the Fourth Week after Easter
Click to donate today!
Bible Encyclopedias
Calvinism
Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature
or properly, the whole system of theology taught by John Calvin, including his doctrine of the sacraments, etc. It is now, however, generally used todenote the theory of grace and predestination set forth in Calvin's Institutes, and adopted, with more or less modification, by several of the Protestant churches. (See CALVINISTS).
1. Calvin's owin Views (Supralapsarian). — These ere set forth (from Neander) under the article CALVIN (See CALVIN) (q.v.). We give here simply such farther extracts from Calvin's own writings as are necessary to show his system.
(1.) "Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and adjudges others to eternal death, no one desirous of the credit of piety dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils, especially 1 y those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain that both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as dependent on the other. Predestination we call the eternal decree (f God, 1,y which he hath determined in himself what he would have to become of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a similar destiny; but eternal life is foreordained for some, and eternal damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the 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." — Institutes, bk. 3, ch. 21.
(2) As to the theory that predestination depends on foreknowledge of holiness, Calvin says: "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 bycovering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that it originates in another cause" (bk. 3, ch. 22). Consistently with this, he a little further 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." (Bk. 3, ch. 23.)
(3.) So, as to the ground of reprobation: ‘ 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 hepleases, 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." (Bk. 3, ch. 23.)
(4.) Calvin denies that his doctrine makes God the author of sin, asserting that the ruin of sinners is their I own work: "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."
(5.) 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,". See especially Institutes, bk. 3, ch. 23, § 27, and ch. 24, § 8.
From the above passages it will be seen that Calvin went beyond the Augustinian theory of predestination, and held to the supralapsarian view. Supralapsarianism regards man, before the fall, as the object of the unconditional decree of salvation or damnation; Sublapsarianism, on the other hand, makes the decree subordinate to the creation and fall of man. According to Dr. Shedd's definition, "supralapsarianism holds that the decree to eternal bliss or woe precedes, in the order of nature, the decree to apostasy; infralapsarianism holds that it succeeds it" (History of Doc. trines, 2:192). The Supralapsarians hold that God decreed the fall of Adam; the Sublapsarians, that he permitted it. Some writers have maintained that Calvin was not a supralapsarian, but that view of histeaching is hardly tenable. Calvin terms "the exclusion of the fall of the first man from the divine pre. destination afrigidum commentum" (3, ch. 23, §7). So also, § 4, he says, "Quum ergo in sua corruptione pereunt (homines), nihil aliud quam poenas luunt ejusdem calamitatis, in quam ipsius prcedestinationem lapsus est A dam, ac posteros suos praecipites secum traxit. It is on this particular point that Calvin goes farther than Augustine, who did not include the fall of Adam in the divine decree" (Smith's Hagenbach's History of Doctrines, § 249). Amyraldus (q.v.) sought to reduce Calvin's system to sublapsarianism, but was effectually answered by Curcellaeus in his tractate de jure Dei in Creaturas. But Fisher (New Englander, April, 1868, p. 305) holds that Calvin was not a supralapsarian. (See Christ. Remembrancer, Jan. 1856, art. iv; Warren, in Methodist Quarterly Review, July, 1857, art. i; Mohler, Symbolism, § 4.)
2. Doctrines of Dort (Infralapsariah). — The controversy with the Remonstrants on the five points ((See ARMINIANISM); (See REMONSTRANTS)) led to the clearer definition of the doctrines in question' by the Synod of Dort, which refused to accept the supralapsarian view, at least in terms. See the Confessions and Canons of the Synod of Dort for the full statement. The following summing up is given by Watson, from Scott's Synod of Dort, of the five articles which constitute the standard of what is now generally called strict Calvinism:
(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' (Romans 3:19; Romans 3:23; Romans 6:2.). 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,' etc. (Acts 15:18; Ephesians 1:11). 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 givethem 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, etc. (Ephesians 1:4-6; Romans 8:30). This same election is not made from any foreseen faith, obedience of faith, holiness, or any other good quality and disposition, as a prerequisite cause or condition in the man who should be elected, etc. ‘ He hath chosen us,' not because we were, but ‘ that we might be holy,' (Ephesians 1:4;Romans 9:11-13; Acts 13:48). 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."
