Читать книгу Redemption Redeemed - John Goodwin - Страница 6

THE following work, which is humbly presented to the public, on the most important subject of the redemption of the world by Jesus Christ, was written, or rather completed, in the year 1650; and dedicated to the reverend Dr. BENJAMIN WHICHCOTE, Provost of King’s College, and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, together with the rest of the heads of colleges, and students in divinity, in that famous university. It is not my design to enter into any panegyrics, either on the author or his work; the work will speak for itself, and the public must be their own judges of its merit; truth, I believe, was the object he had in view, and this he prosecutes and supports by almost every possible argument.

He appears to have been well acquainted with the weak reasoning used by those of the contrary judgment to himself to support the doctrines of absolute and unconditional election and reprobation, and a limited atonement; and therefore he presents his arguments against those pernicious errors in a masterly manner. Well may those of the Calvinistic persuasion ridicule him and his work in the manner they have frequently done, because he hath so clearly exposed their errors, and made their babel to totter, and I expect no better treatment, for attempting to revive and spread his most valuable work. But let this be as it may, if I can be any ways useful to my fellow creatures, in enlarging their views of the redemption of Jesus Christ, and liberating them from that contractedness of mind which is inseparably connected with a belief of the Calvinistic decrees, my end will be answered.

It is a question that has been frequently proposed, If there be no such doctrine as absolute and unconditional predestination and election, why did all the ancient writers teach it? To this I answer; 1. I will venture to affirm that not one in a hundred of those who propose and insist on this question, ever read any, much less all the ancient writers. What they mean by ancient writers is, such as wrote before and after the synod of Dort. But those are rather late than ancient writers. 2. All, even of those writers, do not teach such a predestination and election as are contended for by the rigid Calvinists. 3. None of those that are justly entitled to the character of the ancient writers, and who lived in the three first centuries after our Saviour’s days, ever taught any such, as is sufficiently manifest in the quotations from them in the course of this work. St. Augustine indeed did teach it afterwards, and his followers; yet not without frequently contradicting themselves.

But then, it is further asked, How come the doctrines of absolute election, &c., and the limited extent of our Saviour’s death is taught and so generally received in our own country? They were first introduced into the world by St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, in Africa, about 400 years after our Saviour’s days. But they made their appearance in a very crude, indigested, and inconsistent form, and so continued for a number of years: till Calvin, who was contemporary with Luther, attempted to reduce them into a system and from hence it is, that the maintainers of these doctrines have obtained the name of Calvinists. But neither did Calvin himself give the system its finishing stroke: for it would be easy to produce quotations from his works, wherein he asserts both ways, viz. that Christ died for all, and that he only died for the elect. After this, in the year 1618, the synod of Dort gave a kind of finishing stroke to this system of Calvin, and brought it into the form we find it in most of the puritanical writers. Though indeed among these, there is hardly one, but who has here and there a sentence tending to establish the doctrine of an unlimited atonement, which they at other times, when they are guided by the synod’s leading strings, condemn as error and heterodoxy.

But in reference to the prevalency of these doctrines in our own country, it must be observed, that in the reign of Queen Elizabeth there were two men of great note for their learning and parts in the University of Cambridge; the one Dr. Whitaker, who was Regius Professor of Divinity; and the other Peter Baro, a Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity there. Whitaker, who had married into a family much attached to the Geneva Masters, gave himself up to their opinions; and among other points, which chiefly rested in the authority of Calvin and Beza, he began to urge the opinion of absolute predestination, which entirely excludes the greatest part of mankind from the redemption of Christ and sufficient grace; and that according to the design of God and of Christ, he maintained that reprobation is not a negative, but a positive act in God, with respect to man considered in the mass not yet corrupted; and that by means of this decree, and the will of God, many men rush into eternal destruction.

Peter Baro being of the contrary judgment to Whitaker, the disputes between these two celebrated professors ran very high, and for a considerable time drew the youth of the University into two parties; Whitaker at length went to London, and going to Dr. Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, informed him, that the University was disturbed with the Pelagian opinions, to remedy which, he desired that nine articles (afterwards known by the name of the Lambeth Articles) which he had drawn out, might be sent to Cambridge, with the approbation of some of the Bishops. These Articles were so artfully framed, that they might be approved of even by those who differed not a little from his opinion, and yet might afterwards be used by himself for the confirmation of it.

A convention of a few Bishops and other ministers was held in November, 1595, in which the articles received their approbation.

