SECTION VII.
An Enquiry into the Judgment of the earliest Fathers concerning the Points in Question.
In my letter to Dr. N. I took occasion to observe, that there is the utmost reason to believe that the main body of the Christian Church (in which I do not include the Arians of those times) were, for the four first centuries, unanimous believers of the doctrines now termed Calvinistic.1 For this observation, I assigned two reasons: 1. The universal horror and surprise, which the broaching of Pelagius's opinions, about the beginning of the 5th century, occasioned in the whole Christian Church; and, 2. The authority of Dr. Cave, who asserts, in express terms, that Pelagius haeresin novam condidit, "was the founder of a new heresy." From whence I inferred, and infer still, that, if the non-imputation of Adam's offence to his posterity, and the bottoming of predestination and justification upon human worthiness, were (as all historians concur to affirm) branches of Pelagius's new heresy; it follows, that the opposite doctrines, of Adam's transgression imputed to his offspring, and of predestination and justification by grace alone, were, and must have been, branches of the old faith universally held by the Church for the first 400 years after Christ.
These two arguments Mr. Sellon, very prudently, passes over, uncanvassed and unmentioned: and skips to my ninth page, from whence he gleans an incidental remark, on which he thus descants: "Your telling us, p. 9 that, during the four first ages of the Christian Church, predestination and its concomitant doctrines were undisputed, for ought appears to the contrary, is no reason at all." It, certainly, is a strong presumptive reason, though not offered as direct proof, for, two of the direct reasons had been given before, and still remain, not only undemolished, but untouched, by my cautious adversary; who, with all his furious zeal for Arminianism, chose rather to let those reasons keep possession of the field than run the risque of burning his own fingers in assaulting them. I will attend, however, to what he delivers concerning the "no reason at all."
He grants, that those doctrines were, for the four first ages, undisputed: which he thus affects to account for; "because it does not appear that there were any that held them." We shall presently see that they were held, and held firmly too, by those of the primitive fathers who are commonly distinguished by the title of Apostolical, from their having lived nearest to the Apostles' times, i.e. within the first Christian century. In the mean while, let us weigh the mode of argumentation adopted by Mr. Sellon: "The doctrines of grace were therefore undisputed, because it does not appear that they were believed." I hardly think, this will stand the test. Here is an absolute, peremptory assertion, built (not so much as on a phantom or a shadow, but on a mere non-appearance. Besides: does it not, at least, seem more probable, that these doctrines were therefore unopposed, because they were generally held? For, daily experience evinces that, to this day, those same doctrines meet with opposition enough from the persons by whom they are not held: and, I am apt to think, that human nature, as such, is just that, now, which it was in the four first centuries. Had the primitive times swarmed with Arminians, as the latter times have, the doctrines of grace would have been no less opposed and disputed against then, than they have been since.
Another consideration also merits our attention. Not only every Church, or collective body of professing Christians; but likewise every individual man, who thinks religion and philosophy worthy of attending to, must, necessarily, form some judgment or other concerning the points in debate, I may venture, therefore, without taking any undue advantage, to lay it down as a datum, that the christians of the four first ages (who certainly had the scriptures in their hands, and heard them read in their public assemblies) could not possibly be neutrals, on a subject of such importance as that of predestination and grace; but must, unavoidably, have either believed that doctrine, or disbelieved it: they were on one side, or on the other. Indeed, had the holy scripture made no mention at all of predestination, neither for, nor against, it is possible (and but barely possible,) that the primitive Churches might have thought little or nothing about that sublime article. But it is undeniable, that the scriptures make very express, ample, and repeated mention of it: and the mention there made of it must he understood in some sense or other. Now, if predestination and its derivative doctrines were at all thought of by the first Churches; and if, for ought that can be proved to the contrary, those doctrines passed undisputed till contravened by Pelagius in the fifth century; does it not (to say the least) look as if they had been universally received and embraced, during the first2 400 years after Christ? We will suppose, a moment, for argument sake, the doctrines of grace to have passed undisputed among English Protestants, from the era of the Reformation down to the emersion of Mr. John Wesley. What, in such a case, would have been the natural inference? Not, that nobody held these undisputed principles: but, that they would and must have been controverted, long before, had they not been held universally. Why is the existence of a certain luminary, called the sun,undisputed? Surely,not because its existence is disbelieved; but, on the contrary, because it is universally known and acknowledged. I must, therefore, repeat my question, which seems to have given Mr. Sellon and his fraternity so much disquiet: where was not the doctrine of predestination, before Pelagius ?