(2.) "Of the Death of Christ." — Passing over, for brevity's sake, what is said of the necessity of atonement in order to pardon, and of Christ having offered that atonement and satisfaction, it is added, "This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and price, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world; but because many who are called by the Gospel do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this doth not arise from defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but from their own fault. God willed that Christ, through the blood of the cross, should out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, efficaciously redeem all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer on them the gift of faith," etc.
(3.) "Of Man's Corruption, etc. — All men are conceived in sin, and born the children of wrath, indisposed (inepti) to all saving good, propense to evil, dead in sin, and the slaves of sin; and without the regenerating grace of the Holy Spirit, they neither are willing nor able to return to God, to correct their depraved nature, or to dispose themselves to the correction of it."
(4.) "Of Grace and Free-will. — But in like manner as, by the fall, man does not cease to be man, endowed with intellect and will, neither hath sin, which hath pervaded the whole human race, taken away the nature of the human species, but it hath depraved and spiritually stained it; so that even this divine grace of regeneration does not act upon men like stocks and trees, nor take away the properties of his will, or violently compel it while unwilling; but it spiritually quickens, heals, corrects, and sweetly, and at the same time powerfully, inclines it; so that whereas before it was wholly governed by the rebellion and resistance of the flesh, now prompt and sincere obedience of the Spirit may begin to reign; in which the renewal of our spiritual will, and our liberty, truly consist; in which manner (or for which reason), unless the admirable Author of all good should work in us, there could be no hope to man of rising from the fall by that free will by which, when standing, he fell into ruin."
(5.) "On Perseverance. — God, who is rich in mercy, from his immutable purpose of election, does not wholly take away his Holy Spirit from his own, even in lamentable falls; nor does he so permit them to glide down (prolabi) that they should fall from the grace of adoption and the state of justification; or commit the ‘ sin unto death,' or against the Holy Spirit; that, being deserted by him, they should cast themselves headlong into eternal destruction. So that not by their own merits or strength, but by the gratuitous mercy of God, they obtain it, that they neither totally fall from faith and grace, nor finally continue in their falls and perish."
The Confessions of the Reformed Church agree more or less closely with the statements of Dort, whether they preceded or followed it in date. See the Confessio Gallica, art. 12; Confessio Belgica, art. 16; Form. Convensus Helvet. arts. 4 and 19; Cosif. Helvet. 2:10. (See Winer, Comp. Darstcllung, 9:1; Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, § 249.) The Westminster Confession is the standard of the Church of Scotland, and of the various Presbyterian Churches in Europe and America. Its 3d article states God's Eternal Decree as follows:
"Of God's Eternal Decree. — God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of I sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken I away, but rather established. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon,all sup, posed conditions, yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw its future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their numb er is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased or diminished. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ, by his Spirit working in due season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice."
The 17th article of the Church of England is as follows:
"Of Predestination and Election. — Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed, by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honor. Wherefore they which he 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: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works; and at length, by God's grace, they attain to everlasting felicity. As the godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh and theirearthly members, and drawing up their mind to high and heavenly things, as well because it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith of eternal salvation to be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love toward God; so, for curious and carnal persons, lacking theSpirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination is a most dangerous' downfall, whereby the devil doth thrust them either into desperation, or into Wretchedness of most unclean living, no less perilous than desperation. Furthermore, we must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture. And in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declined unto us in the Word of God."
It has always been a question in the Church of England whether theArticles are or are not Calvinistic. On this question, see Toplady, Doctrinal Calvinism of the Church of England (Works, vol. i and ii); Overton, True Churchman (2d ed. York, 1801); Laurence, Bamptn Lecture for 1804 (Oxford, 1805, 8vo); Cunningham, The Reformers, Essay iv (Edinb. 1862, 8vo); printed also in the Brit. and For. Evang. Rev. (No. 35); reptinted in the Am. Theol. Review (October, 1861, art. v); Hardwick, History of RJformation, ch. iv, p. 260.
