The Marrow of Calvin's Theology

STOP

Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in
the world byJSTOR.

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries.

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial
purposes.

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.istor.org/participate-istor/individuals/early-
journal-content .

JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact support@jstor.org.

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 323

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY^
WILLL^M W. FENN

HaBTABD UNtVUESITT

As every man has both generic and specific characteristics
which are common to him with his kind and group, and also
certain traits which constitute his individuaUty, so likewise every
thoughtful man has ideas which are the intellectual staple of his
age and race and also others which are in a peculiar sense his
own. It does not therefore follow that these common ideas are
untrue : on the contrary, they may be nearer the truth than those
which are relatively unshared; or that they are unimportant,
for, even if erroneous, they may furnish points of contact through
which his more distinctive opinion finds its way into the popular
mind; nevertheless, they may be disregarded in estimating his
contribution to the history of thought. Accordingly, nothing will
be said here of doctrines, those pertaining to Christ and the Trin-
ity for instance, which Calvin held in substantial agreement with
contemporary and traditional Christianity; nor shall we refer
to theories concerning the Church, its officers and sacraments,
which, although highly significant both at the time and as shap-
ing subsequent ecclesiastical history, have but slight connection
with the ideas which make up the distinctively Calvinistic system
of theology. We shall restrict ourselves therefore to Calvin's
system within his system, to a definite, consistent nexus of ideas,
relating principally to sin and salvation, which are, so to speak,
the marrow of his body of divinity. And with reference to these,
we shall undertake to present them as they appear in the defini-
tive edition of the Institutes, without attempting to trace their
relations, of dependence, resemblance, or diflference, to ideas of
his theological predecessors, like Augustine and Gottschalk, or
contemporaries like Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, or Bucer;
still less shall we essay to follow a possible process of his own

lA lecture given in the Lowell Institute Course at Bang's Chapel, Boston,
Feb. 1. 1909.

324 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

thought through the successive editions and enlargements of the
Institutes. These are fascinating and fruitful fields of inquiry
but they are outside our present task. It should go without
saying that Calvin's system, or even the marrow of it, was not
his own in the sense that he invented it: on the contrary, he
simply made more explicit, and carried more consistently to their
logical conclusions, ideas which had been practically universal in
Christian theology since the days of Paul. The system was his
not by origination, but by vital and organic appropriation. Nor
are we concerned here with criticism: it would indeed be profi-
table to trace the course of the inner dialectic of the system, par-
ticularly in its development by the New England theologians,
and mark its "collapse" because of inability to answer its own
questions and fulfil the ethical ideal itself had nourished, but
at present we have to do neither with criticism nor with appre-
ciation, but solely with exposition, and — since Calvinism is now
almost everywhere spoken against — ^with sympathetic exposi-
tion, which shall at least attempt to indicate why the system
proved persuasive with so many successive generations of right-
minded and right-hearted men.

It is always necessary, however, if we would justly comprehend
a man's thought to see what interests prompted it and what pur-
poses sought fulfilment in it. Calvin's supreme task was to
consolidate the sentiment of the Reformation into an intellect-
ual system as firm and coherent as that of the Roman Catholi-
cism against which it was arrayed. Manifestly, the strategic
point of this controversy was the doctrine of redemption. Luther
preached justification by faith as a saving power; Calvin taught
salvation by grace as a cardinal doctrine. The former empha-
sized a human experience, the latter the divine efiiciency, but
both were presenting the same truth, viewed in the one case on
the manward, in the other on the Godward side. Under Luther,
it might have been held that the agencies of the Church were
effectual, perhaps indispensable, to the production of faith or as
mediating the saving grace, but Calvin sought to prove that since
salvation is wholly and exclusively the effect of God's grace,
exercised in accordance with his eternal decree and directly upon
the souls of the elect, the Church has no direct and effective