And Whitgift, although he approved not of Whitaker’s opinions, yet through easiness of temper, and fear of discord, he submitted. These articles were transmitted to Cambridge. Whitaker boasts that he had gotten the victory. And meeting with the Chancellor of Cambridge, who was also one of the Queen’s Privy Council, he acquainted him with what he had done, and showed him the articles. That great man, easily perceiving how dangerous it was to determine in points so much contested, heartily disapproved of all that was done, saying, that he would make the authors of this business repent of it. Accordingly he laid the matter before the Queen, informing her what had been decreed by a few divines about the most weighty questions, in which men of the greatest learning could never agree: adding that it was plain what those aimed at who had done this: for they thought and taught, that whatsoever was done in human affairs, whether it were good or bad, it was all necessitated by the ruling force of an immutable decree: and that this necessity was laid upon the very wills of men also, that they could not will otherwise than they did will. “Which things,” says he, “if true, most sovereign Lady, in vain do I, and others of your Majesty’s faithful servants, hold long councils about what is needful to be done in any affairs, and what may be of use to yourself and your kingdom, seeing that all consultation about things that necessarily come to pass, is downright folly.”

The Queen was moved, and ordered Archbishop Whitgift to be sent for. He came, and the subject of the Lambeth Articles was brought forwards: the Queen’s counselors being present, pressed very hard upon him by urging the illegality of the convention; and proceeding to the question concerning fate, “they determined, that this opinion was opposed to good morals and the commonwealth.” The event was, that the Lambeth Articles were suppressed.

Whitaker died in a short time after the Lambeth convention, and was succeeded in the Regius professorship by Dr. John Overall, afterwards Bishop of Norwich, a man of most excellent learning. He taught in this manner, That sufficient grace is offered to every man; that Christ died for every man; that grace leads the way in everything that is good, and free will informed by grace follows after; that grace operates in such ways as cannot be explained, not however by determining to every particular act in a natural manner, and that justifying grace cannot consist with mortal sins before they are repented of.

After this King James I, having ascended to the throne, a conference was held at Hampton-Court, in 1603; and although King James did not think proper to establish absolute predestination at this time, according to the wish of Dr. Reynolds and his party, yet he did much towards it afterwards, by countenancing the proceedings of the synod of Dort, and causing the Bible to be newly translated, which translation, as well as the former, being made mostly by such as were staunch friends to the doctrine of Calvin, no wonder that many texts appear to favour it.

As we are come down to the time of the synod of Dort, I will here give my readers a brief account of that assembly. The universal doctrines were generally taught in the Belgic churches, before Arminius either wrote or spoke in their defense; and as Dr. Heylin has proved, were the national persuasion before Calvinism was heard of. However, in time, Calvinism spread, and just before the synod of Dort, the Calvinists persecuted the Remonstrants, as those were termed who held the general doctrines. The Remonstrants put themselves under the protection of one Barnevelt, a man of great power, in the council of state for the United Provinces; by whose means they obtained an edict from the states of Holland and of West Friezland in 1613, requiring and enjoining a mutual toleration of opinions.

But this indulgence, though very advantageous to the Remonstrants, cost them dearly in the end. For Barnevelt having some suspicion that Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange, Commander General of the forces of the United Provinces, had a design to make himself absolute master of those countries, made use of them for the encouraging of such patriots as durst appear in maintenance of the common liberty. This service they undertook rather because they found that the Prince had passionately espoused the quarrel with the Calvinists. From this time the breach was so widened that it could not be closed again, without either weakening the power of the Prince, or the death of Barnevelt.

This last they easily accomplished, for he was put to death contrary to the fundamental laws of the country and the rules of the union. The Calvinists having gained their end, thought it a high point of wisdom to keep their adversaries under, and to effect that by a National Council, which they could not by their own authority. To this end, the States General being importuned by the Prince of Orange, a national synod was appointed, to be held at Dort, in 1618—To which the different churches sent their delegates, and some eminent divines were commissioned by King James to attend the synod for the Realm of Britain. A synod, says my author, is much like that of Trent, in the motives to it, as also in the managing and conduct of it. For as neither of them was assembled till the sword was drawn, the terror whereof was able to effect more than all other arguments; so neither of them was concerned to confute, but condemn their opponents.

Though most of the British Divines were brought over to subscribe the Calvinistical and tyrannical decrees of the synod, yet not all. Mr. John Hales did not: a man never mentioned without the epithet of the ever-memorable, on account of his very extensive learning and knowledge. He went into Holland, chaplain to Sir Dudley Carlton, ambassador to King James I, to the United Provinces, at the time of the synod of Dort: and became acquainted with the most secret deliberations of that synod. He was, says Bishop Pearson, who was long and intimately acquainted with him, a man of so great sharpness, quickness, and subtlety of wit, as ever this or perhaps any nation bred. His industry strove, if it were possible, to equal the largeness of his capacity, whereby be became as great a master of polite, various, and universal learning as ever yet conversed with books. He went to the synod of Dort a rigid Calvinist; but on hearing Episcopius’s reasons against those doctrines, he from that time renounced John Calvin.

Dr. Goad was another of those Divines deputed by King James to go to the synod. He was, says my author, a person every way eminent in his time, having the repute of a great and general scholar, exact critic and historian, a poet, orator, schoolman and divine. He went to the synod in the room of Dr. Hall, who came back indisposed, where he acquitted himself with applause in defence of Calvin’s doctrines. But the force of truth, and an impartial consideration of the reasons offered in its defence, at length prevailed with him to alter his judgment; and he then stood forth an advocate for the other side of the question. Dr. Womaek, bishop of St. David’s, is said to have been convinced by the powerful reasoning of Arminius, and to come over to the Remonstrants.

But notwithstanding some few deserted the good old cause of rigid Calvinism, it was known to be too useful a state-engine to be given up by the managers of the synod. Accordingly by their decree it was established as orthodoxy. And had they stopped here, there had been no great harm done. But they decreed moreover that no one should he admitted to the ministry, nor suffered to preach, nor teach a school, that was not in their sense orthodox. Nay, to such a length did they proceed in some places, that they would not suffer a man to be a parish clerk or sexton, who was not approved of for his orthodoxy. But they did not stop here. They imprisoned, banished, confiscated the goods, and ruined all those worthy ministers, whose consciences would not suffer them to subscribe to the horrible decree. Thus we see the spirit of Calvinism, and how it came to he honoured with the name of orthodoxy, and to be so prevalent in this nation.

I shall say no more of the national mischiefs that have arisen in this land by means of Calvinism being pronounced orthodoxy; nor how great a hand the Jesuits had in the time of the civil war, in artfully and secretly pushing on predestination amid the Geneva customs, under a pretence of reforming the doctrine and discipline of the church, when their grand aim was to destroy both. But I have seen much of the mischief arising from it, with regard to particular persons. How many have been heard to curse and blaspheme the God of love, in a manner shocking to think of, on account of his supposed horrible decree? We have known other serious Christians, of a timorous disposition, walk for years together on the very brink of despair, always in fear lest they should not be of the number of the elect, and so finally perish. Others, who for many years were happy in God, and walked as became the gospel, who afterwards fell; and then rocking themselves in the cradle of perseverance, have vainly fancied that they never could fall so as to perish, and therefore have given themselves up to take their full swing of sin. Who can tell the mischief that these unscriptural doctrines leave done and are capable of doing in the world? In short, the doctrine of absolute election, like the Pharisees with their key of knowledge, hinders many from entering into the Kingdom of Heaven, who were entering in, as also many who were entering it turns out again. For who would strive to enter in at the strait gate, if they were fully persuaded that by virtue of an absolute and eternal decree, such and such persons should never be able to enter in and by virtue of such a decree, such and such other persons should be thrust in head and shoulders.

The mischievous consequences of such doctrine the Bishop of London was well aware of: for at the Hampton Court conference, when Dr. Reynolds and others of his party insisted on the Lambeth Articles being added to the thirty-nine articles of the Church of England, the good Bishop observed to King James I: “that very many in those days neglected holiness of life, presuming too much on persisting in grace; laying all their religion on predestination, saying, if I shall be saved, I shall be saved,” which he termed a desperate doctrine, and showed it to be contrary to good divinity and the true doctrine of predestination. By such arguments the King was persuaded, and the Lambeth Articles were wisely and justly rejected.

It hath been frequently intimated that the extent of the death of Christ, which is the leading subject of this work, is of no great importance, and that we need not trouble our heads about it; namely, whether he died for all, or only for a few, provided we believe in him for ourselves I must confess that I have been in danger of falling into the same sentiment myself, and thereby in some measure eclipsing the glory of the blessed gospel of Jesus Christ. But the subject, if duly considered, will appear to be of greater importance than many are ready to imagine; and our author must have been deeply convinced of this, or he would not have taken so many pains to set it in a true point of light.

1. Its importance will appear, if we only consider it as a part of divine revelation. The great and blessed God, in compassion to our ignorance, hath been graciously pleased to favour us with a revelation of his mind and will, which bears the stamp of divinity in every part of it. There is nothing unimportant, or trifling in this book; every part of it undoubtedly ought to he carefully attended to, and firmly believed by us. In it we are particularly informed for whom the Son of God laid down his life. It contains a revelation of the mind of the Deity, so far as it was proper for him to make it known. It was given by the inspiration of God; designed in a peculiar manner for the information and instruction of men; and to treat it with any degree of slight or indifference, is in effect, so far, to slight and disregard that glorious Being who is the author of it.

2. The importance of the extent of our Saviour’s death will farther appear, by considering how deeply mankind are interested in it. The whole human race is concerned in the death of the Lord Jesus Christ. It respects our everlasting felicity and happiness, in comparison of which, all time concerns of this present world, however important, are mere trifles. It is in a peculiar manner connected with our hope of glory, and the only way to come to the enjoyment of it. For if there should be any among the sons of men for whom the Lord Jesus Christ did not die, these are unavoidably, and without any fault of their own, excluded from all possibility of happiness. For Christ is the only Redeemer; the only way to glory; and “there is not salvation in any other.”

As all appear to be so deeply interested in the death of Christ, it ought to be remembered within all seriousness; and being a manifestation of the greatest love and regard for us, it therefore very justly demands suitable and grateful returns. Under this consideration, it should influence the temper and conduct of all mankind, wherever this transaction of divine love is known by a preached gospel. If Christ died for all, it ought in the plainest and most unequivocal language be made known to all who hear the gospel. All ought cordially to believe it, and earnestly to seek for the salvation which he has procured for them; and to love, praise, and serve him for it. All who do not thus gratefully remember such a wonderful instance of love, will be justly condemned.

On the other hand, if Jesus Christ did not die for all, it is evident that no one is under any obligation to pay this grateful regard for him, until he comes to know that Jesus Christ died for him in particular. It is in the very nature of things impossible, nor can it in justice be required, that any one should acknowledge favours which he never received; or make returns of love and obedience in the consideration of a fact which he does not know to have ever existed. That “Jesus Christ died for our sins” is the leading fact recorded in the gospel, 1 Cor. 15:3, and without the belief of this truth we cannot be real Christians. But if Jesus Christ died for all men, and this be recorded in the gospel, (which our author clearly proves) it evidently follows that all men which hear the gospel, ought to believe it with that faith which worketh by love, both to God and man; and all who do not thus believe, experience, and act, fall under righteous condemnation.

3. The extent of the death of Jesus Christ, will appear still of greater importance, when we consider that it will affect our views of the day of judgment, and the manner in which we shall be dealt with at the great day. If no evidence can he produced from scripture that Christ died for us, we cannot rationally suppose that we are in danger of being condemned because we have not believed in him, and loved him, and served him as our Saviour. But if we believe that Jesus died for all, and that those which are condemned, are condemned “because they have not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God;” it naturally follows that we may be accepted through him at the great day, unless we neglect the great salvation he hath procured for us, in which case we cannot be accepted. When St. Paul says, “If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha,” 1 Cor. 16:22, let him be accursed when the Lord cometh; he evidently teaches us that our love to Christ shall be brought into question. We are now called upon to love him, and are under the greatest obligation so to do, because of his great love to us. Thus it appears that the extent of our Saviour’s death will affect the proceedings of the judgment day, and ought to affect us in the prospect of those proceedings.

4. As a further proof of the importance of the extent of the death of Christ, our views of it essentially affect the character of Almighty God. Now, if the blessed God, who was under no obligation to give his Son to die for any, did, of his own free and sovereign pleasure, give him to die for all; this was undeniably a more glorious and striking instance of love, than if he had only given him to die for a part of mankind. As the subject before us so materially affects the character of the blessed God, especially his darling attribute of love, we cannot but consider it of very considerable importance, and most worthy of our serious consideration. Let it be our business to follow the example of our much esteemed author, endeavouring to investigate this important subject, with a due deference and entire submission to what the scripture says of it.

The extent of our blessed Saviour’s death, whether universal or limited, is a matter of pure revelation. We should never have known that God had pitied poor sinners, or that he had given his Son to die for any, had not the inspired volume informed us of it. It is the gospel of the blessed God, the good news sent from heaven to earth, by which we understand that the Lord Jesus did “his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree.” Neither could we have known the character nor number of those for whom the Redeemer laid down his life, but by the same precious gospel. We are therefore under the necessity of submitting, in the most implicit manner, to that testimony, as the only and the complete source of information on this subject. The gospel, on this much controverted subject, tells us that which could otherwise never have been known by mortals, at least in the present world. As this is the subject of pure revelation, concerning which we should otherwise be entirely ignorant, we may naturally expect the revelation of it is clear and express, calculated, if we attend with seriousness, to give us all the information which is necessary.

To suppose that such an important matter as the extent of our Saviour’s death were left doubtful, or not clearly revealed in the scripture, would be a reflection on the perfection of divine revelation and the goodness of God. If Jesus Christ died for a part of mankind only, we may certainly very reasonably expect, from the goodness of God, and the perfection of revelation, to find this related in clear and express terms, as all other peculiar doctrines of the gospel are. On the other hand, if he died for all mankind, this is undoubtedly expressed in clear language, especially when the importance of the doctrine is duly considered. In this case we cannot suppose that we should be left to mere inference; much less could we expect to find expressions, when the subject is professedly treated of, which naturally convey ideas quite contrary to what the Holy Ghost intended to convey; this would reflect on the plainness and perspicuity of the word of God, and confound common sense. It would indeed be very unreasonable and absurd to expect any thing of this kind; and I hope, through the blessing of God, that the work before us will make it sufficiently appear to every unprejudiced mind, that we have the clearest instructions in the word of God on this very interesting subject. It is a matter of real gratitude, that we are not left to grope in the dark, or wander in the wild mazes of uncertainty, or to follow the fancies and opinions of men; but we have a most sure word of prophecy, to which we shall do well always to take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place. Therefore, my dear readers, let us never arrogantly and proudly set up our own opinions unsupported by the word of the Lord, as an article of faith; but ever implicitly submit in all matters of religion to what divine revelation teacheth.

Lest I should weary my readers with a tedious introduction, I would conclude, by observing, that our reverend author tells us in his original dedicatory epistle to this work, that the prize that he ran for was to make the best of every opportunity, to excite, provoke, and engage those whom he judged best qualified among his brethren to bless the world, labouring and harassing itself under its own vanity and folly; by bringing forth the glorious Creator, and ever blessed Redeemer, out of their pavilions of darkness into a clear and perfect light, to be beheld, reverenced, and adored in all their glory: to be possessed, enjoyed, and delighted in, in all their beauty and desirableness, by the inhabitants of the earth.

In this same epistle, after apologizing for its uncommon length, and the uneasiness on that account which he supposes it might give those to whom the work was dedicated; he concludes it in the following words: “I shall discharge you from any sufferings from my pen at present, only with my soul poured out before the great God and Father of lights in prayer for you, that he would make his face to shine upon you; quickening your apprehensions, enlarging your understandings, ballasting your judgments, and strengthening your memories; giving you ability of body and willingness of mind to labour in those rich mines of truth (the scriptures) breaking up before you the fountains of these great depths of spiritual light, and heavenly understanding; assisting you mightily by his Spirit in the course of your studies; lifting you up in the spirit of your minds above the faces, fears, and respects of men; drawing out your hearts and souls to relieve the spiritual necessities and extremities of the world around you; making you so many burning and shining lights in his house and temple, the joy, glory, and delight of your nation; vouchsafing to you as much of all that is desirable in the things of this world as your spiritual interests will bear, and the reward of prophets respectively in the glory and great things of the world to come.” He subscribes himself their poor brother in Christ, always ready in love to serve the meanest of them. I am well aware, that though some will be pleased at the revival and spread of this work, others will be offended: yea, are already offended. One person I met with, expressed himself as being sorry for me, on having seen the advertisement, that I had not a better subject than to oppose the redemption of Christ. I appeal to the public; it is not the design of this work to oppose the redemption of Christ, but to establish it, and enlarge our views of its fulness, extent, and glory, in the ample provision that is made for all poor sinners. The spread of truth is the object I have in view; and may the great God of truth give his blessing to the feeble efforts of one of the weakest and most unworthy of his servants towards the accomplishing of this invaluable end, and to his name shall be all the glory for evermore, Amen.

The Rev. John Bates