason of
God’s predestinating some to everlasting life is not founded in a
foresight of their faith and obedience; nevertheless, it is also
maintained on this scheme, that the means are decreed as well as the
end, and that God purposes to save none but such as by his grace he
shall prepare for salvation by sanctification. The Remonstrants define
predestination to be God’s decree to save believers, and condemn
unbelievers. Some represent the election and predestination spoken of in
Scripture, as belonging only to nations, or, at least, bodies of men,
and not to particular persons. The greatest difficulties with which the
modern theology is clogged turn on predestination; both the Romish and
Reformed churches are divided about it; the Lutherans speak of it with
horror; the Calvinists contend for it with the greatest zeal; the
Molinists and Jesuits preach it down as a most dangerous doctrine; the
Jansenists assert it as an article of faith; the Arminians,
Remonstrants, and many others, are all avowed enemies of absolute
predestination. Those strenuous patrons of Jansenism, the
Port-royalists, taught, that God predestinates those whom he foresees
will coöperate with his grace to the end. Dupin adds, that men do not
fall into sin because not predestinated to life, but they are not
predestinated because God foresaw their sins. See CALVINISM.
This doctrine has been already treated of. We shall here therefore
merely subjoin a sketch of its history previous to the Reformation. The
apostolic fathers, men little accustomed to the intricacy of
metaphysical disquisition, deeply impressed with the truth of the
Gospel, powerfully influenced by its spirit, and from their particular
situation naturally dwelling much upon it as a system of direction and
consolation, do not, in their writings, at all advert to the origin of
evil, or to predestination, so closely allied to it. They press, with
much earnestness, upon those in whom they were interested the vast
importance of practical holiness, exhibit the motives which appeared to
them calculated to secure it, and represent the blessedness which awaits
good men, and the condemnation reserved for the wicked; but they do not
once attempt to determine whether the sin which they were solicitous to
remove could be accounted for, in consistency with the essential
holiness and the unbounded mercy of the Deity. In short, they just took
that view of this subject which every man takes when he is not seeking
to enter into philosophical disquisition; never for one moment doubting
that whatever is wrong was ultimately to be referred to man, and that
the economy of grace proceeding from God was the most convincing proof
of the tenderness of his compassion for mankind.
When, however, the church received within its communion those who had
been educated in the schools of philosophy, and to whom the question as
to the origin of evil must, while they frequented these schools, have
become familiar, it was not to be supposed that, even although they were
convinced that we should be chiefly solicitous about the formation of
the Christian character, there would be no allusion to what had formerly
interested them, or that they would refrain from delivering their
sentiments upon it. Agreeably to this, we find, in the works of Justin
Martyr, Tatian, Irenæus, Tertullian, and Origen, sufficient intimations
that they had directed their attention to the difficulty now under
review; and that, whether upon adequate grounds or not, they had come to
a decision as to the way in which it should be explained consistently
with the divine perfections. It is evident that they did not investigate
the subject to the depth to which it is requisite for the full
discussion of it to go; and that various questions which must be put
before it can be brought completely before us, they either did not put,
or hastily regarded as of very little moment: but it is enough to dwell
upon the fact, that they did employ their thoughts upon it, and have so
expressed themselves as to leave no doubt of the light in which it was
contemplated by them. Justin, in his dialogue with Trypho, remarks that
“they who were foreknown as to become wicked, whether angels or men, did
so not from any fault of God, ἀιτίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, but from their own blame;”
by which observation he shows it to have been his opinion that God
foresaw in what manner his intelligent creatures would act; but that
this did not affect their liberty, and did not diminish their guilt. A
little after he says more fully, that God created angels and men free to
the practice of righteousness, having planted in them reason, through
which they knew by whom they were created and through whom they existed,
when before they were not, and who prescribed to them a law by which
they were to be judged, if they acted contrary to right reason.
Wherefore, we, angels and men, are through ourselves convicted as being
wicked, if we do not lay hold of repentance. But if the Logos of God
foretels that some angels and men would go to be punished, he does so
because he foreknew that they would certainly become wicked by no means,
however, because God made them such.” Justin thus admits that man is
wholly dependent upon God, deriving existence and every thing which he
has from the Almighty; but he is persuaded that we were perfectly able
to retain our integrity, and that, although it was foreseen that we
should not do so, this did not abridge our moral power, or fix any
imputation on the Deity in consequence of our transgression. Tatian, in
his oration against the Greeks, an excellent work which, although
composed after the death of Justin, was written, in all probability,
before its author had adopted the wild opinions which he defended toward
the conclusion of his life, expresses very much the same sentiments
avowed by Justin. He says, Both men and angels were created free, so
that man becoming wicked through his own fault may be deservedly
punished, while a good man, who, from the right exercise of his free
will, does not transgress the law of God, is entitled to praise; that
the power of the divine Logos having in himself the knowledge of what
was to happen, not through fate or unavoidable necessity, but from free
choice, predicted future things, condemning the wicked and praising the
righteous.”