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 325

function with respect to salvation, nor has the individual man
any co-operative part therein. Manifestly, if this could be
proved, the Church would be put permanently out of commis-
sion as a means of salvation. But, while Romanism was Calvin's
foe in front, there was an enemy on the left flank which menaced
the Reformed churches quite as seriously — the Anabaptists.
With these outlaws, as they were then deemed, the Romanists
sought to identify all the Reformed, — an identification which
was not difficult because they actually did maintain many of the
unacknowledged conclusions of Reformation principles logically
developed, and consequently attracted many thorough-going
Protestants to their guerilla-like band. Such identification was,
however, pre-eminently dangerous because of the abhorrence
in which Anabaptists were held by civil rulers without whose
strong and continued support the whole Reformation movement
would have been endangered. Indeed, the letter to King Francis
which introduced the first edition of the Institutes, expressly
declared that one object of the treatise was to demonstrate that
the identification of Protestants with Anabaptists, which had
already given occasion for persecution, was false and malicious.
Hence, in opposing the Papacy, Calvin was obhged most care-
fully to ward off all suspicion of Anabaptism, and at several points
it is plain that his doctrinal line of battle was refused against
this ever-present menace.

This appears, for example, in his treatment of the Bible, the
authority of which was accepted by Romanist and Protestant
alike. The argument of the former, however, was that the
Bible was the Church's book, produced and made canonical by
it, and therefore resting ultimately upon its authority, and depend-
ent upon it for true interpretation. Of course, Calvin could not
accept this view, but it obliged him to establish the authority
of Scripture apart from the Church. Calvin adduces the
antiquity of the Bible, its dignity in substance and style as con-
trasted with the humble character of its reputed authors, its
frankness, the miracles and prophecies attesting its divine origin,
its endurance of the assaults of enemies, and its fitness to the
needs of Christendom, but he openly acknowledges that these
considerations alone can never establish the convincing author-

326 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

ity of Scripture. There is indeed a congruity between the Word
and the works of God which confirms faith in the identity of
authorship — but the revelation of God in his works is dim and
obscure, to be read only by those who use his revelation in the
Word as spectacles through which alone the revelations of nature
become legible. Ultimately, therefore, Calvin rests his assurance
of the authority of Scripture upon the secret testimony of the
Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer. The Word, he affirms,
will never gain full credit in the hearts of men, unless it be con-
firmed by the internal testimony of the Spirit. To those in whom
the Spirit abides, the Scripture exhibits as clear evidence of its
truth as white and black things do of their color, or sweet and
bitter things of their taste. Plainly, with this emphasis upon
the Spirit, Calvin came dangerously near Anabaptism, and there-
fore he guards himself against the manifest peril by emphati-
cally declaring that the voice of the Spirit in the Word must be
the decisive test of all alleged private revelations. The Ana-
baptists claim direct communications from the Spirit: — ^To the
law and the testimony! — if they speak not according to this rule
there is no light in them. "He [the Spirit] is the author of the
Scriptures: he cannot be mutable and inconsistent with him-
self. He must therefore perpetually remain such as he has there
discovered himself to be" (Inst i, 9. 2). Hence "the office
of the Spirit ... is not to feign new and unheard of revelations,
or to coin a new system of doctrine . . . but to seal to our minds
the same doctrine which the Gospel delivers" (Inst, i, 9. 1). The
function of the Spirit, then, is not to continue a progressive rev-
elation, but solely to give inner witness to the divine certainty of
one already given in the Word, final and complete. That is to
say, the Spirit is invoked to prove the Scripture and then the
Scripture becomes the criterion of the Spirit. But it should be
observed that on this ground Calvin accepts the decisive author-
ity of Scripture. It is true that we do not find in him the extrava-
gances of post-reformation Scholasticism — ^he was too sane and
knew his Bible too well for that. He is no stickler for absolute
infallibility, but, while he acknowledges historical slips, he never
permits minor inaccuracies to shake his faith in the substantial
ethical and religious finality of the Bible. Yet it must be borne

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 327

in mind that only the regenerate, in whom the Spirit dwells, can
have this first-hand vital assurance: the Bible does not engender
faith; faith attests the Bible; and faith is the fruit of the Spirit
in the heart of man. Belief in the Bible cannot contribute to a
man's salvation, since only the regenerate man can really and
heartily have this belief.