The Lutheran Church never adopted the Calvinistic system. In the beginning, both Luther and Melancthon received the Augustinian theology; but as early as' 1523 Melancthon expunged the passages supporting it from his Loci Theologici. Luther bestowed the highest praise on the last editions of the Loci (Luther's Works, 1546, vol. i, preface; see Laurence, Bampton Lect. Sermon ii, note 21). The Augsburg Confessio Variata (20) says: "Non est hic opus disputationibus de predestinatione et similibus. Nam promissio est universalis et nihil detrahit operibus, sed exsuscitat ad fidem et vere bona opera" (see Gieseler; Church-History, 4, §§ 36, 37). In the German Reformed Church the strictly Calvinistic doctrine "never, as such, received any symbolical authority; and it was significantly left out of the Heidelberg Catechism, and handed over to the schools and scientific theology. At the same time, it was never rejected by the German Church, nor regarded with any thing like hostility." Appel, in the Tercentenary Monument of the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 327; Hase, Church History, §354.
3. The Calvinistic system was still farther modified by the Federal Theology, or the THEOLOGY OF THE COVENANTS. Under the too exclusive influence of the doctrine of Predestination, it had assumed a scholastic character, from which it was in part relieved by the introduction of the idea of the Covenant, as a constructive principle of the system. John Cocceius, trained in the German Reformed theology (born at Bremen 1603, died 1699), first developed the system under this point of view, the effect of which was to introduce historical facts and elements, and a distinctive ethical idea (a covenant implying mutual rights), into the heartof the system, and to banish the idea of the divine sovereignty as mere will. Cocceius distinguished between, 1. The covenant before the Fall, the covenant of works; and, 2. The covenant after the Fall, the covenant of grace. The latter covenant embraces a threefold economy: (1) Theeconomy before the law; (2) The economy under the law; (3) The economy of the Gospel. See his Summa Doctrine de Feedere et Testamentis Dei.1648. Heppe says: "The fruit of his influence was to lead the Reformed theologians back to the freedom of the Word of God, delivering it from the bondage of a traditional scholasticism." This type of Calvinism was still farther developed in the writings of Braun, Doctrina Fwderumn 1698; of Burmann of Utrecht (t 1679), Synopsis Theologica et (Economice Faderum Dei, 1671; Heidanus of Leyden (t 1678), Corpus Theol. Christ.1687; and especially of Witsius of Leyden (t 1708), whose Economy of the Covenants (1694) was translated into English (Lond. 1763; revised ed. Edinb. 1771, 1803; NewYork, 3 vols. 1798). This theology of the covenants also shaped, to a considerable extent, the Reformed system as it was adopted in England, Scotland, and America. It is clearly recognized in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms, Later writers divide the covenant of grace into two parts, viz. the covenant of redemption between the Father and the Son, and the covenant of grace between God and his people in Christ. On this important phase of the Calvinistic theology, see Ebrard, Dogmatik, 1:60 sq.; Gass, Geschichte der Protest. Dogmatik, Bd. 2, 1857; Schweizer, Glaubenslehre der evang. reformire ireirche, 2 Bde. 1844, and also his Protestantische Centraldogmen, 2 Bde.1854; Schneckenburger, Vergleichende Darstellung der lutherischen uni refornirten Lehrbegriffe, 1855; G. Frank, Geschichte der Protest. Theol. 2Bde. 1865; also Heppe, D gnatik d. deutschen Protestantismus, 1:204; Dogmatik der evang. ref. Kirche, 1:278; and the article FEDERAL THEOLOGY (See FEDERAL THEOLOGY) .
4. Moderate Calvinists. — This phrase designates those, especially in England and America, who, while adhering to the Calvinistic as contrasted with the Arminian system, have yet receded from some of the extreme statements of the former, especially upon the two articles of Reprobation and the Extent of the Atonement. See Dr. E. Williams, Defence of Modern Calvinism, 1812; Sermon and Charges, p. 128, and Appendix, p. 399. Dr. Williams says: "Reprobation, or predestination to death or misery as the end, and to sin as the means,' I call an ‘ impure mixture' with Calvinism, as having no foundation either in the real meaning of Holy Writ, or in the nature of things; except, indeed, we mean by it, what no one questions, a determination to punish the guilty." He calls this a "‘ mixture,' because its connection with predestination to life is arbitrary and forced; ‘ impure,' because the supposition itself is a foul aspersion upon the divine character."
