Chapter XXIV: Part 24

CALEB, the son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah, was one of those who accompanied Joshua, when he was deputed by Moses to view the land of Canaan, which the Lord had promised them for an inheritance, Num. xiii. The deputies sent on this occasion were twelve in number, selected one out of each of the tribes, and they performed their commission with great promptitude and skill; they traversed the country in every direction, bringing with them, on their return, some of its finest fruits for the inspection of their brethren. Some of them, however, after making the report of the beauty and goodness of the country, which they described to be a land flowing with milk and honey, added, that the inhabitants of it were remarkable for their strength, while its cities were large and enclosed with walls. These later particulars having excited a spirit of murmuring among the Israelites, Caleb endeavoured to animate their courage by dwelling upon the fertility of the country, and exhorting them to go boldly and take possession of it. Others, however, dissuaded the people from making the attempt, assuring them that they would never make themselves masters of it. We have seen giants there, said they, in comparison of whom we were as grasshoppers; on which the people declared against the project, and intimated their wish to return again into Egypt. Moses and Aaron no sooner heard this than they fell upon their faces before the whole congregation, and Joshua and Caleb rent their clothes, imploring them to take courage and march boldly on; since, if God were with them, they might easily make a conquest of the whole land. So exasperated, however, were the multitude, that they were proceeding to stone Caleb and Joshua, when the glory of the Lord appeared upon the tabernacle, and threatened their extermination. Moses, having fervently interceded for them, the Lord graciously heard his prayer; but though he was pleased not to destroy them immediately, he protested with an oath, that none of those who had murmured against him should see the land of Canaan, but that they should all die in the wilderness. “As for my servant Caleb,” it was added, “who hath faithfully followed me, him will I bring into the land, and he shall possess it, he and his children after him,” Num. xiv, 1–24. Joshua also obtained a similar exception, verses 30, 38. When Joshua had entered the promised land, and conquered a considerable part of it, Caleb, with the people of his tribe, came to meet him at Gilgal, and finding that he was about to divide the land among the twelve tribes, Caleb petitioned to have the country which was inhabited by the giants allotted to him, on which Joshua blessed him and granted his request. Assisted by a portion of his tribe, he marched against Hebron, and slew the children of Anak: thence he proceeded to Debir, and finding the place almost impregnable, he offered his daughter Achsah in marriage to the hero that should take it. This was done by his nephew Othniel, who in consequence obtained Achsah with a considerable portion also of territory. We are not informed of the particular time or manner of the death of Caleb; but by his three sons, Iru, Elah, and Naam, he had a numerous posterity, who maintained an honourable rank among their brethren. See Num. xiii, xiv, Josh. xiv, 6–15; xv, 13–19; Judges i, 9–15; 1 Chron. iv, 15–20. עגל

CALF, עגל. The young of the ox kind. There is frequent mention in Scripture of calves, because they were made use of commonly in sacrifices. The “fatted calf,” mentioned in several places, as in 1 Sam. xxviii, 24, and Luke xv, 23, was stall fed, with special reference to a particular festival or extraordinary sacrifice. The “calves of the lips,” mentioned by Hosea, xiv, 2, signify the sacrifices of praise which the captives of Babylon addressed to God, being no longer in a condition to offer sacrifices in his temple. The Septuagint render it the “fruit of the lips;” and their reading is followed by the Syriac, and by the Apostle to the Hebrews, xiii, 15. The “golden calf” was an idol set up and worshipped by the Israelites at the foot of mount Sinai in their passage through the wilderness to the land of Canaan. Having been conducted through the wilderness by a pillar of cloud and fire, which preceded them in their marches, while Moses was receiving the divine commands that cloud covered the mountain, and they probably imagined that it would no longer be their guide; and, therefore, applied to Aaron to make for them a sacred sign or symbol, as other nations had, which might visibly represent God. With this request, preferred tumultuously, and in a menacing manner, Aaron in a moment of weakness complied. The image thus formed is supposed to have been like the Egyptian deity, Apis, which was an ox, an animal used in agriculture, and so a symbol of the god who presided over their fields, or of the productive power of the Deity. The means by which Moses reduced the golden calf to powder, so that when mixed with water he made the people drink it, in contempt, has puzzled commentators. Some understand that he did this by a chymical process, then well known, but now a secret; others, that he beat it into gold leaf, and then separated this into parts so fine, as to be easily potable; others, that he reduced it by filing. The account says, that he took the calf, burned it to powder, and mixed the powder with water; from which it is probable, as several Jewish writers have thought, that the calf was not wholly made of gold, but of wood, covered with a profusion of gold ornaments cast and fashioned for the occasion. For this reason it obtained the epithet golden, as afterward some ornaments of the temple were called, which we know were only overlaid with gold. It would in that case be enough to reduce the wood to powder in the fire, which would also blacken and deface the golden ornaments; but there is no need to suppose they were also reduced to powder. It is plain from Aaron’s proclaiming a fast to Jehovah, Exod. xxxii, 4, and from the worship of Jeroboam’s calves being so expressly distinguished from that of Baal, 2 Kings x, 28–31, that both Aaron and Jeroboam meant the calves they formed and set up for worship to be emblems of Jehovah. Nevertheless, the inspired Psalmist speaks of Aaron’s calf with the utmost abhorrence, and declares that, by worshipping it, they forgat God their Saviour, (see 1 Cor. x, 9,) who had wrought so many miracles for them, and that for this crime God threatened to destroy them, Psalm cvi, 19–24; Exod. xxxii, 10; and St. Stephen calls it plainly εἴδωλον, _an idol_, Acts vii, 41. As for Jeroboam, after he had, for political reasons, 1 Kings xii, 27, &c, made a schism in the Jewish church, and set up two calves in Dan and Bethel, as objects of worship, he is scarcely ever mentioned in Scripture but with a particular stigma set upon him: “Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.”