Notwithstanding the preference which Calvin has for the Word
over the works of God, we shall find it better to approach his
system by what, undoubtedly, he would have deemed a meaner
way. Whether we look out upon the world or within upon
our own hearts nothing is more certain and impressive than
the universality of sin. Literature bears witness to the appal-
ling fact, observation of contemporary life and the struggles
of our own souls alike confess it. So far, then, as knowledge,
observation, and experience establish anything, it is the world-
wide and age-long presence and power of sin. What, then, is
the explanation of this fact? For so universal an effect an
equally universal cause must be sought. No cause operating
solely upon individuals as such could produce so constant and
uniform a result. If it be said that universal sin is due to the
exercise of man's own will, the question arises why man's will
universally and invariably determines itself in this particular
way. Edwards puts the argument strikingly in his Doctrine
of Original Sin (Pt. 1, ch. 1, sect, ix):

K their wills are in the first place as free to Good as Evil, what is it
to be ascribed to, that the world of mankind, consisting of so many mill-
ions, in so many successive generations, without consultation, all agree
to exercise their freedom in favor of evil ? . . . How comes it to pass,
that the free will of mankind has been determined to evil, in like manner
before the Flood, and after the Flood; under the Law and under the
Gospel; among both Jews and Gentiles, under the Old Testament;
and since that, among Christians, Jews, Mahometans; among Papists and
Protestants; in those nations where dviUty, politeness, arts, and learn-
ing most prevail, and among the negroes and Hottentots in Africa,
the Tartars in Asia, and Indians in America, towards both the poles
and on every side of the Globe; in greatest cities, and obscurest
villages; in palaces, and in huts, wigwams, and cells under ground? Is
it enough to reply. It happens so, that men everywhere and at all times
choose thus to determine their own wills and so to make themselves sin-
ful, as soon as ever they are capable of it, and to sin constantly as long
as they Uve, and universally to choose never to come up half-way to their
duty?

328 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

A similar indictment is found in a well-known and often quoted
passage in Newman's Apologia, and as Edwards infers that there
must be a steady cause to account for so steady an effect, so New-
man argues that the human race must be implicated in some
terrible aboriginal calamity which has put it out of joint with
the purposes of its Creator. To Calvin also, this conclusion
seemed quite inevitable. For did not the Bible also testify to
this frightful and universal fact? "All have sinned . . . there
is none that doeth good; no, not so much as one." And the
Bible thus recognizing the condition offers also its explanation:
" Through one man sin entered into the world." Here, then, in the
fall of Adam, from whom all men are descended, is the explana-
tion of the universal fact. By his sin he lost certain gifts with
which he had been endowed, lost them not only for himself but
for his posterity, even as a father who squanders his estate robs
his children of their rightful patrimony. And there was not
only deprivation but also depravity, since, having lost his original
divine endowment, Adam went ever deeper into sin, thus
vitiating his nature, which in its corrupt and depraved state was
transmitted to his offspring. If a father weakens himself by
vice, does not his son inherit the consequences in a defiled body
and an enfeebled will ?

Here then is the doctrine of original sin, or of depravity, based
on facts of observation and experience, recognized by the Bible,
and accounted for in a perfectly intelligible way by the sin of our
first ancestor which resulted in the loss of godlike powers and
in the acquisition of a corrupt nature, both of which consequences
passed through to his posterity. Calvin would have agreed with
Newman — "The doctrine of what is theologically called orig-
inal sin becomes to me almost as certain as that the world exists
and as the existence of God " (Apol. c. 5). In his own emphatic
words, " Let us hold this, then, as an undoubted truth, which no
opposition can ever shake — ^that the mind of man is so completely
alienated from the righteousness of God, that it conceives, desires,
and undertakes everything that is impious, perverse, base, impure,
and flagitious; that his heart is so thoroughly infected by the
poison of sin, that it cannot produce anything but what is cor-
rupt; and that if at any time men do anything apparently good.

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 329

yet the mind always remains involved in hypocrisy and falla-
cious obliquity, and the heart enslaved by its inward perverse-
ness" (Inst, ii, 5. 19).