Irenæus, in the third book of his work against heresies, has taken an
opportunity to state his notions about the origin of evil. The
seventy-first chapter of that book is entitled, A proof that man is
free, and has power to this extent, that of himself he can choose what
is good or the contrary.” In illustration of this he remarks, God gave
to man the power of election as he did to the angels. They, therefore,
who do not obey are justly not found with the good, and receive deserved
punishment, because God having given them what was good, they did not
keep it, but despised the riches of the divine mercy.” The next chapter
is entitled, A proof that some men are not good by nature, and others
wicked, and that what is good is within the choice of man.” In treating
on this subject, Irenæus observes, that if the reverse were the case,
the good would not merit praise nor the wicked blame, because being
merely what, without any will of theirs, they had been made, they could
not be considered as voluntary agents. But,” he adds, since all have the
same nature, and are able to retain and to do what is good, and may, on
the other hand, lose it and not do it, some are, even in the sight of
men, and much more in that of God, deservedly praised and others
blamed.” In support of this he introduces a great variety of passages
from Scripture. It appears, however, that the real difficulty attending
the subject had suggested itself to his mind; for he inquires in the
seventy-third chapter, why God had not from the beginning made man
perfect, all things being possible to him. He gives to this question a
metaphysical and unsatisfactory answer, but which so far satisfied
himself as to convince him that there could not, on this ground, be any
imputation justly cast on the perfections of the Almighty, and that,
consequently, a sufficient explanation of the origin of evil and of the
justice of punishing it, was to be found in the nature of man as a free
agent, or in the abuse of that liberty with which man had been endowed.
Tertullian had also speculated upon the moral condition of man, and has
recorded his sentiments with respect to it. He explicitly asserts the
freedom of the will; lays down the position, that, if this be denied,
there can be neither reward nor punishment; and, in answer to an
objection, that since free will has been productive of such melancholy
consequences, it would have been better that it had not been bestowed,
he enters into a formal vindication of this part of our constitution. In
reply to another suggestion, that God might have interposed to prevent
the choice which was to be productive of sin and misery, he maintains
that this could not have been done without destroying that admirable
constitution by which alone the interests of virtue can be really
promoted. He thus thought that sin was to be imputed wholly to man, and
that it was perfectly consistent with the attributes of God, or rather
illustrated these attributes, that there should be a system under which
sin was possible, because without this possibility there could have been
no accountable agents.
From what has been stated on this subject, it seems unquestionable that
the apostolic fathers did not at all enter upon the subject of the
origin of evil; that the writers by whom they were succeeded were
satisfied that, in the sense in which the term is now most commonly
used, there was no such thing as predestination; that they uniformly
represented the destiny of man as regulated by the use or abuse of his
free will; that, with the exception of Irenæus, they did not attempt to
explain why such a creature as man, who was to fall into sin, was
created by a Being of infinite goodness; that the sole objection to
their doctrine seemed to them to be, that prescience was incompatible
with liberty, and that, when they answered this, they considered that
nothing more was requisite for receiving, without hesitation, the view
of man upon which they often and fondly dwelt, as a free and accountable
agent, who might have held fast his integrity, and whose fall from that
integrity was to be ascribed solely to himself, as it did not at all
result from any appointment of the supreme Being.
Although opinions respecting original sin, directly tending to a very
different view of the subject than had been previously taken, had been
stated by Cyprian, yet a thorough investigation of it, and the
sentiments which afterward were widely received in the Christian church,
took their rise from the discussions to which the Pelagian controversy
gave occasion. Previous to the part which Augustine took in that
controversy, he seems to have been very much of the same sentiments with
Origen and the other early fathers. But, either from what he considered
as a more deliberate and complete examination of Scripture, or from
perceiving the necessity imposed on him, in consequence of some of the
positions which he had laid down in his writings against Pelagius, he
soon changed his opinion, and advanced a notion more in harmony with
these positions. Having to show the absolute necessity of divine grace,
he inculcated that, in consequence of original sin, man was infallibly
determined to evil, and was therefore in a state of condemnation, and he
thus took away the foundation upon which the prevailing tenets rested;
because it was impossible that men could be predestined to life, or the
reverse, from prescience of their actions, when, without the special
grace of God, they were absolutely incapacitated for obedience to the
divine law. To get rid of this difficulty, Augustine, in some degree,
transferred the search for the origin of sin from the state of man to
the purposes of God, asserting that from all eternity the Almighty had
determined to choose from the mass of mankind, lost in guilt and
corruption, a certain number to be transformed to holiness, and to be
admitted after this life to eternal happiness; that he did this to
promote his own glory; and that, by the operation of his Spirit, granted
of his own free and undeserved mercy, he produced in the elect or chosen
the fruits of righteousness, and qualified them for the enjoyment of