CALL, to name a person or thing, Acts xi, 26; Rom. vii, 3. 2. To cry to another for help; and hence, to pray. The first passage in the Old Testament in which we meet with this phrase, is Gen. iv, 26, where we read, “Then began men to call on the name of the Lord,” or Jehovah; the meaning of which seems to be, that they then first began to worship him in public assemblies. In both the Old and New Testament, to call upon the name of the Lord, imports invoking the true God in prayer, with a confession that he is Jehovah, that is, with an acknowledgment of his essential and incommunicable attributes. In this view the phrase is applied to the worship of Christ.

CALLING, a term in theology, which is taken in a different sense by the advocates and the impugners of the Calvinistic doctrine of grace. By the former it is thus stated: In the golden chain of spiritual blessings which the Apostle enumerates in Rom. viii, 30, originating in the divine predestination, and terminating in the bestowment of eternal glory on the heirs of salvation, that of calling forms an important link. “Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also glorified.” Hence we read of “the called according to his purpose,” Rom. viii, 28. There is indeed a universal call of the Gospel to all men; for wherever it comes it is the voice of God to those who hear it, calling them to repent and believe the divine testimony unto the salvation of their souls; and it leaves them inexcusable in rejecting it, John iii, 14–19; but this universal call is not inseparably connected with salvation; for it is in reference to it that Christ says, “Many are called, but few are chosen,” Matt. xxii, 14. But the Scripture also speaks of a calling which is effectual, and which consequently is more than the outward ministry of the word; yea, more than some of its partial and temporary effects upon many who hear it, for it is always ascribed to God’s making his word effectual through the enlightening and sanctifying influences of his Holy Spirit. Thus it is said, “Paul may plant, and Apollos water, but God giveth the increase,” 1 Cor. iii, 6, 7. Again, he is said to have “opened the heart of Lydia, that she attended to the doctrine of Paul,” Acts xvi, 14. “No man can come unto Christ, except the Father draw him,” John vi, 44. Hence faith is said to be the gift of God, Eph. ii, 8; Phil. i, 29. The Spirit takes of the things of Christ and shows them to men, John xvi, 14; and thus opens their eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, Acts xxvi, 18. And so God saves his people, not by works of righteousness which they have done, but according to his mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, Titus iii, 5. Thus they are saved, and called with a holy calling, not according to their works, but according to the divine purpose and grace which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2 Tim. i, 9.