Since, then, all men are sinners, all are under the wrath of God
and liable to the penalty which he has decreed against sin. That
penalty is death — ^physical and spiritual, temporal and eternal.
Since, within the sphere of our observation, the temporal punish-
ment is universally inflicted, we have every reason to believe
that the invisible and eternal penalty also follows. And this
indeed is inevitable, since all men come into life sinful and hence
exposed to the just punishment of sin. The universality of
physical death is valid symbol and sign of the universality of
spiritual doom. It should be observed, however, that we are
not punished as the penalty of Adam's sin: the punishment is
solely for our own personal pollution of nature, made ours because
of connection with our first ancestor. Unless, therefore, some way
of salvation can be found, the sin of Adam will have plunged all
mankind in utter and awful destruction.

It is manifest, however, that such salvation cannot be wrought
out by man. " Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean ?
Not one." Upon the tree of a corrupt and depraved nature no
good fruit can grow. On account of the depraved condition of
man, it is impossible that he should produce any works well-
pleasing to God. If any are to be saved, therefore, the saving
influence must come from without. This, which is the plain
teaching of reason, is again amply confirmed by Scripture, which
teaches unmistakably that God has provided a way by which
alone some out of the ruined mass of mankind are to be saved
through the operation of his regenerating spirit. In this work
of regeneration, God alone is active, man is wholly passive. As
this is for Calvin the vital point of the whole discussion, he uses
his utmost endeavors to rule out man's possible activity, even by
way of co-operation, in the saving process. Church-membership
does not avail, for, while the present work of the Spirit is restricted
to those who are vrithin the circle of the visible Church, it by no
means follows that because one belongs to the external and visi-
ble Church he is therefore numbered among those who make up
the Church invisible, composed only of the regenerate. Nor can

330 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

what are usually called good works profit; for, if they proceed
not from a heart purified by faith, they are not good in the sight
of God. But surely faith is man's act and his faith co-operates
with God's grace, making it individually effective : by no means,
for faith is not merely an intellectual acceptance — the devils so
believe and tremble, and remain devils still — but consists in a
fixed reliance upon God's promises, arising from union with Christ
which is due to the operation of the Spirit alone. Only the
regenerate, then, can exercise true faith, which is therefore the
effect and not the cause of regeneration. Hence "the Scripture
uniformly proclaims it [faith] to be the gratuitous gift of God"
(Inst, ii, 3. 8). and, inasmuch as without faith it is impossible
to please God, it follows that, without that which his grace sup-
plies, nothing, — no works, however good to outward seeming, —
can win his approval. But man's repentance is surely his own:
not at all, for true repentance is wrought only by the activity of
the Holy Spirit. It is not a single event antecedent to regenera-
tion: it is a process continued through life, wrought by the Spirit
in the souls of the regenerate. With scrupulous care Calvin
closes every loophole through which man's activity could by any
chance, or in even the slightest degree, enter into the work of
salvation. God's grace alone, manifest in the operation of his
Spirit, is the sole agency of salvation. Man in his sinfulness is
doomed and absolutely helpless. Salvation is only by God's
grace.

Inasmuch, however, as God alone is the effective cause of
salvation, if some men are not saved must it not be solely because
upon these God does not exert his saving influence? This cer-
tainly follows, and its plain statement is Calvin's doctrine of
election and reprobation. For it is manifest that not all men
are saved. The Christian Church, within which alone the redemp-
tive forces play, comprises but an infinitesimal part of the great
multitudes who have lived upon the earth or who are living now.
The untold millions of heathendom, men, women, children, one
and all have swept down into hell, necessarily, since they could
not have believed in him of whom they had not heard. Calvin
openly commits himself to the traditional doctrine that "the
Church is the mother of all those who have Him for their Father"