The Arminians treat election, as Gardiner, the Popish bishop of Winchester, treated the doctrine of free justification. Before the Homily on Salvation was published, archbishop Cranmer and others sent for Gardiner, and shewed him that excellent Homily, "wherein was handled the matter of justification; endeavouring to persuade him to allow of it, by reasoning with him concerning it. But Winchester pretended, whatsoever they said could not salve his conscience; and challenged them to shew any old writer who taught as that Homily did."3
If the testimony of old writers was needful, to confirm the good old doctrines, there are old writers enough at hand, to confirm all and every one of them. But it suffices for me, that we have the suffrages of the oldest writers; I mean, the Prophets and Apostles. The holy Scriptures are the truest and the purest antiquity.4 While these are for us, it matters not who are against us. However, the Calvinists of later ages are very far from standing alone, in their resolute adherence to the scripture doctrines. The learned hi shop Beveridge, whose acquaintance with the monuments of primitive antiquity is incontestible, treating, (for instance) of regeneration by the efficacious grace of God, expresses himself thus; and avers, that the first Churches believed as follows: Our Lord "doth not say, there are some things you cannot do without me, or, there are many things you cannot do without tie; but, without me me can do nothing: nothing good, nothing pleasing and acceptable unto God. Whereas, if we could either prepare ourselves to turn, or turn ourselves when prepared, we should do much. And, to put it out of doubt, the same Spirit tells us elsewhere, it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, of his good pleasure. It is he who first enables us to will what we ought to do, and then to do what we will. Both the grace we desire, and our desire of grace, proceed from him. And therefore it is requisite, in order to our conversion, that the understanding be not only so enlightened as to discern the evil from the good; but that our wills be also so rectified as to prefer the good before the evil. By this rectifying, or bringing of the will into its right order again, its liberty is not destroyed, but healed: so that it is free, after, as well as before conversion; free to God and Holiness, as it was before free only to sin and wickedness. And this was the doctrine of the Primitive Church. St. Augustin, in whose days Pelagius first rose up against this truth, hath written several volumes to this purpose."5
St. Jerom, who was contemporary with St. Augustin, addressed him, not as the founder, but as a principal restorer, of the doctrines of grace; "Thou art famous," said Jerom to Austin, "through the world. The orthodox revere thee, as the re-builder of the ancient faith."6 And I am much mistaken, if St. Jerom, who lived more than thirteen hundred years ago, was not better qualified to judge and pronounce concerning the faith of the ancients, than all the followers of Van-Harmin taken together.
There are cases, wherein a man's own testimony, even in his own cause, is not only admissible, but weighty and respectable. Of this kind I consider the following declaration. of St. Austin. "We have shewed (says he, directing his speech to the Pelagians,) by invincible authorities, that the holy bishops, who lived before us, taught the same faith which we maintain; and overthrew the arguments which you make use of, not only in their discourses, but in their writings also. We have shewed you their opinions, which are very particular and clear. I hope their testimonies will cure your blindness, as I wish it: but, if you continue obstinate in your error, which God forbid, you are no more to look for a tribunal to justify you, out for those wonderful defenders of the truth to accuse you, St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, Rheticius, Olympius, St. Hilary, St. Gregory, St. Ambrose, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, &c. with all those who communicated with them, that is to say, the whole Church."7
I once devoted a considerable share of time and attention to the fathers. But, I scruple not to acknowledge, that, after a while, I desisted from this study as barren and unimproving. Some excellent things are, indeed, interspersed in their writings: but the golden grains are almost lost amidst an infinity of rubbish. "If a man," says Dr. Young, "was to find one pearl in an oyster of a million, it would hardly encourage him to commence fisherman for life." So say I, of the fathers in general. Even supposing (what I can by no means grant,) that the harvest of instruction would recompense the toil of breaking up the ground; a life-time would hardly suffice to read the fathers with care: and, perhaps, two life-times would scarcely enable a reader to digest them completely. That knowledge which is truly important, lies in a much narrower compass. I am quite of his mind, who said Unus Angustinis, prae mille Patribus; et unus Paulus prae mille Augustinis. One page of St. Austin is worth a thousand of most other fathers; but one page of St. Paul is worth a thousand of St. Austin's. I speak not this, to depreciate the labours of such learned persons as have trod the paths of what is called primitive antiquity; but simply to profess the idea, I cannot help entertaining, of the vanity and unprofitableness, with which I apprehend this kind of chase to be generally attended. If any are otherwise minded, let them follow the chase, and prosper.