2. To this it is replied, that this whole statement respecting a believer’s calling is without any support from the Scriptures, and is either a misunderstanding, or a misapplication of their sense. “To call” signifies to invite to the blessings of the Gospel, to offer salvation through Christ, either by God himself, or, under his appointment, by his servants; and in the parable of the marriage of the king’s son, Matt. xxii, 1–14, which appears to have given rise, in many instances, to the use of this term in the Epistles, we have three descriptions of “called” or invited persons. First, the disobedient, who would not come in at the call, but made light of it. Second, the class of persons represented by the man who, when the king came in to see his guests, had not on the wedding garment; and with respect to whom our Lord makes the general remark, “For many are called, but few are chosen;” so that the persons thus represented by this individual culprit were not only “called,” but actually came into the company. Third, the approved guests; those who were both called and chosen. As far as the simple calling or invitation is concerned, all these three classes stood upon equal ground--all were invited; and it depended upon their choice and conduct whether they embraced the invitation, and were admitted as guests. We have nothing here to countenance the notion of what is termed “effectual calling.” This implies an irresistible influence exerted upon all the approved guests, but withheld from the disobedient, who could not, therefore, be otherwise than disobedient; or at most could only come in without that wedding garment, which it was never put into their power to take out of the king’s wardrobe; and the want of which would necessarily exclude them, if not from the church on earth, yet from the church in heaven. The doctrine of Christ’s parables is in entire contradiction to this notion of irresistible influence; for they who refused, and they who complied but partially with the calling, are represented, not merely as being left without the benefit of the feast, but as incurring additional guilt and condemnation for refusing the invitation. It is to this offer of salvation by the Gospel, this invitation to spiritual and eternal benefits, that St. Peter appears to refer, when he says, “For the PROMISE is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall CALL,” Acts ii, 39; a passage which declares “the promise” to be as extensive as the “calling;” in other words, as the offer or invitation. To this also St. Paul refers, Rom. i, 5, 6: “By whom we have received grace and Apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name;” that is, to publish his Gospel, in order to bring all nations to the obedience of faith; “among whom are ye also the CALLED of Jesus Christ;” you at Rome have heard the Gospel, and have been invited to salvation in consequence of this design. This promulgation of the Gospel, by the personal ministry of the Apostle, under the name of _calling_, is also referred to in Gal. i, 6: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that _called you_ into the grace of Christ,” obviously meaning, that it was he himself who had called them, by his preaching, to embrace the grace of Christ. So also in chap. v, 13: “For, brethren, ye have been _called_ unto liberty.” Again: 1 Thess. ii, 12: “That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath CALLED you,” invited you, “to his kingdom and glory.”

3. In our Lord’s parable it will also be observed, that the persons called are not invited as separate individuals to partake of solitary blessings; but they are called to “a feast,” into a company or society, before whom the banquet is spread. The full revelation of the transfer of the visible church of Christ from Jews by birth, to believers of all nations, was not, however, then made. When this branch of the evangelic system was fully revealed to the Apostles, and taught by them to others, that part of the meaning of our Lord’s parable which was not at first developed was more particularly discovered to his inspired followers. The calling of guests to the evangelical feast, we then more fully learn, was not the mere calling of men to partake of spiritual benefits; but calling them also to form a spiritual society composed of Jews and Gentiles, the believing men of all nations; to have a common fellowship in these blessings, and to be formed into this fellowship for the purpose of increasing their number, and diffusing the benefits of salvation among the people or nation to which they respectively belonged. The invitation, “the calling,” of the first preachers was to all who heard them in Rome, in Ephesus, in Corinth, and other places; and those who embraced it, and joined themselves to the church by faith, baptism, and continued public profession, were named, especially and eminently, “the called,” because of their obedience to the invitation. They not only put in their claim to the blessings of Christianity individually, but became members of the new church, that spiritual society of believers which God now visibly owned as his people. As they were thus called into a common fellowship by the Gospel, this is sometimes termed their “vocation;” as the object of this church state was to promote “holiness,” it is termed a “holy vocation;” as sanctity was required of the members, they are said to have been “called to be saints;” as the final result was, through the mercy of God, to be eternal life, we hear of “the hope of their calling,” and of their being “called to his eternal glory by Christ Jesus.”

4. These views will abundantly explain the various passages in which the term _calling_ occurs in the Epistles: “Even us whom he hath _called_, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles,” Rom. ix, 24; that is, whom he hath made members of his church through faith. “But unto them which are _called_, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God;” the wisdom and efficacy of the Gospel being, of course, acknowledged in their very profession of Christ, in opposition to those to whom the preaching of “Christ crucified” was “a stumbling block,” and “foolishness,” 1 Cor. i, 24. “Is any man _called_,” (brought to acknowledge Christ, and to become a member of his church,) “being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any _called_ in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised,” 1 Cor. vii, 18. “That ye walk worthy of the _vocation_, wherewith ye are called. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are _called_ in one hope of your calling,” Eph. iv, 1, 4. “That ye would walk worthy of God, who hath _called_ you to his kingdom and glory,” 1 Thess. ii, 12. “Through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, whereunto he _called_ you by our Gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ,” 2 Thess. ii, 13, 14. “Who hath saved us and _called_ us with a holy calling; not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ,” 2 Tim. i, 9, 10. On this passage we may remark, that the “calling,” and the “purpose” mentioned in it, must of necessity be interpreted to refer to the establishment of the church on the principle of faith, so that it might include men of all nations; and not, as formerly, be restricted to natural descent. For _personal election_, and a purpose of _effectual personal calling_, could not have been hidden till manifested by the “appearing of Christ;” since every instance of true conversion to God in any age prior to the appearing of Christ, would be as much a manifestation of eternal election, and an instance of personal effectual calling, according to the Calvinistic scheme, as it was after the appearance of Christ. The Apostle is speaking of a purpose of God, which was kept _secret_ till revealed by the Christian system; and, from various other parallel passages, we learn that this secret, this “mystery,” as he often calls it, was the union of the Jews and Gentiles in “one body,” or church, by faith.

