« EdellinenJatka »
If a few passages may be produced from Calvinistic writers, in which the words, compel, force, and such like are used: and may not as many, in proportion, of the same kind be found in the scriptures, when we know that actual compulsion, against the will of the person concerned, is not intended? “His servants, with the witch of Endor, “ compelled” Saul: Tagebuch LONTO : LXX.1 "Go into “ the high ways, and compel them to come in :" dváynacor. 2 “I am become a fool in glorying; ye “ have compelled me:" yvayxáoate, 3 “Why com“ pellest thou the gentiles to judaize?” avaynáčeus. 4 “ They constrained him :" trapetiáqorto.5 “She con“ 'strained us :" Tagebido ato. 6 " I was constrained “ to appeal unto Cæsar." jvayneo Inp. 7—It at least from these passages appears, that such words are sometimes used, when forcible compulsion of those who continue unwilling is not meant; but merely such means earnestly and urgently persisted in, as at length induce voluntary consent. Such terms, however, are so liable to misconstruction, that, in arguments of this kind, the use of them should, I think, be scrupulously avoided.-Compulsion, as it relates to the impenitence and unbelief of those who perish, will hereafter require a brief notice; and, in respect of the case of those who are saved, enough has been stated on the subject.
1 Sam. xxviii. 23.
Luke xiv. 23.
3 2 Cor. xii. 11.
On the terms Supernatural and Irresistible.
“There is not a single passage in the New Tes* tament, which leads us to suppose, that any 'supernatural power was exerted over the minds * of ordinary hearers; and therefore we are authorized to attribute their faith to the voluntary exercise of their reason.'
If supernatural here signify miraculous, in the common acceptation of the word, the assertion may be admitted: and if, compulsory, it has already been considered. But supernatural, in the general and proper use of language, means that which is above nature, and which nature left to itself could not attain : and nature, in theology, when used concerning man, signifies the mind and disposition of man as a fallen creature. Will it then be maintained, that, in the case of the primitive converts to Christianity, nothing above the nature of fallen man is mentioned in the New Testament: Our Lord expressly says, “No man “ can come unto me, except the Father which “hath sent me draw him.” “No man can come “unto me, except it were given unto him of my “ Father.”2 Is there nothing supernatural in this drawing and giving?
". The following is the comment of Bishop • Hooper, one of our reformers and martyrs, upon this text : “ No man cometh unto me, except my
* Father draw him.' “Many understand these 'words in a wrong sense, as if God required no more in a reasonable man than in a dead post, and mark not the words which follow : “ Every man that heareth and learneth of my Father cometh unto me.” God draweth with his word and the Holy Ghost, but man's duty is to hear and learn ; that is to say, to receive the grace ? offered, consent to the promise, and not to impugn the God that calleth.'1
No objection need be made to Bishop Hooper's comment, as far as it goes; for our question is not about man's duty, which certainly requires him to obey every call and command of God; but concerning the cause, whatever it be, which renders some men, but not all, obedient, 'They, who
be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be *called according to God's purpose by his Spirit ? working in due season ; they through grace obey
the calling'? What Bishop Hooper's opinion on this subject was, and also on other points belonging to our present controversy, may be learned from the following extract.
I believe that this disorder and corruption of nature was not only in Adam, because of his sin, but is also in all men generally which come of him; (Jesus Christ only excepted ;) and that in
such sort, that all men after their own nature ' are corrupt, unjust, liars, ignorant, unkind, and "imperfect in all things'; and have no power of * their own nature to do, think, speak, or will any *thing that may please God, until that they be re
generated and renewed by the Spirit of the Lord.- I believe that this corruption of nature,
otherwise called original sin, is the fountain and * root of all sins; for the which all the miseries
and adversities that we endure in this present * life, as well in body as soul, do come unto us;
yea, and in the end double death, that is to say, • both of body and soul. These be the fruits and
rewards of sin.-But, although the same be due and common to all men generally, nevertheless • the Lord, through his mercy, hath reserved to himself a certain number, (which are only known
to himself,) the which he hath drawn from this 'corrupt heap, and hath sanctified and cleansed
the same in the blood of his Son Jesus Christ, and by means thereof hath made them vessels of election and honour, apt unto all good works.
I believe that the Father, in Jesu Christ his Son, • through the Holy Ghost, hath elected and chosen * those that are his own, according to his good
will, before the foundations of the world were “ laid, whom he hath predestinated unto eternal * life, that thereby they might be his children 6 adoptive, over whom he hath, without compari
son, a much greater care than the best father can have over the best children in the world; for he suffereth not that any thing shall come to pass, either on high in heaven, or beneath on earth; which shall not be for their good and great pro
fit.'1 · They who heard Christ and his apostles preach, and had the holy scriptures with which they might
· Hooper, Fathers of the Church, vol. v. p. 438, 439.
compare their doctrine, had every advantage of outward instruction : so that when our Lord says, “ It is written in the law, They shall be all taught “ of God; Every man therefore, who hath heard “ and learned of the Father cometh unto me;" we must conclude, either that all who had this excellent outward teaching actually believed in Christ, or that an inward and more effectual teaching of God was intended. And was this effectual teaching of God in no sense 'supernatural ?'
The sacred historian says, “ The hand of the “ Lord was with them, and a great number be“ lieved and was turned to the Lord.”] “ Whose “heart” (that of Lydia) “ the Lord opened, that do she attended to the things which were spoken of « Paul.”2 Was there nothing supernatural in these eases - St. John speaking of some Jews says, “ Though he had done so many miracles before “.them, yet they believed not on him; that the “.saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, “ which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our re“ porti and to whom hath the arm of the Lord “ been revealed ?” 3 Did God do for these persons all that which he did, when he opened the heart of Lydia ?—The apostle, speaking of his own ministry and that of others, says, “ I have planted, Apollos “ watered, but God gave the increase. So then, “ neither is he that planteth any thing, nor he that “ watereth, but God that giveth the increase." 4 Was there nothing in this above fallen human nature, nothing in this sense supernatural ?'-“I