The other point on which the moderate Calvinists modified the system is the nature and extent of the atoning work of Christ. Strict Calvinism asserts that the Lord Jesus Christ made atonement to God by his death only for the sins of those to whom, in the sovereign good pleasure of the Almighty, the benefits of his death shall be finally applied. By this definition, the extent of Christ's atonement, as a provision, is limited to those who ultimately enjoy its fruits; it is restricted to the elect of God. Both Strict and Moderate Calvinists agree as to the intrinsic worth of the atonement, and as to its final application. It has been asserted (e.g. by Amyraut, q.v.) that Calvin himself held to general redemption; and certainly his language in his Comm. in Job 3:15-16, and in 1 Timothy 2:5, seems fairly to assert the doctrine. Comp. Fletcher, Works (N. Y. ed.2:71); but see also Cunningham, The Reformers (Essay 7). As to the variations of the Calvinistic confessions, see Smith's Hagenbach, History of Doctrines, § 249. In the French Reformed Church, the divines of Saumur, Camero, Amyraldus, and Placeus maintained universal grace (see articleson these names). The English divines who attended the Synod of Dort (Hall, Hale, Davenant) all advocated general atonement, in which they were followed by Baxter (Universal Redemption; Methodus Theologica; Orme, Life of Baxter, 2:64). The "moderate" doctrine as to the nature of the atonement is, in brief, that it consists in "that satisfaction for sin which was rendered to God as moral governor of the world by the obedienceunto death of his son Jesus Christ. This satisfaction preserves the authority of the moral government of God, and yet enables him to forgive sinners. That this forgiveness could not be given by God without atonement constitutes its necessity." (See ATONEMENT). That Christ's atonementwas sufficient for all, that it is actually applied only to the elect, and that it enhances the guilt of those who reject it, is now almost universally conceded by the different schools. But its universality, as a provision, is also asserted by the moderate Calvinists, with some modifications in the statement of its nature.
The English views as to the nature of the atonement are presented in the following extracts: Dr. Magee (On the Atonement) says, "The sacrifice of Christ was never deemed by any, who did not wish to calumniate the doctrine of atonement, to have made God placable, but merely viewed as the means appointed by divine wisdom by which to bestow' forgiveness. But still it is demanded, in what way can the death of Christ, considered as a sacrifice of expiation, be conceived to operate to the remission of sin, unless by the appeasing of a Being who otherwise would not have forgiven us'? To this the answer of the Christian is, I know not, nor does it concern me to know, in what manner the sacrifice of Christ is connected with the forgiveness of sins; it is enoughthat this is declared by God to be the medium through which my salvationis effected: I pretend not to dive into the councils of the Almighty. I submit to his wisdom, and I will not reject his grace because his mode of vouch safing it is not within my comprehension." Andrew Fuller, in his Calvinistic and Socinian Systems compared (Letter 7), strongly reprobates the idea of placating the Divine Being by an atonement, "contending that the atonement is the effect, and not the cause of divine love" to men; and insists "that the contrary is a gross misrepresentation of the Calvinists in general," though it must be confessed some Calvinists have given too much countenance to such an idea. Mr. Fuller adds, "If we say a way was opened I y the death of Christ for the free and consistent exercise of mercy in all the methods which sovereign wisdom saw fit to adopt, perhaps we shall include every material idea which the Scriptures give us of that important event."
5. Farther modifications in the Calvinistic system have been made in this country through the influence of the so-called NEW-ENGLAND THEOLOGY, especially as set forth in the writings of Jonathan Edwards and his successors. In respect to original sin, the elder Edwards, in his work on that subject, advocated the mediate rather than the immediate imputation of Adam's first sin to his posterity. On the nature of virtue he introduced an important modification, in making love to being (in the two forms of love of benevolence and love of complacency) to constitute the essence of virtue. On the nature of the atonement he made no modification. He also distinguished more carefully than had previously been donebetween natural ability and moral inability, and this distinction was farther elaborated by the younger Edwards, who also represented the atonement as consisting in a satisfaction to the general rather than the distributive justice of God. Hopkins and Emmons carried out these views still farther, but under the influence (especially in the case of Emmons) of the supralapsarian scheme. These discussions extended from New England into the Presbyterian Church. The parties there known as Old and New School differ chiefly on the following articles:
1. Imputation of sin, whether it be immediate or mediate;
2. The nature and extent of the atonement;
3. Ability and inability.
For the history of the development of Calvinism, (See REFORMED CHURCH). For the Antinomian and extreme supralapsarian developments of Calvinism, (See ANTINOMIANISM); (See CRISP); (See HOPKINSIANS). For certain mitigated schemes of Calvinism, (See AMYRALDISM); (See BAXTER); (See CAMERO). On two of the principles which distinguish the so-called Moderate Calvinism, viz.