heaven. The whole of the remainder of the human race were, according to
this system, left in their condition by nature, or in other words, were
given up to endless misery. There immediately arose out of this view of
the subject, the formidable and heart-rending objection, that God was
really the author of sin; that, having so created mankind that of
themselves they could not be holy, there was on the part of those
delivered no virtue, as there was on the other part no blame; the case
being quite different from what it would have been had God interposed
with respect to creatures who had not received from himself their
physical and moral constitution. Accordingly, it has been asserted that
a sect did arise, which, carrying out, as the members of it affirmed,
the principles of Augustine, maintained that God not only predestinated
the wicked to eternal punishment, but also to the guilt and
transgression for which they were punished; that the human race was thus
wholly passive, the good and bad actions of men, or what were commonly
termed such, being determined from all eternity by a divine decree, or
fixed by hopeless, irresistible necessity. These opinions it is said
that the venerable and enlightened bishop of Hippo zealously opposed,
labouring to show that they were not fairly deduced from what he had
taught, making a distinction probably between his account of free will
and the necessity here confounded with it, and perhaps reluctant to push
his tenets so far as apparently they might be carried. The fact is, that
although the doctrine of absolute predestination is occasionally clearly
taught by Augustine, and obviously follows from his other principles,
yet he does not always write consistently with regard to it; or, at
least, there is sometimes so much vagueness in his assertions and
illustrations, that his authority has been claimed in support of their
peculiar tenets both by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, opposite to each
other as the sentiments of these two orders are upon the subject of
which we are treating. Still it is beyond a question that this
celebrated theologian did fix the attention of the church upon that
subject much more closely than before his age had been the case, and
gave rise to those discussions in relation to it which have so often
agitated Christians, and tended much more to destroy the mild and
tolerant spirit of the Gospel, than to throw light upon its momentous
truths. The subject of predestination, however, was long regarded as one
which it was not esteemed requisite absolutely to define, and which
might be very much left open to speculation; for although in different
countries decrees were passed, guarding against what were viewed as
errors resulting from it, it is plain, from what took place upon the
revival of the controversy in an after age, that there had not been
formed any standard to which ecclesiastical authority required that all
who were esteemed orthodox should strictly conform. See AUGUSTINE.
In the ninth century, Godeschalchus, a man of illustrious birth, who
had, contrary to his inclinations, been devoted by his parents to a
monastic life, and who had, with unwearied diligence, studied the
science of theology, inflamed by an unhappy desire to unravel all the
difficulties with which that science abounds, occupied his mind with the
consideration of the question of predestination, and finally adopted,
with regard to it, the doctrine of Augustine. Not satisfied with having
convinced himself, he conceived it to be his duty to labour for the
conviction of others; and he accordingly openly and zealously inculcated
that the elect were predestinated to life, and the rest of mankind to
everlasting misery. Rabanus, archbishop of Mentz, who had for some
reason before this been inspired with enmity to Godeschalchus, having
been informed of the tenets which he was publishing, and, as has too
often been the case, veiling private antipathy under the cloak of
anxiety for the purity of divine truth, opposed him with the utmost
vehemence; and, having assembled a council in his own metropolitan city,
procured the condemnation of the views which he reprobated. The matter
was afterward taken up by Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, who was the
zealous friend of Rabanus; and he also having procured the meeting of a
council, confirmed the sentence that had been already passed. Not
satisfied with this, he degraded Godeschalchus from the priesthood; and,
with an inhumanity infinitely more detestable than heresy, he put the
unfortunate monk to the torture. The fortitude of Godeschalchus was for
a moment overpowered, and he consented to commit to the flames a
justification of his opinions which he had presented to his execrable
tormentors. It was not to be supposed that by atrocious violence like
this sincere conviction could be produced in the person against whom it
was directed, or that others would be disposed universally to submit to
it. The controversy, accordingly, soon was renewed; writers on both
sides of the question contended with the utmost warmth, and eagerly
displayed the extent of their erudition. New councils were summoned, by
which the decrees of former councils were reversed, and the tenets of
Godeschalchus were confirmed; and the whole agitation terminated by
leaving the subject in the same undefined state on the part of the
church in which it had been before it was thus intemperately and cruelly
discussed.
To the schoolmen, who delighted much more in losing themselves amidst
inextricable difficulties and endless distinctions, than in opening the
sources of knowledge and removing the difficulties with which these were
surrounded, this subject, from its intricate or inexplicable nature, was
admirably adapted; and they did not fail to exercise upon it their
diligence and their ingenuity. Thomas Aquinas, who flourished during the
thirteenth century, was a man who in more enlightened times would have
really merited the high reputation which he enjoyed, and which procured
for him from his contemporaries the appellation of the Angelic Doctor.