5. In none of these passages is the doctrine of the exclusive calling of a set number of men contained; and the synod of Dort, as though they felt this, only attempt to _infer_ the doctrine from a text already quoted; but which we will now more fully notice: “Whom he did predestinate, them he also _called_; and whom he _called_, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified,” Rom. viii, 30. This is the text on which the Calvinists chiefly rest their doctrine of effectual calling; and tracing it, as they say, through its steps and links, they conclude, that a set and determinate number of persons having been predestinated unto salvation, this set number only are _called effectually_, then justified, and finally glorified. But this passage was evidently nothing to the purpose, unless it had spoken of a set and determinate number of men as predestinated and called, independent of any consideration of their faith and obedience; which number as being determinate, would, by consequence exclude the rest. The context declares that those who are foreknown, and predestinated to eternal glory, are true believers, those who “love God,” as stated in a subsequent verse; for of such only the Apostle speaks; and when he adds, “Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified;” he shows in particular how the divine purpose to glorify believers is carried into effect, through all its stages. The great instrument of bringing men to “love God” is the Gospel; they are, therefore, _called_, invited by it, to this state and benefit; the calling being obeyed, they are _justified_; and being justified, and continuing in that state of grace, they are _glorified_. Nothing, however, is here said to favour the conclusion, that many others who were _called_ by the Gospel, but refused, might not have been justified and glorified as well as they; nothing to distinguish this calling into common and effectual: and the very guilt which those are every where represented as contracting who despised the Gospel calling, shows that they reject a grace which is sufficient, and sincerely intended, to save them.

CALNEH, a city in the land of Shinar, built by Nimrod, and one of the cities mentioned Genesis x, 10, as belonging to his kingdom. It is believed to be the same with Calno, mentioned in Isa. x, 9. It is said by the Chaldee interpreters, as also by Eusebius and Jerom, to be the same with Ctesiphon, standing upon the Tigris, about three miles distant from Seleucia, and that for some time it was the capital city of the Parthians. Bochart, Wells, and Michaëlis, agree in this opinion.

CALVARY, or, as it is called in Hebrew, _Golgotha_, “a skull,” or “place of skulls,” supposed to be thus denominated from the similitude it bore to the figure of a skull or man’s head, or from its being a place of burial. It was a small eminence or hill to the north of Mount Sion, and to the west of old Jerusalem, upon which our Lord was crucified. The ancient summit of Calvary has been much altered, by reducing its level in some parts, and raising it in others, in order to bring it within the area of a large and irregular building, called “The Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” which now occupies its site. But in doing this, care has been taken that none of the parts connected with the crucifixion should suffer any alteration. The same building also encloses within its spacious walls several other places reputed sacred. The places which claim the chief attraction of the Christian visitant of this church, and those only perhaps which can be relied on, are, the spot on which the crucifixion took place, and the sepulchre in which our Lord was afterward laid. The first has been preserved without mutilation: being a piece of ground about ten yards square, in its original position; and so high above the common floor of the church, that there are, according to Chateaubriand, twenty-one steps to ascend up to it. Mr. Buckingham describes the present mount as a rock, the summit of which is ascended by a steep flight of eighteen or twenty steps from the common level of the church, which is equal with that of the street without; and beside this, there is a descent of thirty steps, from the level of the church, into the chapel of St. Helena, and by eleven more to the place where the cross was said to be found. On this little mount is shown the hole in which the cross was fixed; and near it the position of the crosses of the two thieves: one, the penitent, on the north; and the other on the south. Here, also, is shown a cleft in the rock, said to have been caused by the earthquake which happened at the crucifixion. The sepulchre, distant, according to Mr. Jolliffe, forty-three yards from the cross, presents rather a singular and unexpected appearance to a stranger; who, for such a place, would naturally expect to find an excavation in the ground, instead of which, he perceives it altogether raised, as if artificially, above its level. The truth is, that in the alterations which were made on Calvary, to bring all the principal places within the projected church, the earth around the sepulchre was dug away; so that, what was originally a cave in the earth has now the appearance of a closet or grotto above ground. The sepulchre itself is about six feet square and eight high. There is a solid block of the stone left in excavating the rock, about two feet and a half from the floor, and running along the whole of the inner side; on which the body of our Lord is said to have been laid. This, as well as the rest of the sepulchre, is now faced with marble: partly from the false taste which prevailed in the early ages of Christianity, in disguising with profuse and ill-suited embellishments the spots rendered memorable in the history of its Founder; and partly, perhaps, to preserve it from the depredations of the visitants. This description of the holy sepulchre will but ill accord with the notions entertained by some English readers of a grave; but a cave or grotto, thus excavated in rocky ground, on the side of a hill, was the common receptacle for the dead among the eastern nations. Such was the tomb of Christ; such that of Lazarus; and such are the sepulchres still found in Judea and the east. It may be useful farther to observe, that it was customary with Jews of property to provide a sepulchre of this kind on their own ground, as the place of their interment after death; and it appears that Calvary itself, or the ground immediately around it, was occupied with gardens; one of which belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, who had then recently caused a new sepulchre to be made for himself. It was this sepulchre, so close at hand, and so appropriate, which he resigned for the use of our Lord; little thinking perhaps, at the time, how soon it would again be left vacant for its original purpose by his glorious resurrection.