There are, however, a few writings, still extant, which, in point both of antiquity and value, appear to rank next below the inspired. The chief of these are the remains of Barnabas, Clemens Romanus, Ignatius, and Polycarp. A few citations, from these venerable divines and martyrs, will serve to evince the falsehood of Limborch's assertion, where he tells us, that, "prior to the rise of St. Austin, the primitive Churches knew little or nothing about predestination." If that proverbial remark be true, the nearer the fountain the clearer the stream; the testimonies, brought from these early writers, must come with weight little, if at all, short of decisive.
I. Very frequent mention is made of Barnabas, in the New Testament. He was originally a Jew by religion, a Cypriot by birth, and for some time a companion of St. Paul in his journies for the gospel. Dr. Cave,8 and others, are of opinion, that he was one of the seventy disciples who were sent out by Christ himself (Luke x.) to preach the word. But it is certain, that, some years after our Lord's ascension, he was expressly fixed upon, by the peculiar designation of the Holy Ghost, to be a preacher at large; Luke xiii. 2. It is probable, that he at last received the crown of martyrdom in his native island of Cyprus.
From the fragment of an epistle retrieved by the learned archbishop Usher, and generally admitted to be the authentic work of Barnabas, I select the following passages.
That he held the absolute freeness of divine grace, appears from this remarkable assertion: "When Christ" says he, "chose his own Apostles who were to preach his gospel, he chose them, when they were wickeder than all wickedness itself; to demonstrate, that he came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."9 That he was far from being startled at the doctrine of reprobation, seems more than probable: else, I should imagine, he would scarcely have represented the incarnation and death of Christ to have been designed for filling up the measure of Jewish iniquity. His words are these: "Therefore did the Son of God come in the flesh, to this very end, that he might finish and bring to perfection the sins of those who had persecuted his prophets unto death. For this reason" [i.e. this was one reason for which] "he suffered."10 If a modern Calvinist was to express himself in this manner, what a hideous outcry would be raised, as if heaven and earth were failing!
Far from representing the death of Christ as a contingency, or as an event which might, or might not have taken place; Barnabas avers that it came to pass necessarily: "It was Christ's own will that he should thus suffer. It was requisite that he should suffer on the tree. For the prophet saith concerning him, Deliver my soul, &c."11
Speaking of regeneration and conversion, he ascribes the power, by which those supernatural effects are accomplished, entirely to God: "When God hath renewed us by the remission of sins, he hath formed us into a quite different likeness; so that we have a child-like mind: forasmuch as he himself fashions its anew."12 Again: "behold we have been formed afresh: as he speaketh by another prophet; Lo, saith the Lord, I will take away from them, that is, from those whom the Spirit of the Lord fore-viewed, I will take away from them [their] stony hearts, and I will send fleshly hearts into them."13
In the following Paragraph, Barnabas seems to glance at the specialty of redemption: "The Lord saith again" [i.e. Christ, the second person in the Trinity,] "In whom shall I appear before the Lord my God, and be glorified? He answereth: I will praise thee in the Church, in the midst of my brethren; and sing to thee in the midst of the Church of the Saints."14 If this venerable writer only glances at particular redemption, in the last passage; he more than glances at it, in this which follows: "Understand, therefore, O ye children of [spiritual] gladness, that the Lord hath made all [these] things manifest to us beforehand, that we might know to whom we should gratefully render thanks in all things. Since therefore the Son of God, though he is Jehovah, and will judge the living and the dead, suffered, that his punishment might make. us alive; let us rest assured, that the Son of God could not have suffered but for us."15 The sense evidently is, that the essential dignity of Christ, as Kurioj, or Sovereign Lord, will not permit us to believe that it was possible for him to suffer and shed his blood in vain, or for those who are not, eventually, "made alive by his16 punishment" in their room and stead. To the same effect he thus speaks, in the person of Christ: "Wherefore?" [i.e. wherefore was the sin-offering, under the law, to be eaten by the priests alone?] "Because I am to offer up my flesh as a sacrifice for the sins of the new people:"17 i.e. for the sins of those who shall be made new creature; in Christ by the Spirit and grace of God: who can say, with Barnabas, in the words already quoted, "He himself fashions us anew: behold, we have been formed afresh." And these surely, are far enough from including the whole of mankind, It is plain, Menardus understood this passage (as every unprejudiced reader must) of Christ's offering up himself only "for the sins of the new, or renewed people," as militating very strongly against universal redemption; else, in his pert note on the place, he would not, like many other annotators, have flown directly in the face of the text, and presumed to charge Barnabas with being in an error; "Law tw kainw, i.e. populi novi. Non ita recte: quia Christus pro universo mundo passus est." Barnabas, however, thought otherwise. And so would his angry commentator, had he duly weighed the notion, of indiscriminate redemption, in the balance of the sanctuary.