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 331

{Inst, iv, 1. 1), saying in terms, " There is no other way of entrance
into life unless we are conceived by her, born of her, nourished
at her breast, and continually preserved under her care and gov-
ernment " ; " Out of her bosom there can be no hope of remission
of sins, or any salvation" (Inst, iv, 1. 4). Moreover, even in
Christian lands the great majority die without giving evidence
of regeneration, and these too are irremediably lost. This also
is the testimony of Scripture, which beyond cavil speaks of an
eternal punishment for human souls. Since, therefore, salva-
tion is from God alone, and not all are saved, it follows that there
are some upon whom he is pleased to exert his saving power, and
others whom he simply leaves to their merited doom. And the
reason for this discrimination cannot lie at all in the characters
of those who belong to the one or the other class, for in that case
the ultimate ground of salvation would be in man, not in God.
Consequently the discrimination must be due to God's will alone.
And this again the Bible teaches: "The children being not yet
born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose
of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him
that calleth, it was said . . . Jacob have I loved, but Esau I
hated. . . . For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy, and I will have compassion, on whom I will have
compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that
runneth, but of God that hath mercy. ... So then he hath mercy
on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth" (Rom. 9 11-ls).
Could anything be plainer or more explicit? Before even the
creation of the world, out of the innumerable multitudes of men
yet to be born, all of whom were to fall under the penalty of eternal
death, God arbitrarily selected some whom he determined, in
course of time, to visit with his Spirit unto regeneration and life,
and, by choosing these, simply passed over the rest, leaving them
to their just deserts. "Quos deus praeterit reprobat." The
choice was perfectly arbitrary; it was not determined by
merit, else man would have a share in his own salvation, and
furthermore is it not written that man is called unto holiness,
not because of holiness? Nor is God's decree based upon his
foreknowledge, for, since nothing can happen except by his will,
his foreknowledge must be foreknowledge of his will. Conse-

332 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

quently foreknowledge rests on decrees, decrees do not rest on fore-
knowledge.

Let us then put in a single paragraph this part of his system.
All men come into the world sinful because of their race-con-
nection with Adam; and because sinful, exposed to eternal death.
On account of their utterly base and undone condition not one of
them can by any striving of his own win approval of God and
deliverance unto life. Out of this helpless and hopeless state,
therefore, none can escape save by the direct and irresistible
act of God in regeneration, and, since it is evident that not all
men are saved, it logically follows that it is not his will to visit
all with his redeeming grace. What is the inevitable conclusion
therefore but that, before the creation of the world, God chose
out of the hosts of mankind yet to be born some whom he fore-
ordained to eternal bliss. To these in the fulness of time he
sends his prevailing grace with regenerating power. And the
grace which is irresistible in regeneration is equally irresistible
for maintenance: hence these cannot perish, and the perseverance
of the saints logically follows. But those who are not thus elected,
being involved in the guilt of Adam's sin and consequently totally
without holiness or ability to help themselves, are never visited
by the Spirit and hence go down to hell. This is the nerve of
Calvinism.

We shall understand this better if we consider certain objections
which have been urged against the system.

1. Is it true that all men are alike depraved and deserving of
eternal punishment? Is it true that no men are better than
others? Surely there are differences of character even among
the unregenerate: surely Epictetus was a better man than Nero,
and yet neither was aided by grace, if grace be restricted within
the limits of the Church. Yes, Calvin acknowledges the differ-
ence but declares that it is due solely to the working of the
restraining grace of God. There is common grace, which is
manifest in the affairs of men in all ages and lands, but this is not
the same as saving grace, which operates only within the limits
of Christendom. And in order to carry out the divine purposes
this common grace restrains men from the full exhibition of the
utter depravity which lies at the heart of all. In the sight of

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 333

God, who seeth not as man seeth but looketh into the hearts of
all, Epictetus was not a whit better than Nero. Their hearts
were equally vile and corrupt, but for his own purposes God saw
fit to restrain the expression of that wickedness in the former
and not to restrain it in the latter. Hence in so far as the one
appears better than the other it is mere appearance, and an
appearance due to no merit in Epictetus, since it is solely the
effect of God's restraining grace.

2. Does not this doctrine impeach the sincerity of God in giv-
ing to all men a law which it now appears only the regenerate
can obey, and in offering to all men promises which only a few
can accept? A crazy Methodist evangelist, somewhat notorious
in his day, Lorenzo Dow by name, used to refer to contemporary
Calvinists as the All-Part men and explained the epithet as
meaning that, where the Bible spells All, they pronounce it Part.
How can God sincerely demand an obedience to law which can-
not be rendered, or hold out promises of salvation which only
here and there one can embrace? Nevertheless, with reference
to the Law, is it not the teaching of Paul himself that it was given
to reveal sin, and even to increase sin, so that through his con-
scious helplessness man may be brought to the salvation of Christ ?
He himself had been unable to keep the Law; he therefore con-
cluded that no man could, and hence that it was not given to be
kept, but was intended only as a tutor to bring us to Christ. So
Calvin teaches that the law " was placed far beyond our ability,
in order to convince us of our impotence." How can one who
holds Paul's teaching true find fault with Calvin? Moreover,
if the Law cannot be kept by the unregenerate, it can by the regen-
erate, and is therefore of utmost service to them as revealing a
way of life well-pleasing to God. And as for the promises, they
could not be limited without revealing the elect, who exist only in
the undisclosed purpose of God. There is a distinction to be
drawn between the secret and the preceptive will of God; his will
and grace are declared to all, although it is his secret will that only
some should obey and accept. " Whosoever will, let him come " :
yes, whosoever will, may come, but no man can will to come
except the Spirit draw him. The promises, that is, are always
made conditionally, and the conditions are of such a nature that
none can fulfil them apart from saving grace.

334 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

3. But is it not unjust in God thus to elect some and pass over
others ? Does not such a doctrine as this make God an infinitely
unjust being? To this there are several replies, of which three
may be presented.

(a) No one who believes in the divine government of the
world can fail to see that in all its essential features this doctrine
is true to the facts of human life. One child is born in squalor
and sin, another in surroundings of comfort and to influences
of goodness. Walk through the slums of a city and compare
the deformed, diseased, doomed children sprawling on the door-
steps and the sidewalks with the children of our own homes: is
there not a difference? What chance of good and happy life
have these children compared with ours ? Is it the fault of
these children of the slums that they are what they are? Did
they choose the sin and wretchedness into which they are born ?
Are they responsible for being there ? Yet they are there. And
if God governs the world, if his will is revealed in the order of
things, is it not in accordance with his will that they are there ?
Unless therefore one is ready to deny out of hand God's will
in the world, he cannot deny the arbitrary discriminations of
God. Furthermore, are not the separations of God recorded in
sacred history ? Did not God choose Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
in succession, not because of their desert but because of his own
sovereign will ? Did he not choose Israel out of all the nations
of the earth ? Did not Christ say to his disciples, " Ye have not
chosen me, but I have chosen you " ? In nature and in grace
therefore the same principle is displayed. The differences of
earth and time are but manifestations of the differences in eternal
destiny, — expressions of the same principle. Beware lest, in pro-
testing against election, you turn atheist.

(6) Wherein is the injustice of such discrimination? Is it
not true, as matter of common observation and experience, that
a spendthrift father deprives his son of his rightful patrimony,
and do we complain of that law as unjust ? Is it not true that
a diseased father transmits the taint to his son, — is such in-
heritance unjust ? But, whether it seem unjust or not, the fact
is indubitable. And if we accept the principle in things visible
and temporal, can we deny it in things invisible and eternal ?

THE MARROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 335

Are not both worlds under the one divine law ? Is it, then, unjust
that God should punish sin? If not, then men who are sinful
in nature, and all men are, must be the deserving objects of God's
wrath and hatred of sin. And, if all men are thus doomed and
God wills to spare some, have those who are passed over any
just cause for complaint ? They get their deserts. If, for example,
a conspiracy is discovered in a nation and all those implicated
in it are condemned to death, to death justly deserved, is injus-
tice done to others if the monarch wills to show clemency to a
few ? If indeed the discrimination were on the basis of previous
good behavior, if the question of desert or ill desert were once
raised, then those who go to their merited doom might justly
complain, perhaps, that they were no less deserving of mercy
than those who have been pardoned, but it has already been
shown that in God's election the choice is absolutely without
regard to merit and proceeds from arbitrary will alone. All men
are justly doomed; but in God is mercy as well as justice, and
how can mercy be shown save in the salvation of some under
just condemnation, and arbitrarily selected, since, if merit enters,
mercy is cancelled. God's justice is revealed in the condemna-
tion of all, his clemency in the salvation of some; but those who
justly die cannot charge God with injustice because they are
passed over while others likewise under sentence of death are
mercifully spared. With this plea Calvin might well have been
content, for the logic is inexorable and the alternatives are una-
voidable. Is it unjust that all Adam's posterity should suffer
loss and incur corruption because of his sin ? The same princi-
ple operates before our very eyes in the processes of human life,
and are not those processes in accordance with the will of God ?
To deny God's responsibility for the facts of human life is athe-
ism. If, on the other hand, the principle is justified here, it can-
not be pronounced unjust with reference to spiritual concerns.
Calvinist or atheist, which? Is there discrimination here in the
case of children born in favorable or unfavorable conditions ?
Then there are but two alternatives — either God has naught to
do with temporal discriminations or the principle justified here
cannot be denied in things eternal. Again, atheist or Calvinist ?
Furthermore, does not the Bible distinctly teach that all men are

336 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

sinners because of Adam's sin, that all are under condemnation,
that God foreknows and calls whom he wills, and that the rest
go down to hell; and do you believe the Bible ? Here the alterna-
tives are Calvinism or infidelity. And it does not avail to say
that the Bible teaches also an opposite doctrine, for even if that
were granted, the reply would be that it unmistakably teaches
this, and it is for man to accept what God plainly declares and
leave Him to do the reconciling. And to reject some teachings
of the Bible on account of others which seem contradictory is to
reject the Bible altogether as final authority, for an authority
which permits one to exercise preferences among its declarations
is no longer an authority in any just sense of the word.

(c) But Calvin has yet another argument in reply to the objec-
tion we are now considering, namely: God is just, his will is right;
there is no higher standard of justice than his will. That this
is his will is not only revealed in the facts of human life as it
comes under our observation, but also declared in his unimpeach-
able Word; therefore it is and must be just, whether we can
see it so or not. Who are we to sit in judgment on him who
inhabiteth eternity? What colossal conceit and impudence to
presume to set our standard of justice, born of our ignorance
and depravity, over against the eternal wisdom and holiness!
Nay, just because of our moral depravity, a system which should
thoroughly commend itself to our unregenerate moral sense
would be presumably untrue to the ethics of heaven. Who art
thou, O man, that repliest against God ? One cannot help feel-
ing that here Calvin ultimately rested. He was not insensible
to the awfulness of the teaching. "I inquire again," he says,
arguing with his opponents, "how it came to pass that the fall
of Adam, independent of any remedy, should involve so many
nations with their infant children in eternal death, but because
such was the will of God. It is an awful decree, I confess —
" Deeretum quidem horribile, fateor" (Inst, iii, 23. 7). But the
facts of observation and experience religiously interpreted and
the explicit affirmations of Scripture left no alternative. "If
your mind is disturbed," he says, "embrace without reluctance
the advice of Augustine: 'You, a man, expect an answer from
me who am also a man? Let us both therefore hear him who

THE MARROW OP CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 337

says, O man, who art thou ? Faithful ignorance is better than
presumptuous knowledge. Seek your deserts, you will find noth-
ing but punishment. O the depth! Peter denies, the thief
believes; O the depth! Do you seek a reason, I will tremble
at the depth. Reason, if you will. I will wonder. Dispute,
if you will, I will believe. I seethe depth. Ireachnot the bottom.
Paul was at rest because he found wonder. He calls the judg-
ments of God unsearchable, and are you come to scrutinize
them ? He says, his ways are past finding out, and are you come
to investigate them?' We shall do no good by proceeding
further: it will not satisfy their petulance; the Lord needs no
other defence than what he has employed by his Spirit speaking
by the mouth of Paul: and we forget to speak well, when we
cease to speak with God" (Inst, iii, 23. 5).

"A horrible decree, I confess," yet to it as to the counsel of
God Calvin felt himself driven in fidelity to the works and the
interpreting Word of God. Before the awful majesty of the
Eternal, whose ways are not as our ways, whose thoughts are
not as our thoughts, he laid his hand upon his mouth and in awed
silence wondered at the depth. It is and must be the Lord'a
will, yet there is no injustice in Him: better to deny our poor
human sense of justice than to impugn the justice of God. Yea,
let God be true and every man a liar. So the Scripture and so
Calvin.

4. But there is still one other objection which leaves Calvin
face to face with a dreadful dilemma. Is God the author of
sin, or, to put it otherwise, did God decree Adam's fall and by
his decree effect it? Calvin earnestly protests that Adam alone
of all mankind had free will, and endowments which enabled him
not to sin. Did God simply fail to sustain him with the power
of perseverance, so rendering him liable to sin? Then is not
God, who withdraws support, responsible for the fall ? Did
God leave this cardinal event of all human history to chance?
That were a preposterous supposition, since Calvin has argued
convincingly against the presence of chance in the world, and
especially since God's decrees all depended on Adam's sin, which
therefore must have been itself decreed. Did then God merely
foreknow that Adam would fall ? It was impossible for Calvin to

338 HARVARD THEOLOGICAL REVIEW

take refuge in such an idea, since he had argued that knowledge
depends on decrees and not the reverse. Did, then, God simply
permit, by not preventing, the fall ? This too is a perfectly im-
possible plea for one who like Calvin has argued that the will
of God is influential and not merely permissive. "He declares
that he creates light and darkness, that he forms good and evil,
and that no evil occurs which he has not performed" (Inst, i,
18. 3). " Providence consists in action " (i, 16. 4). No, however
Calvin may protest, his logic leads to but one issue: God decreed
the fall of Adam and by his effective will became thus the ulti-
mate cause of sin. "God not only foresaw the fall of the first
man and his posterity in him, but also arranged all by the de-
termination of his own will. . . . For the first man fell because
the Lord had determined it was so expedient. The reason for
this determination is unknown to us. Yet it is certain that he
determined thus only because he foresaw that it would tend to
the just illustration of the glory of his name" (Inst, iii, 23. 7-8).
It is true that Calvin goes on to say that by his own wickedness
Adam corrupted the nature he had received pure from the Lord,
but he does not inform us whence the wickedness came into that
pure nature, and his final refuge as before is in the inscrutable-
ness of God. "To be ignorant of things which it is neither pos-
sible nor lawful to know is to be learned. An eagerness to know
them is a species of madness" (Inst, iii, 23. 8). This then is
Calvin's terrible dilemma between his ethical sense and his intel-
lectual logic. A synthesis of thought cannot be attained by the
mere juxtaposition of contradictory statements however emphati-
cally made. It is simply impossible to follow the logic of Calvin
without reaching at last the conclusion that God was the effective
cause of Adam's sin and all the fearful consequences that follow
from that sin. Is not this the rediidio ad absurdum of Calvinism ?
Just because of its own rigorous logic it is condemned by its own
inner dialectic before the judgment-seat of ethics.

It must not be forgotten, however, that this system, rigorous as
it is, horrible as it seems, was rich in comfort and peace to Calvin
and his contemporaries. They had come out from the ancient
Church in which they had been born and bred; its traditions
and ways were stamped upon their minds and hearts. Although

THE MAEROW OF CALVIN'S THEOLOGY 339

they had formally renounced it, feelings are more persistent than
intellectual convictions. Who could be sure that after all the
Church did not hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven? Per-
haps salvation did depend upon sacramental grace which the
Church alone could mediate. Perhaps the authority of the
Church denied, the rites of the Church neglected, would sink
them at last in perdition. Fear not, said Calvin's system, sal-
vation is of God's grace alone; the Church has, and can have,
nothing to do with it. You are in God's hands and salvation
does not depend upon rites performed or good deeds done,
upon your worthiness or merit, but upon his sovereign will
alone. And, if any troubled soul inquired how he could be sure
that he was numbered among the elect, the answer was ready.
He had been called out of Romanism by the Spirit of God, and
that fact was all-sufficient evidence that he was led by the Spirit
and included among the elect whose salvation was sure. Nor
need Protestant believers fear persecution, or peril of sword or
stake, for God's irresistible grace would prevail to carry them
through the fiery trial beyond which was the eternal and glorious
bliss of the redeemed. They were in his mighty hand, subject
to his will, which controlled for his greater glory and their greater
bliss even the malicious fury of their foes. So they were made
equal to every event, saying to potentates of church and state,
with the serene confidence of their Master, — "You could have no
power over me at all except it were given you from above," and
hence well assured that neither death nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come
could separate them from the love of God, which through all
the distresses and persecutions of the present time was leading
them to certain triumph and eternal glory, while as for their merci-
less persecutors — ^well, they too were in the hands of God, and
their fate had been determined before the foundation of the
world.