CALVINISM, that scheme of doctrine on predestination and grace, which was taught by Calvin, the celebrated reformer, in the early part of the sixteenth century. His opinions are largely opened in the third book of his “Institutes:” “Predestination we call the eternal decree of God; by which he hath determined in himself what he would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being _created for one or other of these ends_, we say, he is predestinated, either to life, or to death.” After having spoken of the election of the race of Abraham, and then of particular branches of that race, he proceeds: “Though it is sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel, freely chooses whom he will, and rejects others, his gratuitous election is but half displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom God not only offers salvation, but _assigns_ it in such a manner that the certainty of the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt.” He sums up the chapter, in which he thus generally states the doctrine, in these words: “In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that, by an eternal and immutable counsel, God hath once for all determined both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but _incomprehensible_, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election; and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by _excluding_ the reprobate from the knowledge of his name, and sanctification of his Spirit, he affords another indication of the judgment that awaits them,” chap. 21, book iii.

2. In the commencement of the following chapter he thus rejects the notion that predestination is to be understood as resulting from God’s foreknowledge of what would be the conduct of either the elect or the reprobate: “It is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing what would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a correspondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as his children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace; and devotes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees will be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure election by covering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that it originates in another cause,” book iii, chap. 22. Consistently with this, he a little farther on asserts, that election does not flow from holiness, but holiness from election: “For when it is said, that the faithful are elected that they should be holy, it is fully implied, that the holiness they were in future to possess had its origin in election.” He proceeds to quote the example of Jacob and Esau, as loved and hated before they had done good or evil, to show that the only reason of election and reprobation is to be placed in God’s “secret counsel.” He will not allow the future wickedness of the reprobate to have been considered in the decree of their rejection, any more than the righteousness of the elect, as influencing their better fate: “‘God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.’ You see how he (the Apostle) attributes _both_ to the _mere will_ of God. If, therefore, we can assign no reason why he grants mercy to his people but because such is his pleasure, neither shall we find any other cause but _his will_ for the reprobation of others. For when God is said to harden, or show mercy to whom he pleases, men are taught, by this declaration, to seek _no cause beside his will_.” (_Ibid._) “Many, indeed, as if they wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd; because election itself could not exist, without being opposed to reprobation;--whom God _passes by he therefore reprobates_; and _from no other cause_ than his determination to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines for his children,” book iii, chap. xxiii.

3. This is the scheme of predestination as exhibited by Calvin; and to the objection taken from justice, he replies, “They” (the objectors) “inquire by what right the Lord is angry with his creatures who had not provoked him by any previous offence; for that to devote to destruction whom he pleases, is more like the caprice of a tyrant, than the lawful sentence of a judge. If such thoughts ever enter into the minds of pious men, they will be sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one consideration, how exceedingly presumptuous it is, only to inquire into the causes of the divine _will_; which is, in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the _cause_ of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there must be something antecedent on which it depends, which it is impious to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that what he wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he wills it.” Thus he assumes the very thing in dispute, that God has willed the destruction of any part of the human race, “for no other cause than because he _wills it_;” of which assumption there is not only not a word of proof in Scripture; but, on the contrary, it ascribes the death of him that dieth to his own will, and not to the will of God. 2. He pretends that to assign any _cause_ to the divine will is to suppose something antecedent to, something above God, and therefore “impious;” as if we might not suppose something IN God to be the rule of his will, not only without any impiety, but with truth and piety; as, for instance, his perfect wisdom, holiness, justice, and goodness; or, in other words, to believe the exercise of his will to flow from the perfection of his whole nature; a much more honourable and Scriptural view of the will of God than that which subjects it to no rule, even though it should arise from the nature of God himself. 3. When he calls the will of God, “the highest rule of justice,” beyond which we cannot push our inquiries, he confounds the will of God, as a rule of justice _to us_, and as a rule to himself. This will is our rule; yet even then, because we know that it is the will of a perfect being: but when Calvin represents _mere will_ as constituting God’s own rule of justice, he shuts out knowledge, discrimination of the nature of things, and holiness; which is saying something very different from that great truth, that God cannot will any thing but what is perfectly just. It is to say that blind will, will which has no respect to any thing but itself, is God’s highest rule of justice; a position which, if presented abstractedly, many Calvinists themselves would spurn. 4. He determines the question by the authority of his own metaphysics, and totally forgets that one _dictum_ of inspiration overturns his whole theory,--God “_willeth_ all men to be saved;” a declaration, which in no part of the sacred volume is opposed or limited by any contrary declaration.