Barnabas's judgment, respecting the certainty of perseverance, may be concluded from his connecting evangelical hope with final salvation. Though hope is, perhaps, one of the lowest on the round of Christian graces; yet, a Christian grace it is: and the hope, which has the finished redemption of Jews for its object, shall be crowned with everlasting glory, by him who will never break a bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax: "They, who hope in him, shall live for ever."18 Much less shall the stronger graces fail: "Whosoever eateth of these things shall live everlastingly." "He" [i.e. God] "saith whosoever shall hear those that call, and believeth, shall live eternally."19
According to this truly apostolic writer, free-will has nothing to do in the affairs of spiritual and future salvation. Speaking of God's true Israel, he asks, "But, from whence is it, that they come to consider and understand these things? We, who consider his commandments aright, speak as the Lord willeth us to speak. For that end, he hath circumcised our ears and our hearts, that we might understand these things."20 Again: "He, giving its repentance, hath led us into the incorruptible temple. The person, therefore, who is desirous of salvation, looketh not unto man, but to him that dwelleth in man and speaketh by man."21
I shall chose my citations, from Barnabas, with but one testimony more: "Issue not thy commands to thy maid-servant, or to thy manservant, in an acrimonious manner, lest thou fear not that God who is master both of you and them: for he came not to call men, epi proswpon, according to their outward condition in life, but [his call is] unto those whom the Spirit hath prepared,"22 be their outward condition what it may.
II. Clemens23 Romanus is said to have been a disciple of the apostle Peter: and is universally allowed to be that Clement, whom St. Paul numbered among his fellow labourers, and whose name he peremptorily affirmed to be in the book of Life. Phil. iv. 3. He was made bishop of Rome, probably, about A. D. 64, or 65. But it is very uncertain at what time, and in what manner, he was honoured with martyrdom.
His First Epistle to the Corinthians is celebrated, by many of the ancient writers, as one of the finest and most valuable productions of the apostolic age. So highly was it esteemed, that, for several centuries, it made a part of the public service of the primitive Church: being read in their assemblies, and revered as inferior only to the books of the New Testament. Nor does a learned modern (Monsieur Du Pin) betray the least want of judgment, in declaring the Epistle, now under consideration, to be, "after the Holy Scriptures, one of the most eminent records of antiquity." It seems to have been written before the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans: consequently, much within forty years after our Lord's ascension; and about six or seven years after the death of the apostle Paul, with whom, and with several others of the apostles, Clement was personally and intimately acquainted.
The testimonies of such a writer, in favour of the great truths called Calvinistic, deserve the reader's attention. Among which testimonies, are the following:
The Epistle opens thus: "The Church of God, which dwelleth at Rome, to the Church of God dwelling at Corinth, called and set apart by the will of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord."24 Hinting at some violent tumults and dissentions which had lately agitated and divided the Corinthian Church, he terms such proceedings "a criminal and unholy sedition, strange and unseemly in the elect of God."25 Reminding them of the exemplary care with which they had formerly attended to the performance of every good work; he observes, "your contest, day and night, was for the whole brotherhood; that the number of his elect might be saved with mercy and with [a good] conscience."26 Nor did Clement consider the salvation of the elect as precarious, or their perseverance as uncertain. "It being the will of God," says he, "that all his beloved ones should be made partakers of repentance; he hath established them firmly by his own Almighty purpose."27
His judgment, concerning the extent of redemption, may be inferred from the two following passages. In the first, treating of Rahab's deliverance by the line of scarlet depending from her window, he considers that event as typical of salvation by Christ's atonement: hereby says he, "They [i.e. Rahab, and as many of her friends as were collected under her roof for preservation] made it manifest, that redemption by the blood of the Lord should accrue to all who believe and hope in God."28 Again: the Messiah's "Life is taken from the earth; because of the iniquities of my people. He went unto death."29
That this primitive bishop had the most exalted ideas of the immutability, the certainty, and the omnipotence, of God's decrees, is evident beyond all contradiction. Witness his description of the all-controlling power with which God's providential disposals are attended: "In pursuance of his will, the teeming earth produces, at the proper seasons, abundant provision both for men, and for wild beasts, and for all the animals that are upon it; without varying from, and without altering, aught of those things which were decreed by him."30 With a sublimity both of sentiment and style, which would do honour even to Homer or Demosthenes, he thus asserts the independency, sovereignty, and invincibility, of the divine appointments: "By the word of his Majesty he hath constituted all things; and he is able, by a word, to overturn them. Who shall say unto him, What hast thou done? or who shall resist the might of his power? He hath done all things at what season he pleased, and in what manner he pleased: and not one of the things which have been decreed by him shall pass away. All things are open to his view, nor hath any thing absconded from his will and pleasure."31