(1.) the universality of the atonement, (See ATONEMENT); (See REDEMPTION);
(2.) The natural ability of all men to repent, (See INABILITY); (See THEOLOGY).
6. Literature. — The literature of the Calvinistic controversy is enormous. I he principal books only can be named here: Calvin, Instiluiones; Zwinglius, Brevis Isagoge; Ccmm. de vera etfalsa relgione; the Confessions of the Reformed Chuiches, given in Augusti, Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum (1828). or in icmeyer, Collectio Conjissonum (1840); the Westminster Confession (1868); the Decrees of the Synod of Dort (1619). The chief Calvinistic writers of the 16th and 17th centuries were Beza, Bullinger, Alstedt, Whitgift, Cartwright, CriFp, Perkins, Leighton, Baxter (moderate), Owen, Howe, Ridgely, Gomar, Alting, Rivetus, Heidegger, Turretin,Pictet. Of the 18th and 19th centuries the following are selected: Stapfer, Wyttenbach, Gill, Toplady, Erskine, Dick, Hill, Breckinridge, Krummacher. Of the new American school: Edwards, Bellamy, Emmons, Dwight, West, Snmtlley etc., whose influence was seen in England in the writings of Fuller, Ryland, Hall, Jay, Pye Smith, and Chalmers. The so- called Old Calvinism has produced fewwriters of late in England. It is ally defended in America by the Princeton theologians. For the historical treatment of the subject, see Gill, Cause of God and Truth, pt. iv; Neander,History of Dlgmas (I. c.); Hagenbach, Hist. of Doctrines (ed. by Smith, §219222); Ebrard' Christ. Dogmatik, § 17-51, ard § 556565; Womack,Calvinistic Cabinet Unlocked; Watson, Theolog. Institutes, pt. ii, ch. 28; Herrmann, Geschichte der Prot. Dicgatlik (Leips. 1842); Gass, Geschichte der Prot. Dcgmactik (Berlin, 1854); Heppe, Dogmatik der evang reform. Kirche (Elherfeld, 1861); Mozley, Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination (Londo 1855); Christian Renembrancer, Jan. 1856, 170 sq.; Nicholls, Calvinism ard Armininism compared (Land. 1824, 2 vc, ls.8vo) is very full as to English writers, and abounds in valuable citations,but is destitute of scientific arrangement; Cunningham, Historical Theology (1862); Ditto, Thohlogy of the Information (1862); Hill, Lectures on Divinity, chap. 11. For the later forms of Calvinism, especially in America, see Tyler, History of the New Heaven Theology (1837); Beecher, Views in Theology; ice, Old and New Schools (1853); Bangs, Errors of Hopkinsianism, 1815); Hodgson, New Divinity (1839)); Fisk, The Calvinistic Controversy; and especially, on the whole subject, Warren, Systematische Theologie, § 24 (Bremen, 1865, 8vo). Polemical works against Calvinism: (a) Lutheran, Chemnitz, in his Loci Theologoci; Dannhauer, Hodomoria Spiritus Calvin (1654); FeuerLorn, Epit me Error. Calv. (1651); (1) Arminan and Methodist (besides those above named): Arminius, Episcopius, Limborch, Curcelleus (writings generally); Wesley ( oio ks, see Index); Fletcher, Cheakls to Anfinomianism, etc.; Watson, Theol. Institutes, vol. 2; Goodwin, Redemption Redeemed; Foster, Calvinism as it is; (c) Later German writers ‘ Ebrard, in his Dogmatik (Kö nigsberg, 1851, 2 vols. 8vo); Lange, Die Lehre. der heil. Schriften von derfreien und allgemeinen Gnade Gottes (Elberf. 1631, 8vo). Writers on special topics, e. a. Election, Redemption, Predestination, etc., will be named under those heads respectively. (See ARMINIANISM); (See ELECTION); (See FEDERAL THEOLOGY); (See GRACE); (See PREDESTINTATION); (See SACRAMENTS).
These files are public domain.
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Calvinism'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/c/calvinism.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.