4. Calvin was not, however, content thus to leave the matter; but resorts to an argument, in which he has been generally followed by those who have adopted his system with some mitigations: “As we are all corrupted by sin, we must necessarily be odious to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty, but in the most _equitable estimation_ of justice. If all whom the Lord predestinates to death are, in their natural condition, liable to the sentence of death, what injustice do they complain of receiving from him?” To this Calvin very fairly states the obvious rejoinder made in his day; and which the common sense of mankind will always make,--“They object, Were they not by the decree of God antecedently predestinated to that corruption which is now stated as the _cause_ of their condemnation? When they perish in their corruption, therefore, they only suffer the punishment of that misery into which, in consequence of his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his posterity with him.” The manner in which Calvin attempts to meet this objection, shows how truly unanswerable it is upon his system. “I confess,” says he, “indeed, that all the descendants of Adam fell, _by the Divine will_, into that miserable condition in which they are now involved; and this is what I asserted from the beginning, that we must always return at last _to the sovereign determination of God’s will_; the cause of which is hidden in himself. But it follows not, therefore, that God is liable to this reproach; for we will answer them in the language of Paul, ‘O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus’” That is, in order to escape the pinch of the objection, he assumes that St. Paul affirms that God has “formed” a part of the human race for eternal misery; and that, by imposing silence upon them, he intended to declare that this proceeding in God was just. Now the passage may be proved from its context to have no respect to the eternal state of men at all; but, if that were less obvious, it gives no answer to the objection; and we are brought round again, as indeed he confesses, to his former, and indeed only, argument, that the whole matter as he states it, is to be referred back to the divine will; which will, though perfectly arbitrary, is, as he contends, the highest rule of justice: “I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those whom he certainly foreknew would fall into destruction; and that this was actually so, because _he willed it_; but of his will, it belongs not to us to demand the reason, which we are incapable of comprehending; nor is it reasonable, that the divine will should be made the subject of controversy with us, which is only another name for the highest rule of justice.” Thus he shuts us out from pursuing the argument. But the evasion proves the objection unanswerable. For if all is to be resolved into the mere will of God as to the destruction of the reprobate; if they were created for this purpose, as Calvin expressly affirms; if they fell into their corruption in pursuance of God’s determination; if, as he had said before, “God passes them by, and reprobates them, _from no other_ cause than his determination to exclude them from the inheritance of his children,” why refer to their natural corruption at all, and their being odious to God in that state, since the same reason is given for their corruption as for their reprobation?--not any fault of theirs; but the mere will of God, “the reprobation hidden in his secret counsel,” and that not grounded on the visible and tangible fact of their demerit. Thus the election taught by Calvin is not the choice of some persons to peculiar grace from the whole mass, equally deserving of punishment; (though this is a sophism;) since, in that case, the decree of reprobation would rest upon God’s foreknowledge of those passed by as corrupt and guilty, which notion he rejects: “For since God foresees future events only in consequence of _his decree that they shall happen_, it is useless to contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to pass rather by _ordination and decree_.” “It is a HORRIBLE DECREE, I confess; but no one can deny that God foreknew the future fate of man before he created him; and that he did foreknow it, because it was _appointed_ by his own decree.” Agreeably to this, he repudiates the distinction between will and permission: “For what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but because it is his will? It is _not probable_, however, that man procured his own destruction by the mere _permission_, and without any _appointment_, of God.”

5. With this doctrine he again attempts to reconcile the demerit of men: “Their perdition depends on the divine predestination in such a manner, that the _cause_ and _matter_ of it are found _in themselves_. For the first man fell because the Lord had determined it should so happen. The reason of this determination is unknown to us.--Man, therefore, falls according to the _appointment_ of divine providence; but he falls by _his own fault_. The Lord had a little before pronounced every thing that he had made to be ‘very good.’ Whence, then, comes the depravity of man to revolt from his God? Lest it should be thought to come from creation, God approved and commended what had proceeded from himself. By his own wickedness, therefore, man corrupted the nature he had received pure from the Lord, and by his fall he drew all his posterity with him to destruction.” It is in this way that Calvin attempts to avoid the charge of making God the author of sin. But how God should not merely _permit_ the defection of the first man, but _appoint_ it, and _will_ it, and that his will should be the “necessity of things,” (all which he had before asserted,) and yet that Deity should not be the author of that which he _appointed_, _willed_, and _imposed a necessity upon_, would be rather a delicate inquiry. It is enough that Calvin rejects the impious doctrine; and even though his principles directly lead to it, since he has put in his disclaimer, he is entitled to be exempted from the charge;--but the logical conclusion is inevitable.