Far from supposing that the precious doctrine of election conduces to immorality, he represents election as the main ground-work of sanctification, and as the grand inducement to virtue and obedience: "Let us draw nigh to God with holiness of mind, lifting up chaste and unpolluted hands, loving our gentle and compassionate Father, who hath made us a part of the election unto himself. For so it is written: When the Most High parcelled out the nations, and when he dispersed the sons of Adam, he appointed the boundaries of the nations according to the number of his angels. His people Jacob were the Lord's portion; Israel was the line of his inheritance. And, in another place, he saith: Behold, the Lord taketh to himself a nation from the midst of the nations, as a man taketh the first-fruits from his corn-floor."32 Under the ravishing view of interest in this unspeakable blessing of election, well may the excellent father add, as he does presently after: "Since, therefore, we are the portion of the Holy One, let us practise all the works of holiness: avoiding slanders, and defiled and unchaste embraces, drunkenness and innovations, together with abominable desires, detestable adultery, and loathsome pride."33 How far, how infinitely far, is the believing consideration of God's electing love from leading to licentiousness!
Nothing can be more scriptural than this writer's doctrine concerning the sovereignty and freeness of divine grace. "Let us," says he, "closely and steadfastly adhere to those persons unto whom grace is given of God."34 To this grace, thus freely given, he ascribes the exercise of the social virtues; "Equity and lowliness of mind and meekness, are found in those who are the blessed of God."35 Speaking of the Old-Testament saints, he refers the whole of their good will, good works, justification and eternal felicity, to the discriminating favour and sovereign pleasure of God alone: "All these persons were glorified and magnified, not by themselves, or by their own works, or by the righteous practice which they wrought; but by his will. We too, being called by his will in Christ, Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or piety, or by the works which we have performed in holiness of heart; but by faith, whereby Almighty God hath, from eternity, justified all those."36 i.e. all those whom it was his will to justify.
Clement easily foresaw that the doctrine of free grace and unmerited justification, as stated by him in the above passage, might be cavilled at by legalists and merit-mongers, as tending to the consequential exclusion of good works. He, therefore, discreetly anticipates this cavil, by entering a just caveat against an inference so unnatural and malicious. "What then shall we do, brethren?" says he, in the very next paragraph: "Shall we desist from well-doing, and renounce our love" [to God and our neighbour]? "May the Sovereign Lord never permit this to befall us by any means! Nay, but let us be in haste to accomplish every good work, with earnestness, and with full propensity."37
He most carefully guards against the sacrilegious encroachments of free-will and self-righteousness: "It is by Jesus Christ that we can steadfastly look into the heights of Heaven. It is by him that we shall behold his spotless and most exalted countenance. By him the eyes of our heart have been opened. By him our foolish and dark understanding springs up afresh into his marvellous light. It was the will of the Lord that we should by him taste of that knowledge which can never die."38 "He that made and formed us hath introduced us into his world: having afore prepared his benefits for us, even before we were born. As, therefore, we have all things from him, we ought for all things to give him thanks."39
Dissuading the Corinthians from casting blocks of offence in each others way he thus enforces his prohibition: "Remember the words of our Lord Jesus: for he hath said, Woe to that man; it were good for him rather not to have been born, than that he should cause one of my elect people to stumble."40 Though the elect themselves may stumble, i.e. though it is possible for them both to offend, and to be offended; yet, according to Clement's Theology, none of them can finally miss of glory. They shall all, eventually, be completely sanctified, and made meet for the inheritance of the saints in light. "All the elect of God are made perfect in love."41 He adds: "It was of love that the Lord accepted us. It was through the love which he bore to us, that our Lord Christ did, by the will of God, give his blood for us, and his flesh in the room of our flesh, and his soul in the room of ours." This eminent saint believed, and expressly asserts, that pardon of sin does not extend beyond the pale of election. His words are these: "It is written, Blessed are they whose iniquities are remitted, and whose sins are covered: blessed is the person to whom the Lord will by no means impute sin; nor is there deceit in his mouth. This blessedness accrues to those who have been elected of God through our Lord Jesus Christ."42 The Royal Psalmist was, no doubt, one of God's elect: and he is, accordingly, so styled by our apostolic author: "elect David saith, I will confess unto the Lord, &c."43 I cannot close my citations from St. Clement more suitably, than with that most excellent prayer, which almost concludes his epistle: and which I most earnestly beg of God, the Holy Spirit to engrave indelibly on the reader's heart and mine: "May the all-seeing God the Sovereign of spirits and the Lord of all flesh, who hath elected the Lord Jesus Christ, and us into a peculiar people through him; grant, to each soul that calls on his holy and exalted name, the graces of "faith, fear, peace, patience, long suffering, temperance, purity, and soundness of judgment, through our high-priest and defender, Jesus Christ."44