He was capable of vast mental exertion, and, amidst all his avocations,
produced works so voluminous that in modern days even students would
shrink from the perusal of them as an overwhelming task. He wrote
largely upon the nature of grace, and predestination, so intimately
connected with it. His opinions upon these subjects were nearly the same
with those of Augustine; and so much, indeed, was he conceived to
resemble in genius and understanding that distinguished prelate, that it
was asserted the soul of Augustine had been sent into the body of
Aquinas. He taught that God had, from all eternity, and without any
regard to their works, predestinated a certain number to life and
happiness; but he found great delight in endeavouring to reconcile this
position with the freedom of the human will. His celebrated antagonist,
John Duns Scotus, an inhabitant of Britain, surnamed, from the acuteness
and bent of his mind, the Subtile Doctor, also directed his attention,
in the subsequent century, to the same thorny speculations, taking a
different view of them from Aquinas; and we find in the works of these
two brilliant lights of the schoolmen all that the most learned in the
dark ages thought upon them.
It is unnecessary to trace the various shades of opinion which existed
in the church as to predestination from this era till the Reformation:
it is enough to remark, that, after all which had been written upon it,
it does not appear that any peculiar sentiments with respect to it were,
by the reformers, judged essential to orthodoxy. It was more wisely
considered that, upon a point involved in impenetrable difficulties, and
raised far above human comprehension, men might be allowed to differ,
while their attachment to the best interests of pure religion could not
be called in question. See CALVINISM and LUTHERANS.
The seventeenth article of the church of England is often adduced by
Calvinists as favourable to their peculiar views of absolute
predestination; but such a representation of it is rendered plausible
only by adding to its various clauses qualifying expressions to suit
that purpose. Under the articles _Church of England_, _Confessions_, and
_Calvinism_, have been exhibited the just and liberal views of Cranmer
and the principal English reformers on this subject,--the sources from
which they drew the _articles of religion_ and the public formularies of
devotion,--and some of the futile attempts of the high predestinarians
in the church to inoculate the public creed with their dogmas.
Cartwright and his followers, in their second Admonition to the
Parliament” in 1572, complained that the articles speak dangerously of
falling from grace;” and in 1587 they preferred a similar complaint. The
labours of the Westminster Assembly at a subsequent period, and their
abortive result, in relation to this subject, are well known. Long
before Arminius had turned his thoughts to the consideration of general
redemption, a great number of the English clergy had publicly taught and
defended the same doctrine. It was about 1571 when Dr. Peter Baroe, a
zealous Anti-Calvinian,” as one of our church historians observes, was
made Margaret Professor of Divinity in the university of Cambridge; and
“he went on teaching in his lectures, preaching in his sermons,
determining in the schools, and printing in several books, divers points
contrary to Calvinism. And this he did for several years, without any
manner of disturbance or interruption. The heads of the university, in a
letter to the Lord Burleigh, dated March 8, 1595, say, he had done it
for fourteen or fifteen years preceding and they might have said twenty;
for he printed some of his lectures in 1574, and the prosecution he was
at last under, which will be considered hereafter, was not till 1595. In
1584, Mr. Harsnet, afterward archbishop of York, preached against
absolute reprobation at St. Paul’s Cross, the greatest audience then in
the kingdom; as did the judicious Mr. Hooker at the Temple in the year
following. In the year 1594, Mr. Barret preached at St. Mary’s in
Cambridge against Calvinism, with very smart reflections upon Calvin
himself, Beza, Zanchy, and several others of the most noted writers in
that scheme. In the same year, Dr. Baroe preached at the same place to
the same purpose. By this time Calvinism had gained considerable ground,
being much promoted by the learned Whitaker and Mr. Perkins; and several
of the heads of the university being in that scheme, they complained of
the two sermons above mentioned to the Lord Burleigh their chancellor.
Their heads endeavoured to bring Barret to a retraction, to which
whether he ever submitted according to the form they drew up, may
reasonably be doubted. At length the matter was laid before Archbishop
Whitgift, who was offended at their proceedings, and writes to the Lord
Burleigh, that some of the points which the heads had enjoined Barret to
retract were such as the most learned Protestants, then living, varied
in judgment upon; and that _the most ancient and best divines in the
land were in the chiefest points in opinion against the heads and their
resolutions_. Another letter he sent to the heads themselves, telling
them that they had enjoined Barret to affirm that which was contrary to
the doctrine holden and expressed by many sound and learned divines in
the church of England, and in other churches likewise men of best
account; and that which for his own part he thought to be false and
contrary to the Scriptures; for the Scriptures are plain, that God by
his absolute will did not hate and reject any man. There might be
impiety in believing the one, there could be none in believing the
other; neither was it contrary to any article of religion established by
authority in this church of England, but rather agreeable thereto. This
testimony of the archbishop is very remarkable; and though he afterward
countenanced the Lambeth articles, that is of little or no weight in the
case. The question is not about any man’s private opinion, but about the
doctrine of the church; and supposing the archbishop to be a Calvinist,
as he seems to have been at least in some points, this only adds the
greater weight to his testimony, that our church has no where declared
in favour of that scheme. The archbishop descended to the particulars
charged against Barret, asking the heads what article of the church was
contradicted by this or that notion of his; and Whitaker in his reply
does not appeal to one of the articles, as against Barret, but forms his
plea upon the doctrines which then generally obtained in pulpits. His
words are, ‘We are fully persuaded that Mr. Barret hath taught untruth,
if not against the articles, yet against the religion, of our church,
publicly received, and always held in her majesty’s reign, and
maintained in all sermons, disputations, and lectures.’ And even this
pretence of his, weak as it would have been though true, is utterly
false, directly contrary, not only to what has been already shown to be
the facts of the case, but also to what the archbishop affirmed, and
that too, as must be supposed, upon his own knowledge. As to Dr. Baroe,
he met with many friends, who espoused his cause. Mr. Strype
particularly mentions four, Mr. Overal, Dr. Clayton, Mr. Harsnet, Dr.