6. In much the same manner he contends that the necessity of sinning is laid upon the reprobate by the ordination of God, and yet denies God to be the author of their sinful acts, since the corruption of men was derived from Adam, by his own fault, and not from God. He exhorts us “rather to contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, which is nearer to us, in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and altogether incomprehensible one, in the predestination of God.” “For though, by the eternal providence of God, man was _created_ to that misery to which he is subject, yet the _ground_ of it he has derived from himself, not God; since he is thus ruined, solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to vicious and impure depravity.” Thus, almost in the same breath, he affirms that men became reprobate from no other cause than “the will of God,” and his “sovereign determination;” that men have no reason “to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal death, without _any demerit_ of their own, merely by his sovereign will;”--and then, that the corrupt nature of mankind is the _evident_ and _nearer_ cause of condemnation; (which cause, however, was still a matter of “appointment,” and “ordination,” not “permission;”) and that man is “ruined solely in consequence of his having degenerated from the pure state in which God created him.” These propositions manifestly fight with each other; for if the reason of reprobation be laid in man’s corruption, it cannot be laid in the mere will and sovereign determination of God, unless we suppose him to be the author of sin. It is this offensive doctrine only, which can reconcile them. For if God so wills, and appoints, and necessitates the depravity of man, as to be the author of it, then there is no inconsistency in saying that the ruin of the reprobate is both from the mere will of God, and from the corruption of their nature, which is but the result of that will. The one is then, as Calvin states, the “evident and nearer cause,” the other the more remote and hidden one; yet they have the same source, and are substantially acts of the same will. But if it be denied that God is, in any sense, the author of evil, and if sin is from man alone, then is the “corruption of nature” the effect of an independent will; and if this corruption be the “real source,” as he says, of men’s condemnation, then the decree of reprobation rests not upon the sovereign will of God, as its sole cause, which he affirms; but upon a cause dependent on the will of the first man: but as this is denied, then the other must follow. Calvin himself, indeed, contends for the perfect concurrence of these proximate and remote causes, although in point of fact, to have been perfectly consistent with himself, he ought rather to have called the _mere will of God_ THE CAUSE of the decree of reprobation, and the corruption of man THE MEANS by which it is carried into effect:--language which he sanctions, and which many of his followers have not scrupled to adopt.

7. So certainly does this opinion involve in it the consequences, that in sin man is the instrument, and God the actor, that it cannot be maintained, as stated by Calvin, without this conclusion. For as two causes of reprobation are expressly laid down, they must be either opposed to each other, or be consenting. If they are opposed, the scheme is given up; if consenting, then are both reprobation and human corruption the results of the same will, the same decree, and necessity. It would be trifling to say that the decree does not influence; for if so, it is no decree in Calvin’s sense, who understands the decree of God, as the foregoing extracts and the whole third book of his “Institutes” plainly show, as _appointing_ what shall be, and by that appointment making it _necessary_. Otherwise, he could not reject the distinction between will and permission, and avow the sentiment of St. Augustine, “that the will of God is the necessity of things; and that what he has willed will necessarily come to pass,” book iii, chap. 23, sec. 8. So, in writing to Castellio, he makes the sin of Adam the result of an act of God: “You say Adam fell by his free will. I except against it. That he might not fall, he stood in need of that strength and constancy with which God armeth all the elect, as long as he will keep them blameless. Whom God has elected, he props up with an invincible power unto perseverance. Why did he not afford this to Adam, if he would have had him stand in his integrity?” And with this view of necessity, as resulting from the decree of God, the immediate followers of Calvin coincided; the end and the means, as to the elect, and as to the reprobate, are equally fixed by the decree, and are both to be traced to the _appointing_ and _ordaining_ will of God. On such a scheme it is therefore worse than trifling to attempt to make out a case of justice in favour of this assumed divine procedure, by alleging the corruption and guilt of man: a point which, indeed, Calvin himself, in fact, gives up when he says, “That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made known to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of their hearts, _provided it be at the same time stated_, that they are abandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up by a just but _inscrutable_ judgment of God, to display his glory in their condemnation.”