I have made the large extracts from Barnabas and Clement, because their two epistles appear to be the oldest remains of uncanonical antiquity. Indeed, the first epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was evidently composed many years prior to some of the writings of the New Testament itself. For, if that epistle (as there is the strongest reason to believe) was antecedent to the final conquest of Jerusalem by Titus, it must have been written considerably earlier than the Gospel of St. John, his three Epistles, and the book of Revelation. A circumstance, however, which I should not have noticed here, had I not thought it necessary to offer some apology to my readers, for having detained them so long with these quotations, in a work, which, as I transcribe it from the rough copy, I am designedly rendering as concise as may consist with justice to the argument: - the genuine Epistles of Ignatius and Polycarp, though extremely ancient, yet are not of quite so high antiquity as the two preceding: for which reason, I shall present the reader with the fewer citations; but those sufficiently weighty and express, to convince any impartial, attentive enquirer, that these two venerable preachers and martyrs were, in deed and in truth, earnest contenders for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.
III. Ignatius is said to have been ordained bishop of Antioch in Syria, A. D. 66,45 and to have held that see for upward of 40 years. He was a disciple of St. John, and had the happiness of being particularly intimate with that apostle. Under the third general persecution, i.e. about the year 107, Ignatius, having asserted the divinity of the Christian religion in the emperor Trajan's own presence, was sentenced to be thrown to wild beasts, on an amphitheatre at Rome: which was accordingly executed.
On his way from Antioch to Rome, this blessed prisoner of Christ, loaded with chains, and led as a sheep to the slaughter, wrote those six Epistles (of whose authenticity there seems no just reason to doubt,) addressed to the Christians in Ephesus, Magnesia Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna. As to the Epistle inscribed to Polycarp, though thought genuine by Vossius, it is rejected as spurious by archbishop Usher; and considered as doubtful, even by Dr. Cave.
In the exordium of his Epistle to the Smyrneans, Ignatius addresses them as "Filled with faith and love, and indefectible in every gift of grace.''46 And, indeed, the gifts of grace would stand us in little stead, if indefectibility was not their certain attendant. So far was this holy bishop from doubting the final perseverance of those who are really endued "with faith and love;" that he tells them, in terms of the fullest assurance, "I glorify Jesus Christ our God, who hath made you thus [spiritually] wise. For I have understood, that ye are knit firmly together in immoveable faith, even as though ye were both in flesh and spirit nailed to the cross of Jesus Christ our Lord; and that ye are made stedfast in love, through the blood of Christ."47
He believed the redemption wrought by Christ, to be co-extensive with the Church of God's peculiar people: "Christ," says he, "suffered all these things on our account, that we might be saved."48 He would not allow the grace of true repentance to be in a man's own power: for, speaking of some persons, whom he styles "wild beasts in human shape," he adds, "you ought not only to refuse receiving such, but, if possible, you should even avoid meeting them. You ought only to pray in their behalf, if they may by some means repent; which, however, is exceeding difficult: but the power of this [viz. of making them repent] rests with Jesus Christ our true life."49
Sensible of his inability to undergo the tortures of martyrdom, in his own strength, he thus expresses his reliance on the strength of grace: "The nigher to the sword, the nigher to God. When surrounded with wild beasts, I shall be encompassed with God. It is only by the name of Jesus Christ that I shall so endure all things as to suffer with him; he enduing me with strength who was himself perfect man."50
That he held God's sovereign and righteous praeterition of some, appears from the following expression: "Whom some men ignorantly deny; or, rather, have been denied of him."51
Nothing can breathe a more genuine sense of christian humility, than his absolute renunciation of merit in all its branches: "It is by the will of God, that I have been vouchsafed this honour" [namely, the honour of being in chains for the gospel:] "not from conscience" [i.e. from my own uprightness, or conscientiousness,] "but from the grace of God."52 On the same principle, speaking of one Burrhus, a deacon, who was to be the bearer of this Epistle to Smyrna, and from whose tender friendship Ignatius had reaped great consolation, he thus prays in his behalf: "May grace make him retribution!"53
His Epistle to the Ephesians, opens thus: "Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus in Asia, blessed by the greatness and fulness of God the Father; predestinated ever, before time, unto the glory which is perpetual and unchangeable, united and chosen [i.e. fixed upon to be the everlasting residence of the saints] by the will of the Father, and of Jesus Christ our God, through the true suffering."54 That is, through the humiliation and sufferings of Christ the true propitiation.