Andrews; all of them great and learned men, men of renown, and famous in
their generation. How many more there were, nobody can tell. The heads
in their letter to the Lord Burleigh do not pretend that the preaching
against Calvinism gave a general offence, but that it offended many;
which implies that there were many others on the opposite side; and they
expressly say there were divers in the Anti-Calvinian scheme, whom they
represent as maintaining it with great boldness. But what put a stop to
this prosecution against Baroe was, a reprimand from their chancellor,
the Lord Burleigh, who wrote to the heads, that as good and as ancient
were of another judgment, and that they might punish him, but it would
be for well doing.”
But Dr. Whitaker, Regius Professor of Divinity in Cambridge, could not
endure the farther prevalence of the doctrines of general redemption in
that university; he therefore, in 1595, drew up nine affirmations,
elucidatory of his views of predestination, and obtained for them the
sanction of several Calvinian heads of houses, with whom he repaired to
Archbishop Whitgift. Having heard their _ex parte_ statement, his grace
summoned Bishops Flecher and Vaughan, and Dr. Tyndal, dean of Ely, to
meet Dr. Whitaker and the Cambridge deputation at his palace in Lambeth,
on the tenth of November, 1595; where, after much polishing and
altering, they produced Whitaker’s affirmation in the following form,
called the Lambeth Articles,” from the place in which their secret
sittings had been held:--“1. God from eternity hath predestinated
certain men unto life; certain men he hath reprobated. 2. The moving or
efficient cause of predestination unto life is not the foresight of
faith or of perseverance, or of good works, or of any thing that is in
the person predestinated; but it is only the good will and pleasure of
God. 3. A certain number of the predestinate is predetermined, which can
neither be augmented nor diminished. 4. Those who are not predestinated
to salvation shall be necessarily damned for their sins. 5. A true,
living, and justifying faith, and the Spirit of God justifying, is not
extinguished, doth not fall off, or vanish away, in the elect, either
totally or finally. 6. A man who is a true believer, that is, one who is
endued with a justifying faith, is assured with a plerophory, or firm
persuasion, of faith concerning the remission of his sins, and his
eternal salvation through Christ. 7. Saving grace is neither given,
communicated, nor granted to all men, by which they can be saved if they
will. 8. No one is able to come unto Christ unless it shall be given
unto him, and unless the Father shall draw him; and all men are not
drawn by the Father, that they may come unto the Son. 9. It is not
placed in the choice, will, or capacity of every one to be saved.” Dr.
Whitaker died a few days after his return from Lambeth, with the nine
articles to which he had procured the patronage of the primate. After
his demise, two competitors appeared for the vacant King’s
Professorship, Dr. Wotton, of King’s College, a professed Calvinian, and
Dr. Overal of Trinity College, almost as far,” says Heylin, from the
Calvinian doctrine in the main platform of predestination as Baroe,
Harsnet, or Barret are conceived to be. But when it came to the vote of
the university, the place was carried for Overal by the major part;
which plainly shows, that though the doctrines of Calvin were so hotly
stickled here by most of the heads, yet the greater part of the learned
body entertained them not.” “The Lambeth articles,” it is well observed,
are no part of the doctrine of the church of England, having never had
any the least sanction either from the parliament or the convocation.
They were drawn up by Professor Whitaker; and though they were afterward
approved by Archbishop Whitgift, and six or eight of the inferior
clergy, in a meeting they had at Lambeth, yet this meeting was only in a
private manner, and without any authority from the queen; who was so far
from approving of their proceedings, that she not only ordered the
articles to be suppressed, but was resolutely bent for some time to
bring the archbishop and his associates under a _premunire_, for
presuming to make them without any warrant or legal authority.” Such, in
brief, was the origin and such the fate of the Lambeth articles, without
the countenance of which the defenders of Calvinism in the church of
England could find no semblance of support for their manifold
affirmations on predestination and its kindred topics. These articles
afford another instructive instance of the extreme ignorance of the real
sentiments of their opponents, which often betrays itself in the conduct
of many eminent men, when they rashly begin to fence off the reputed
heterodoxy of their brethren from the sacred precincts of their own
orthodoxy. Two of the ablest and most consistent Arminians of the old
English school, Baroe and Plaifere, have lucidly shown how every one of
these nine assertions may, without difficulty, be interpreted in
accordance with their individual belief. Baroe’s clever dissertation on
this subject will be found in Strype’s Life of Whitgift;” and that of
Plaifere, in his own unanswerable _Apello Evangelium_.”