8. It was by availing themselves of the ineffectual struggles of Calvin to give some colour of justice to his reprobating decree by fixing upon the corruption of man as a cause of reprobation, that some of his followers endeavoured, in the very teeth of his own express words, to reduce his system to sublapsarianism. This was attempted by Amyraldus; who was answered by Curcellæus, in his tract “_De Jure Dei in Creaturas_.” This last writer, partly by several of the same passages we have given above from Calvin’s Institutes, and by extracts from his other writings, proves that Calvin did by no means consider man, as fallen, to be the object of reprobation; but man not yet created; man as to be created, and so reprobated, under no consideration in the divine mind of his fall or actual guilt, except as _consequences_ of an eternal preterition of the _persons_ of the reprobate, resolvable only into the sovereign pleasure of God. The references he makes to men as corrupt, and to their corrupt state as the proximate cause of their rejection, are all manifestly used to parry off rather than to answer objections, and somewhat to moderate and soften, as Curcellæus observes, the harsher parts of his system. And, indeed, for what reason are we so often brought back to that unfailing refuge of Calvin, “the presumption and wickedness of replying against God?” For if reprobation be a matter of human _desert_, it cannot be a mystery; if it be adequate punishment for an adequate fault, there is no need to urge it upon us to bow with submission to an unexplained sovereignty. We may add, there is no need to speak of a remote or first cause of reprobation, if the _proximate_ cause will explain the whole case; and that Calvin’s continual reference to God’s _secret counsel_, and _will_, and _inscrutable judgment_, could have no aptness to his argument. Among English divines, Dr. Twisse has sufficiently defended Calvin from the _charge_, as he esteems it, of sublapsarianism; and, whatever merit Twisse’s own supralapsarian creed may have, his argument on this point is unanswerable.

9. As it is not intended here to enter into this controversy, on which multitudes of books have been written, and the leading authors are known almost to every one, the above may be sufficient to convey a just notion of Calvin’s own opinions. After these subjects had long agitated the reformed churches, and given rise to several modifications of Calvin’s original scheme, and to numerous writings in refutation of it, the synod of Dort digested the whole into five articles from which arose the celebrated controversy on the _five points_. These articles, as being the standard of what is generally called strict Calvinism, are, in substance, as follows:--

(1.) “_Of Predestination._ As all men have sinned in Adam, and have become exposed to the curse and eternal death, God would have done no injustice to any one, if he had determined to leave the whole human race under sin and the curse, and to condemn them on account of sin; according to those words of the Apostle, ‘All the world is become guilty before God,’ Rom. iii, 19, 23; vi, 23. That some, _in time_, have faith given them by God, and others have it not given, proceeds from his eternal decree; for ‘known unto God are all his works from the beginning,’ &c, Acts xv, 18; Eph. i, 11. According to which decree, he graciously softens the hearts of the elect, however hard, and he bends them to believe; but the non-elect he leaves, in his judgment, to their own perversity and hardness. And here, especially, a deep discrimination, at the same time both merciful and just; a discrimination of men equally lost, opens itself to us; or that decree of election and reprobation which is revealed in the word of God; which, as perverse, impure, and unstable persons do wrest to their own destruction, so it affords ineffable consolation to holy and pious souls. But election is the immutable purpose of God; by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, he chose, out of the whole human race, fallen by their own fault from their primeval integrity into sin and destruction, according to the most free _good pleasure_ of his own will, and of _mere grace_, a certain number of men, neither better nor worthier than others, but lying in the same misery with the rest, to salvation in Christ; whom he had, even from eternity, constituted Mediator and head of all the elect, and the foundation of salvation; and therefore he decreed to give them unto him to be saved, and effectually to call and draw them into communion with him, by his word and Spirit; or he decreed himself to give unto them true faith, to justify, to sanctify, and at length powerfully to glorify them, &c, Eph. i, 4–6; Rom. viii, 30. This same election is not made from any _foreseen_ faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality and disposition, as a _pre-requisite_ cause or condition in the man who should be elected, &c. ‘He hath chosen us,’ not because we _were_, but ‘that we _might_ be, holy,’ &c, Eph. i, 4; Rom. ix, 11–13; Acts xiii, 48. Moreover, Holy Scripture doth illustrate and commend to us this eternal and free grace of our election, in this more especially, that it doth testify all men not to be elected; but that some are non-elect, or _passed by_, in the eternal election of God, whom truly God, from most free, just, irreprehensible, and immutable good pleasure, decreed to leave in the _common misery_ into which they had, by _their own fault_, cast themselves; and not to bestow on them living faith, and the grace of conversion; but having been left in their own ways, and under just judgment, at length, not only on account of their unbelief, but also of all their other sins, to condemn and eternally punish them, to the manifestation of his own justice. And this is the decree of _reprobation_, which determines that God is, in no wise, the author of sin, (which, to be thought of, is blasphemy,) but a tremendous, incomprehensible, just judge, and avenger.“