Congratulating the Ephesians, on the harmony which subsisted among themselves, he takes occasion to intimate, that the Church, which is Christ's mystic body, is as firmly united to Christ as Christ himself is united to the Father.55 Is it possible to express the infallible certainty of final perseverance, in stronger terms? And would not one almost believe, that Ignatius designed the above passage as a comment on those words of our Lord, Because I live, ye shall live also?
How remote he was from crying up the pretended abilities of free-will, may sufficiently appear from what follows: "Carnal men," i.e. men unrenewed by the Almighty Spirit of God, "are not able to perform spiritual things - ye do all things," i.e. all spiritual things, "by Jesus Christ,"56 or by grace and strength derived from him.
In the inscription of his Epistle to the Philadelphians, he observes, of the clergy of that Church, that Christ had, in pursuance of his own will, firmly established them in stedfastness, by his holy Spirit."57 A glaring proof, that, in the judgment of Ignatius, saving grace is not that evanid, loseable thing, which Arminianism represents it to be. As the acquisition of it is not owing to the will of man; so neither is it dependent on man's will for preservation and continuance. In the course of the same Epistle, he has a similar remark: "Although some have been desirous of seducing me after the flesh, yet that Spirit which is of God is not seduced;"58 i.e. not to be seduced.
Making mention of one Agathopus, who attended him from Syria toward Rome, at the manifest hazard of life; he terms him "an elect person, who bears me company from Syria, having renounced the present life."59 He styles the Church at Tralles, "elect and esteemed of God:"60 and, in the same Epistle, gives another very strong attestation to the doctrine of final perseverance. For, treating of some heretics, who denied the literality of Christ's sufferings, he thus descants: "Avoid those evil shoots" [that spring up by a Christian Church, like suckers by the side of a tree,] "which bring forth deadly fruit, whereof, of a man taste, he presently dies. These are not of the Father's planting; for, if they were, the branches of the cross would appear, and their fruit would be incorruptible" i.e. imperishable and immortal:" through which he doth by his passion [i.e. by virtue of his own sufferings and death,] call you who are his members. For the head cannot be born without the members: God, who is the same [i.e. who is always himself unchangeable, and without shadow of turning,] having passed his word for their union."61 Yet, though this apostolic bishop was thus rooted and grounded in a belief of the essential perpetuity of grace; he still was of opinion (and so, I am confident, is every Calvinist under Heaven,) that, without constant and intense watching unto prayer, the exercise of grace is liable to a partial and temporary failure. "I am yet in danger, [says the blessed martyr: i.e. in danger,] if left to my own strength, of denying Christ with my mouth, in order to avoid the torments of death." But his self-diffidence (and who can be too diffident of self?) did not, however, make him lose sight of God's faithfulness to him, which, he well knew, could, alone keep him faithful to God: for he immediately adds, in the very next words, "nevertheless, my Father in Jesus Christ is faithful to fulfil your prayer and mine."62 And so he found him to be. God did hear his prayer, and make him faithful unto death. Reader, may the same happy coalition of fear and faith; may the most absolute self-distrust, united with an unshaken confidence in the stability of divine grace, be your portion, and mine, till we enter the haven of everlasting joy: where we shall no longer stand in need of faith, to fill our sails, nor of fear, to steady us with its ballast!
