CHAPTER V.

SEMICALVINISM.

I HAVE now, to the best of my knowledge, without either disguise or misrepresentation, faithfully exhibited the System, which, in the present day, is usually termed Calvinism. But there is a softened arrangement of the Scheme, to which the name of Moderate Calvinism is frequently applied. Perhaps, according to the general analogy of doctrinal nomenclature, Semicalvinism might be a more regular appellation.

According to this subdued arrangement, Reprobation, either by a studied silence, or under the modestly cautious name of Preterition, is kept out of sight and, for the scarcely perceptible, and to the individuals concerned really unimportant, distinction involved in the use of that name, somewhat of a plea is set up, by a denial of that second Point which propounds the doctrine of The Particular Redemption of the Elect only.

The mitigated Scheme, which I would denominate Semicalvinism, has been very well stated by Mr.

Milner, the late pious historian of The Church of Christ.

God's Predestination and Election of some souls to glory is so far from narrowing (as is often thought) the way to heaven, that, remove it really, and the way to heaven is shut altogether. All others have just as good an ability for obtaining salvation by Christ, as they would have had, were there no Election of Grace. If the Lord bring some effectually to heaven, that, surely, is not excluding others.

All men may be saved, if they please. There wants the will only. But such is our natural enmity against God, that, though the blood of his Son was freely spilt for ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION, not one soul would return to God by true repentance, were it not for his blessed and adorable purpose of Election, which, before the foundation of the world, determined, that Some souls should be benefited by his UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION and led to repentance toward God and to faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The gift of his Son is as well a gift to others, as to them: but, by the special influence of the Holy Ghost, the Elect People of God are inclined to receive what the Lord freely gives.

In thus making the work of God the Son UNIVERSAL, and the work of God the Holy Ghost PARTICULAR, I speak with our Church-Reformers, who understood our present subject much better

than many, either Calvinists or Arminians, in our days. And, if, in speaking with the ChurchReformers, I seem, to some, to speak inconsistently: I am the more confirmed thereby, that I state the doctrine aright, and that they who find fault err themselves in one extreme or other.

One passage, in the Church Catechism, shews their peculiar view of the subject.

God the Son, who hath redeemed me and ALL

MANKIND.

Here is UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION.

God the Holy Ghost, who sanctifieth me and ALL

THE ELECT PEOPLE OF GOD.

Here is ELECTING GRACE.

For once I have set forth the Scripture doctrine of Election at large. It is intended, by the Father of mercies, to afford strong comfort to his tempted, yet sincere, children. Let them take the comfort from it that is intended and may the Lord bless it to them! Let those, who cannot receive the doctrine, be quiet and patient at present saying, What I see not, teach thou me. This is more proper, than to cavil and dispute

:

*

* Milner's Practical Sermons, vol. ii. serm. 17. p. 243-247. The text of this sermon is 2 Tim. ii. 19: Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: The Lord knoweth them that are his; and Let every one, that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. Now that text Mr. Milner professedly applies to the doctrine of Election, according to his own view of such doctrine. Hence I think it right to state, that, so

I. What the present Scheme gains in decent moderation, it certainly loses in harmonious con

far as I can judge, he has totally misapprehended the import of the passage.

I. In no sense of the word, whether calvinistic or arminian or national, is St. Paul there treating of the scriptural doctrine of Election.

On the contrary, he is opposing the mischievous fancy of Hymenèus and Philetus: who, by saying that The Resurrection is past already, overthrew the faith of some unstable and noveltyloving disciples.

1. Probably, these heresiarchs denied A future Resurrection to eternal life, through the medium of asserting that There is no Resurrection save a figurative resurrection at Baptism from the death of sin. Be that, however, as it may, the Apostle, in avowed opposition to the present fancy, elsewhere luminously teaches us: that the doctrine of A future Resurrection from the dead is the very foundation of Christianity.

How say some among you that There is no Resurrection of the dead? If there be no Resurrection of the dead; then is Christ not risen: and, if Christ be not risen; then is our preaching vain, and YOUR FAITH IS ALSO VAIN. 1 Corinth. xv.

12-14.

2. Now, this foundation, the idle figment of Hymenèus and Philetus went immediately to subvert.

Hence, in direct contextual reference to such an attempt, St. Paul distinctly says: NEVERTHELESS, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal: The Lord knoweth those who are his; and Let every one, that nameth the name of Christ, depart from iniquity. 2 Tim. ii. 19.

That is to say: NOTWITHSTANDING the subversive efforts of Hymenèus and Philetus, the true foundation of God, or the doctrine of Afuture Resurrection from the dead, standeth sure. And this true foundation has a two-fold seal: The Lord, know

cinnity and, as such, I can have no scruple in saying, that, on principles of exact inductive reasoning, it is a deterioration of the more uncompromising Scheme proposed by Calvin and accepted by the Synod of Dort.

1. Semicalvinism, like perfect Calvinism, plainly rests upon the basis: that Election, as propounded and explained alike by each Scheme, is the undoubted doctrine of Scripture.

Such being the case, on what satisfactory principles Semicalvinism can be maintained, I own myself unable to comprehend.

Genuine Calvinism, viewed as starting from the

ing his own really sound preachers of the Gospel, broadly distinguishes them from those false teachers who would overturn its very basis; and Let every genuine Christian renounce the unhallowed speculation of those heresiarchs, which, by denying A future Resurrection from the dead, has a plain tendency to encourage a secure perseverance in sinning.

II. Such, I apprehend, is the true drift and import of the passage.

It is not a mere insulated text, the exposition of which depends upon itself alone: but, as any person may see who will examine the context, it is immediately bound, by the force of the word μévro or nevertheless, to the passage which directly precedes it.

That passage, however, limits its application to the heresy, which declared that The Resurrection is past already.

Consequently, it forbids us to view it, as treating of what Mr. Milner denominates The two seals of Election: namely, God's eternal decree, on the one hand; and The personal holiness of God's Elect, on the other hand.