PRE-EXISTENCE OF JESUS CHRIST is his existence before he was born of the
Virgin Mary. That he really did exist, is plain from John iii, 13; vi,
50, &c; viii, 58; xvii, 5, 24; 1 John i, 2; but there are various
opinions respecting this existence. Some acknowledging, with the
orthodox, that in Jesus Christ there is a divine nature, a rational
soul, and a human body, go into an opinion peculiar to themselves. His
body was formed in the virgin’s womb; but his human soul, they suppose,
was the first and most excellent of all the works of God; was brought
into existence before the creation of the world, and subsisted in happy
union in heaven with the second person of the Godhead, till his
incarnation. These divines differ from those called Arians, for the
latter ascribe to Christ only a created deity, whereas the former hold
his true and proper divinity. They differ from the Socinians, who
believe no existence of Jesus Christ before his incarnation: they differ
from the Sabellians, who only own a trinity of names: they differ also
from the generally received opinion, which is, that Christ’s human soul
began to exist in the womb of his mother, in exact conformity to that
likeness unto his brethren of which St. Paul speaks, Heb. ii, 17. The
writers in favour of the preëxistence of Christ’s human soul recommend
their opinion by these arguments: 1. Christ is represented as his
Father’s messenger, or angel, being distinct from his Father, sent by
his Father, long before his incarnation, to perform actions which seem
to be too low for the dignity of pure Godhead. The appearances of Christ
to the patriarchs are described like the appearance of an angel, or man
really distinct from God; yet one, in whom God, or Yahweh, had a
peculiar indwelling, or with whom the divine nature had a personal
union. 2. Christ, when he came into the world, is said, in several
passages of Scripture, to have divested himself of some glory which he
had before his incarnation. Now if there had existed before this time
nothing but his divine nature, this divine nature, it is argued, could
not properly have divested itself of any glory, John xvii, 4, 5; 2 Cor.
viii, 9. It cannot be said of God that he became poor: he is infinitely
self-sufficient; he is necessarily and eternally rich in perfections and
glories. Nor can it be said of Christ, as man, that he was rich, if he
were never in a richer state before than while he was on earth. 3. It
seems needful, say those who embrace this opinion, that the soul of
Jesus Christ should preëxist, that it might have an opportunity to give
its previous actual consent to the great and painful undertaking of
making atonement for our sins. On the other side, it is affirmed that
the doctrine of the preëxistence of the human soul of Christ weakens and
subverts that of his divine personality. 1. A pure intelligent spirit,
the first, the most ancient, and the most excellent of creatures,
created before the foundation of the world, so exactly resembles the
second person of the Arian trinity, that it is impossible to show the
least difference except in name. 2. This preëxistent intelligence,
supposed in this doctrine, is so confounded with those other
intelligences called angels, that there is great danger of mistaking
this human soul for an angel, and so of making the person of Christ to
consist of three natures. 3. If Jesus Christ had nothing in common like
the rest of mankind except a body, how could this semi-conformity make
him a real man? 4. The passages quoted in proof of the preëxistence of
the human soul of Jesus Christ, are of the same sort with those which
others allege in proof of the preëxistence of all human souls. 5. This
opinion, by ascribing the dignity of the work of redemption to this
sublime human soul, detracts from the deity of Christ, and renders the
last as passive as the first is active. 6. This notion is contrary to
the Scripture. St. Paul says, In all things it behoved him to be made
like unto his brethren,” Heb. ii, 17: he partook of all our infirmities,
except sin. St. Luke says, He increased in stature and wisdom,” Luke ii,
52. Upon the whole, this scheme, adopted to relieve the difficulties
which must always surround mysteries so great, only creates new ones.
This is the usual fate of similar speculations, and shows the wisdom of
resting in the plain interpretation of the word of God.
PRESBYTERIANS are those that affirm there is no order in the church, as
established by Christ and his Apostles, superior to that of presbyters;
that all ministers, being ambassadors, are equal by their commission;
and that elder, or presbyter, and bishop, are the same in name and
office, and the terms synonymous. Their arguments against the
Episcopalians are as follows:--With respect to the successors of the
Apostles, they seem to have been placed on a footing of perfect
equality, the διάκονοι, or deacons, not being included among the
teachers. They were inferior officers, whose province it originally was
to care for the poor, and to discharge those secular duties arising out
of the formation of Christian communities, which could not be discharged
by the ministers without interfering with the much higher duties which
they had to perform. These ministers are sometimes in the New Testament
styled ϖρεσϐύτεροι, or presbyters, at other times ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops;
but the two appellations were indiscriminately applied to all the
pastors who were the instructers of the different churches. Of this
various examples may be given from the sacred writings. The Apostle
Paul, upon a very affecting occasion, when he was convinced that he
could never again have an opportunity of addressing them, sent for the
elders or presbyters of Ephesus, the persons to whom the ministry in
that church had been committed; and after mentioning all that he had
done, and intimating to them the sufferings which awaited him, he
addressed to them what may be considered as his dying advice, and as
comprehending in it all that he judged it most essential for them to do.
Take heed, therefore, unto yourselves, and to all the flock over which
the Holy Ghost hath made you bishops or overseers, to feed the church of
God,” Acts xx, 17, 28. Here they whose duty it was to feed the church of
God, as having been set apart through the Holy Spirit for that
interesting work, are termed by the Apostle presbyters and bishops, and
there is not the slightest allusion to the existence of any other
ἐπίσκοπος, or bishop, superior to those ἐπίσκοποι, or bishops, to whom
he gives the moving charge now recorded. In his epistle to Titus, St.
Paul thus writes: For this purpose I left thee in Crete,” where, as yet,
it is probable that no teachers had been appointed, that thou shouldest
ordain elders, or presbyters, in every city.” He then points out the
class of men from which the presbyters were to be selected, adding, as
the reason of this, for a bishop must be blameless as the steward of
God,” Titus i, 5, 7. It is quite plain that the epithet bishop is here
applicable to the same persons who were a little before styled elders,
and both are declared to be the stewards of God, the guardians and
instructers of his church. The Apostle Peter, in his first epistle
addressed to the Jewish converts, has these words: “The elders which are
among you I exhort, who am also an elder, ὁ συμπρεσϐύτερος, and a
witness of the sufferings of Christ, feed the flock of God which is
among you, taking the oversight of it, ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops of
it, not by constraint but willingly,” 1 Peter v, 1, 2. This passage is a
very strong one. The Apostle speaks of himself in his extraordinary
capacity, a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and in his ordinary
capacity as a teacher; showing, by the use of a very significant term,
that as to it he was on a footing of equality with the other pastors or
presbyters. He gives it in charge to them to feed the flock of God; the
charge which, under most particular and affecting circumstances, he had
received from the Lord after the resurrection, and which includes in it
the performance of every thing requisite for the comfort and the
edification of Christians; and he accordingly expresses this by the word
ἐπισκοποῦντες, being bishops over them. It cannot, with any shadow of
reason, be supposed that the Apostle would exhort the elders or
presbyters to take to themselves the office, and to perform the duties,
of a bishop, if that term really marked out a distinct and higher order;
or that he would have considered the presbyters as fitted for the
discharge of the whole ministerial office, if there were parts of that
office which he knew that it was not lawful for them to exercise.
It seems, by the passages that have been quoted, to be placed beyond a
doubt, that, in what the Apostles said respecting the ministers of
Christ’s religion, they taught that the ἐπίσκοποι and the ϖρεσβύτεροι
were the same class of instructers; and that there were, in fact, only
two orders pointed out by them, bishops or presbyters, and deacons. This
being the case, even although it should appear that there were bishops,
in the common sense of that term, recognized in the apostolic age, all
that could be deduced from the fact would be, that the equality at first
instituted among the teachers, had, for prudential reasons, or under
peculiar circumstances, been interrupted; but it would not follow either
that the positive and general declarations on the subject by the
inspired writers were not true, or that it was incumbent at all times,
and upon all Christians, to disregard them. It has been strenuously
contended that there were such bishops in the infancy of the church, and
that allusion is made to them in Scripture; but without directly
opposing the assertion, this much must be admitted, that the proof of it
is less clear than that bishops and presbyters were represented as the
same in rank and in authority. Indeed, there does not appear to have
been any occasion for this higher order. To presbyters was actually
committed the most important charge of feeding the church of God, that
is, of promoting the spiritual improvement of mankind; and it is
remarkable that their privilege of separating from the people by
ordination the ministers of religion, is explicitly acknowledged in the
case of Timothy, whom the Apostle admonishes not to neglect the gift
that was in him, and which had been given by prophecy, and by the laying
on of the hands of the presbytery; by which can be meant only the laying
on of the hands of those who were denominated presbyters or bishops. But
although all the parts of the ministerial duty had been intrusted to
presbyters, it is still contended that the New Testament indicates the
existence of bishops as a higher order. There has, however, been much
diversity of opinion in relation to this point by those who contend for
the divine institution of episcopacy. Some of them maintain that the
Apostles, while they lived, were the bishops of the Christian church;
but this, and upon irrefragable grounds, is denied by others. Some urge
that Timothy and Titus were, in what they call the true sense of the
term, bishops; but many deny that, founding their denial upon these
evangelists not having resided within the bounds, or been limited to the
administration of any one church, being sent wherever it was resolved to
bring men to the knowledge of divine truth. Many conceive that the
question is settled by the epistles in the book of Revelation being
addressed to the angels of the respective churches named by the Apostle.