In his Epistle to the Romans, Ignatius has an observation, which shews that he was far enough from holding the tenet of free-will, in the Arminian sense of it: "A Christian is not the workmanship of suasion, but of greatness:"63 i.e. men become real Christians, not by the power of moral argument, but by the mighty operation of divine agency. Whoever denies the ability of free-will, in spirituals, must, with that, deny the meritoriousness of human works. And so did Ignatius. Witness that passage, where, speaking of the savage treatment he received from the soldiers who were guarding him to Rome, he says, "They behave themselves the worse to me for my beneficence to them. I reap, however, the more instruction from their injurious behaviour. Yet, I am not justified by this."64 He knew, that neither the sufferings, which he was enabled to endure for Christ; nor his kindness to his persecutors; nor his improving their barbarities into profitable instruction; constituted any part of that righteousness, for the sake of which he was justified before God. He considered them as valuable fruits of the Spirit, and as proofs of grace received: but not as matter of merit; not as causes or conditions either of his present or future acceptance with the Majesty of Heaven. Yet this consideration did by no means render him negligent to obey, or reluctant to suffer. Warmed with the faith that works by love, his language was, Kalon emoi apoqanein dia Ihson Criston( h basileuein thn peragon thj ghj: "It is better for me to die for Jesus Christ, than to be monarch of the whole earth."65
IV. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, is, by many (among whom are Usher and Cave,) supposed to have been the person meant by the Angel of the Church in Smyrna, mentioned Rev, ii. 8. That he was one of the apostle John's disciples, cannot be questioned, if ancient testimony he allowed to carry the least weight. He was burnt alive for the Christian faith, A. D. 167, or (as others) 169, in about the hundredth year of his age, and about the 74th of his episcopate.
We have one Epistle of his, written to the believers at Philippi. From this venerable, but concise performance, two or three short extracts may suffice.
He terms the chains, with which many persecuted Christians were hound for their attachment to the gospel, "the ornamental bracelets of them that have been really elected by God and our Lord."66 For those, who have been "really elected," he believed that the blood of Christ was shed: for he presently adds, "who submitted to go unto death itself, for our sins."67 And, farther on: "It was for us that he underwent all things; that we might live through him."68 Nor was he less sound in the article of gratuitous justification by the sovereign will of God: "Into which joy," says he, "many are exceedingly desirous to enter: knowing, that ye are saved by grace; not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ."69
Polycarp considered his own martyrdom for the faith as an event which God had foreordained: for, in the prayer which he offered up after he was bound to the stake with his hands behind him, was this expression: "Among whom, [i.e. among that company of foregoing martyrs, who had already set their lives as a seal to truth,] may I be received unto thee, this day, for a goodly and acceptable sacrifice: even as thou, the faithful God, who canst not lie, hast fore-appointed, and didst reveal to me beforehand, and bast accordingly brought to pass."70 The same Christians of Smyrna, who recorded their Bishop's dying prayer, appear to have agreed in judgment with him, as to perseverance, and the extent of our Lord's redemption: for, in their circular letter to the Churches, occasioned by the martyrdom of their holy pastor, they observe, the Jews and Heathens "do not know that we shall never be able to forsake Christ, who suffered for the salvation of the whole world of them that are saved."71 They conclude their Epistle with this affectionate wish: "We pray for your health and happiness, brethren: and that ye may, according to the gospel, walk in the doctrine of Jesus Christ: together with whom, be glory ascribed to God, even our Father, and to the Holy Spirit, for saving the holy elect people."72 A person, named Pionius, who, afterwards took a copy of the above congregational epistle; adds this pious prayer for himself: "That the Lord Jesus Christ would gather me also with his elect."73
By this time, it sufficiently appears that Mr. Sellon must he extremely deficient either in knowledge, or in honesty, (I am prone to think, in both;) else, even he would never have ventured to assert that predestination, and its concomitant doctrines, "do not appear to have been held by any body, during the first four centuries from the Christian era." Calvinism is, by no means, that novel thing which it is for the interest of Arminianism to wish. What Mr. Sellon sneeringly calls "The good old cause," is indeed an old cause, and a good one. The doctrines of grace must needs be good old doctrines, was it only because they are so plentifully diffused through a good old book, called the Bible. We have, also, just seen, that they are likewise asserted by those good old divines who lived nearest to the apostles, and who were actually conversant with them. I have, moreover, shewn, again and again, and hope to give still farther proof of it in the course of the present defence, that the said good old doctrines are the doctrines of the good old Church of England, and were the avowed principles of her good old reformers. Whereas the tenets of Messieurs Wesley and Sellon are as bad as they are new. I mean new, comparatively speaking: else they are, (as I intend to demonstrate, before I have done with them) as old as Pelagius. But no scheme of errors, however grey, is of equal antiquity with the truths from which it deviates.
Endnotes: