This post by Jandy about one of the hymn writers in the denominational hymnbook of the PCA is just amazing.

So the question is, was Cowper anomalous?

Possibly yes. If his depression was caused by other factors it might as wrong to blame Calvinism on his despair as it would be to blame Nietszche’s insanity on his atheism.

But possibly no. The fact is that there are entire denominations (albeit necessarily small ones) where this sort of self-doubt is considered essential. For example, the Blue Ridge Primitive Baptists where one finds,

Baptism, funeral, ordination, and wedding often assume a sequence in Primitive Baptist life cycle different from that in many Protestant denominations. This is because baptism often occurs very late in the life of the Primitive Baptist–perhaps in middle age or even very old age. Accordingly, one may be married before being baptized. Some person have been baptized, ordained as deacons, and then buried in close succession, owing to the late age of baptism…

…Given the Calvinist creed, no promise is given that the deceased will go to heaven–although, in the funeral we attended, the elder state that the deceased had fine qualities suggesting that she was a “child of God” (pp. 26, 27)

This is not restricted to Baptists. There are paedobaptist denominations that go way back wherein there are only a few members and most of the congregation is made up of “adherents” or some other term for people who are professing Christians and who attend church diligently but who are not permitted or who refuse to participate in the Lord’s Supper because they are not sure if they are elect.

Of course, this still doesn’t settle the issue. I’m not sure it can be settled.

But consider something else–the final paragraph on predestination

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.

What is notable here is how little is said about the doctrine of election being of any comfort. The first sentence in fact, makes election a problem to be solved rather than a comfort. It is solved by one gaining certainty that he was converted (effectually called–“effectual vocation”). How one gains this certainty is not clear, but it apparently involves “attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto.” How much obedience? How much attentiveness? Doesn’t say.

The second sentence tells us that the doctrine affords certain things–three things godward and three things relating to the lives of believers. Of the latter three, “abundant consolation” comes in third. The doctrine of election is first supposed to afford humility and diligence. Since one has to make sure that one has yielded enough obedience to be certain of one’s effectual calling, one can see how humility and diligence might be encouraged.

Of course, this is not all that the Westminster documents say on the matter. The material on the sacraments gives us other ways, for example, to have our interest in Christ confirmed. But it remains an interesting that one doesn’t find those statements in the chapter on election nor on the chapter on assurance. This may reveal something of a prominant mindset.

I find the paragraph quoted above especially interesting since it was put on the end of a chapter explaining a doctrine as if the explanation could easily be misused. Readers nead to be told, be careful with this, handle it “with special prudence and care.” Yet the chapter on predestination is quite commonly circulated among laymen as if it were intended as a teaching tool. I can understand the Shorter Catechism being used that way, but the Confession seems to tell us not to use it this way.

Before the Westminster Assembly there was, in Holland, the synod of Dordt. They spelled out the doctrine of election in response to the “remonstrants” who followed Arminius (hence, “Arminians”). It is interesting that they also tacked on some warnings about how the doctrine was to be handled.

And this is the perspicuous, simple, and ingenuous declaration of the orthodox doctrine respecting the five articles which have been controverted in the Belgic Churches; and the rejection of the errors, with which they have for some time been troubled. This doctrine the Synod judges to be drawn from the Word of God, and to be agreeable to the confession of the Reformed Churches. Whence it clearly appears that some, whom such conduct by no means became, have violated all truth, equity, and charity, in wishing to persuade the public:

That the doctrine of the Reformed Churches concerning predestination, and the points annexed to it, by its own genius and necessary tendency, leads off the minds of men from all piety and religion; that it is an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil; and the stronghold of Satan, where he lies in wait for all, and from which he wounds multitudes, and mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security; that it makes God the author of sin, unjust, tyrannical, hypocritical; that it is nothing more than an interpolated Stoicism, Manicheism, Libertinism, Turcism; that it renders men carnally secure, since they are persuaded by it that nothing can hinder the salvation of the elect, let them live as they please; and, therefore, that they may safely perpetrate every species of the most atrocious crimes; and that, if the reprobate should even perform truly all the works of the saints, their obedience would not in the least contribute to their salvation; that the same doctrine teaches that God, by a mere arbitrary act of his will, without the least respect or view to any sin, has predestinated the greatest part of the world to eternal damnation, and has created them for this very purpose; that in the same manner in which the election is the fountain and cause of faith and good works, reprobation is the cause of unbelief and impiety; that many children of the faithful are torn, guiltless, from their mothers’ breasts, and tyrannically plunged into hell: so that neither baptism nor the prayers of the Church at their baptism can at all profit them; and many other things of the same kind which the Reformed Churches not only do not acknowledge, but even detest with their whole soul.

Wherefore, this Synod of Dort, in the name of the Lord, conjures as many as piously call upon the name of our Savior Jesus Christ to judge of the faith of the Reformed Churches, not from the calumnies which on every side are heaped upon it, nor from the private expressions of a few among ancient and modern teachers, often dishonestly quoted, or corrupted and wrested to a meaning quite foreign to their intention; but from the public confessions of the Churches themselves, and from this declaration of the orthodox doctrine, confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and each of the members of the whole Synod.

Moreover, the Synod warns calumniators themselves to consider the terrible judgment of God which awaits them, for bearing false witness against the confessions of so many Churches; for distressing the consciences of the weak; and for laboring to render suspected the society of the truly faithful.

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

May Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who, seated at the Father’s right hand, gives gifts to men, sanctify us in the truth; bring to the truth those who err; shut the mouths of the calumniators of sound doctrine, and endue the faithful ministers of his Word with the spirit of wisdom and discretion, that all their discourses may tend to the glory of God, and the edification of those who hear them. Amen.

So there were people saying that the Calvinists considered prayers and baptisms ineffectual. This was false. But the Synod felt it necessary to warn people not to allow their language to exceed the limits of Scripture so that they wouldn’t give “a just pretext” for attackers.

If everyone acknowledges the need for special prudence, is it so hard to believe that such prudence was often not exercised? Perhaps someone needed to handle William Cowper with more “special care” than he received.

Or consider something I reported earlier, about a faithful Calvinist minister’s defense (?!) of his doctrine.:

Whereas our doctrine is this: that whether a man be predestinate or no, yet he should live so much as may be in a holy obedience. Because if he be predestinate he must make his election sure by well doing, working out his salvation in fear and trembling; for he that hath that hope that he is one of God’s sons doth purify himself, and being a vessel of honor must keep himself fair and clean for the use of his Master, being sanctified and prepared unto every good work. But if he find not himself to be predestinate yet may he not loose the reins to the lusts of concupiscence, as do the Gentiles which know not god, but rather bridle and restrain both his actions and his passions, yea his very affections and perturbations that he receive not . . . deeper damnation, . . . [and] that it may be easier for him in the day of judgment, being ascertained that in the world to come there are degrees as well of torment as reward.

All right. Be honest now. Wouldn’t this leave you depressed?

(By the way, this isn’t just bad presentation; see my discussion of serious errors therein.)

Beyond all this, savor the irony that Cowper’s temporary escape from this depression occurred through John Wesley’s preaching! Ha! Two cheers for Arminianism indeed! But even here we find no help. Cowper couldn’t maintain his enthusiasm. And perhaps conditional and unconditional election are all red herrings. Maybe the real culprit is not Calvinism or Arminianism but “expriential pietism” wherever it may be found.

So John Wesley’s heart was “strangely warmed” when he heard Romans read. Good for you, John. But my heart might stay at normal body temperature. Is that OK? Or is it a sure sign I’m going to Hell?

And did Cowper think it was not possible for God’s child to be depressed? Did he think this was abnormal? Was this his peculiar delusion or did everyone think this way?

And notice how this all ties into Pharisaism and Jesus polemic against wealth. One man is raised by a large family where all the children survive and his parents remain alive. And so he’s a cheerful optimist. Does that make him more Spiritual than Cowper? Of course not. But one could see that being assumed.

I meet depressed Christians sometimes. And what usually bothers me most is that in addition to feeling depressed they also have to feel guilty for feeling depressed. Many times, when they explain their circumstances, you feel depressed for them. So the first thing to do is to give them the right to feel depressed so they can stop feeling guilty. Ugh.

One final note, this whole issue is one reason why it was so great to hear John Barach preach in 2002 about how the doctrine of election is supposed to be proclaimed as genuine good news. Even today it is still a needed message.