But it is far from being obvious what is implied under the appellation
angel; there has been much dispute about this point, and it is certainly
a deviation from all the usual rules by which we are guided in
interpreting Scripture, to bring an obscure and doubtful passage in
illustration of one, about the import of which, if we attend to the
language used, there can be no doubt. It may, therefore, be safely
affirmed that there is nothing clear and specific in the writings of the
New Testament which qualifies the positive declarations that bishops and
presbyters were the same officers; that the ground upon which the
distinction between them is placed, is, at least, far from obviously
supporting it; and that there is not the slightest intimation that the
observance of such a distinction is at all important, much less
absolutely essential to a true Christian church, insomuch that, where it
is disregarded, the ordinances of divine appointment cannot be properly
dispensed. If therefore it be established,--and some of the most learned
and zealous advocates for the hierarchy which afterward arose have been
compelled to admit it,--that Scripture has not recognized any difference
of rank or order between the ordinary teachers of the Gospel, all other
means of maintaining this difference should be with Protestants of no
force. It may be shown that the admission of the distinction is not
incompatible with the great ends for which a ministry was appointed, and
even in particular cases may tend to promote them; but still it is
merely a matter of human regulation, not binding upon Christians, and
not in any way connected with the vital influence of the Gospel
dispensation. The whole of the writers of antiquity may be urged in
support of it, if that could be done; and, after all, every private
Christian would be entitled to judge for himself, and to be directed by
his own judgment, unless it be maintained that where Scripture has
affirmed the existence of equality, this is to be counteracted and set
at nought by the testimonies and assertions of a set of writers, who,
although honoured with the name of fathers, are very far, indeed, from
being infallible, and who have, in fact, often delivered sentiments
which even they who, upon a particular emergency, cling to them, must
confess to be directly at variance with all that is sound in reason, or
venerable and sublime in religion. It also follows, from the Scriptural
identity of bishops and presbyters, that no church in which this
identity is preserved, can on that account be considered as having
departed from the apostolic model, or its ministers be viewed, at least
with any good reason, as having less ground to hope for the blessing of
God upon their spiritual labours; because if we admit the contrary, we
must also admit that the inspired writers, instead of properly
regulating the church, betrayed it into error, by omitting to make a
distinction closely allied with the essence of religion. What is this
but to say that it is safer to follow the erring direction of frail
mortals, than to follow the admonitions of those who, it is universally
allowed, were inspired by the Holy Spirit, or commissioned by him to be
the instructers of the world?
It is to be observed, however, that although bishops and presbyters were
the same when the epistles of the New Testament were written, it would
be going too far to contend that no departure from this should ever take
place; because, to justify such a position, it would be requisite that a
positive injunction should have been given that equality must at all
times be carefully preserved. There is, however, no such injunction.
Unlike the Old Testament, which specified every thing, even the most
minute, in relation to the priesthood, the New only alludes in general
terms, and very seldom, to the ministry; and the reason probably is,
that, being intended for all nations, it left Christians at liberty to
make such modifications in the ecclesiastical constitution as in their
peculiar situation appeared best adapted for religious edification. The
simple test to be applied to the varying or varied forms of church
government is that indicated by our Lord himself: By their fruits ye
shall know them.” Wherever the regulations respecting the ministry are
such as to divert it from the purposes for which it was destined, to
separate those who form it from the flock of Christ, to relax their
diligence in teaching, and to destroy the connection between them and
their people, so as to render their exertions of little or of no use,
there we find a church not apostolical. But wherever the blessed fruits
of Gospel teaching are in abundance produced, where the people and the
ministers are cordially united, and where every regulation is calculated
to give efficacy to the labours of those who have entered into the
vineyard, we have an apostolical church, or, to speak more properly, a
church of Christ, built upon a rock, because devoted to the beneficent
objects for which our Saviour came into the world.
The form of church government among the Scotch Presbyterians is as
follows:--The kirk session, consisting of the minister and lay elders of
the congregation, is the lowest ecclesiastical judicature. The next is
the presbytery, which consists of all the pastors within a certain
district, and one ruling elder from each parish. The provincial synods,
of which there are fifteen, meet twice in the year, and are composed of
the members of the several presbyteries within the respective provinces.
From the kirk sessions appeal lies to the presbyteries, from these to
the synods, and from them to the general assembly, which meets annually,
and is the highest ecclesiastical authority in the kingdom. This is
composed of delegates from each presbytery, from every royal borough,
and from each of the Scotch universities; and the king presides by a
commission of his own appointment. The Scotch ordain by the laying on of
the hands of the presbytery,” before which persons may be licensed to
preach as probationers, but cannot administer the sacraments. The clergy
are maintained by the state, and nominated to livings by patrons, as in
other establishments. Those properly called the English Presbyterians,
have no connection with the Scotch kirk. They are now indeed broken into
separate churches, and follow the same form of church government as the
Congregationalists or Independents. The name Presbyterian, therefore, is
now inapplicable to them although retained. So Dr. Doddridge: Those who
hold every pastor to be so a bishop or overseer of his own congregation,
as that no other person or body of men have, by divine institution, a
power to exercise any superior or pastoral office in it, may, properly
speaking, be called, so far at least, congregational; and it is by a
vulgar mistake that any such are called Presbyterians.” See
EPISCOPALIANS.