will appease but punishment to its full deserts. Professor A. A. Hodge holds, that to punish sin up to its full deserts is obligatory upon God; that he would be derelict in duty, to let off a single sinner without extorting from him, or someone in his stead, a degree of suffering fully equivalent to his guilt.1 If it is rectoral justice which makes this demand, and the theory is that God punishes sinners to satisfy the claims of benevolence, and that the degree of punishment is in every case determined by these claims, we fully acquiesce in it. But this is not the justice referred to in the Westminster Confession. It adopts not the governmental, but the penal system of atonement, and claims that punishment is inflicted to satisfy the vindictive or retributive justice of God, and, strictly interpreted, means that God punishes moral beings in hell forever, not for any good which will accrue to them, or to his universe, but simply for the satisfaction it affords him to see them suffer. It is but a slight modification of this system, which is adopted by the author of "The Moral System and the Atonement," who holds that the whole "Social System" also demand that their sense of justice shall also be satisfied by the punishment of sinners up to their full desert, making all other moral beings just as wicked as God. 10. As it is not possible that the same sin is twice punished, once adequately on the person of Christ, and again on the person of the sinner himself, it follows that all for whom Christ has suffered the penalty of the law will be saved. Hence either the doctrine of limited atonement or that of universal salvation becomes a logical necessity. The Westminster divines accept the former alternative, and make limited atonement a distinct article of their Creed. Chap. viii. 8 asserts, "To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemption, he doth certainly and effectually apply and com2 See Rational Theology, p. 193. 1 Atonement, pp. 40-45. 8 municate the same;" chap. iii. 6, "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sancfied and saved, but the elect only;" Larger Catechism, Q. 59. "Redemption is certainly applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom Christ hath purchased it." These assertions clearly contradict the repeated declaration of the Bible; and their practical acceptance, it seems to me, bars effectually the exercise of faith in the atoning sacrifice. 11. The basal error of the Westminster Confession, as has been already intimated, is an interpretation of divine sovereignty inconsistent with human free-agency. The instrument seems to labor to magnify and exalt God at the expense of other moral beings. It assumes that the latter have no interests worthy of the divine regard, no rights worthy of respect, and no destiny, in the divine estimate, of immeasurable importance. It assumes that they were created, not as in themselves an end, or primarily for their own sakes, but as a means to promote the glory of God and augment his felicity. "Men," says a late Calvinistic writer, were created to subserve the divine pleasure as fully as was any other part of creation." "God hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, and upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth," says the Confession, carrying the implication that there is no such thing as doing them injustice. No sentiment can be in more perfect dissonance to all the ways of God, and all the revelations he has made of himself. The true position is that "The soul of man, Jehovah's breath, crowned with intelligence and immortality, was created for companionship with God, in his own similitude, and is as dear to him as the apple of his eye; and sooner than do injustice to the least one, he would see these material heavens 1 Chap. ii. 2. pass away; that man was created primarily for his own sake, is the product of divine love, and of the infinite desire of God to share with other beings the bliss that swells eternal in his own bosom, and to widen the aggregate of blessedness in his domain. With profound respect for the great and good men who accept the Westminster theology, I cannot but regard it as a system of unsupported human philosophy, and as a mournful illustration of the danger of trusting to mere speculation. I cannot accept it as a system of Christian theology, for the sufficient reason, were there no other, that the central facts of the Christian religion are not in it. It is a Christianity largely without Christ. It discourses learnedly of decrees, forcordination, and foreknowledge, but leaves out the greatest fact of revelation and of history, "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life." It utterly misinterprets the nature of man, and the plan God has revealed to save him. The infinite compassion of God, and his infinite desire that all should come to a knowledge of the truth; the love of Christ, and his offers of rest to all the weary and heavy laden; the privilege and duty of all men to bow in submission to the divine will, it fails to reflect. It divides our race, by some inscrutable line, into two classes. To the one it makes salvation a necessity, to the other it bequeathes an inheritance of unavoidable and unutterable despair. It is the doctrines of the Bible shaped and interpreted into conformity to the fatalistic philosophy of the old heathen world-a compound of Christianity and paganism. While I say these hard things, I confess to a kindly feeling toward this venerable Confession. It contains many valuable truths. For two and a half centuries it has been the accepted creed of some of the largest and most influential churches of the Christian world,-churches which, in the great battles. for truth and righteousness, have stood in the van,—churches we love to honor. Among its adherents have been many of the great leaders of theological thought, whose names we revere, and over whose graves we drop the tear. Yet I believe the success of these churches has been achieved in spite, rather than in consequence, of their creed. Had the decision of the Council of Dort been reversed, I feel assured, our world to-day would stand much nearer its millennial morning. The creed which there gained the victory has proved, I believe, a corpse in the closet of the Reformed churches, which, though largely kept out of sight, has poisoned the atmosphere, paralyzed the activities, and retarded the growth of these churches, and is largely responsible for the prevalent fatalism of our times. I am glad to believe the Calvinist theology long ago passed its zenith, and will soon be a thing that was. Like some huge iceberg from arctic climes, it has floated down into the tropics, and is gradually disappearing from view. Our children's children will regard it as a relic of by-gone years, and deem the fact that it was once the accepted creed of intelligent churches, the marvel of history. THE DOCTRINE ARTICLE VI. OF PREDESTINATION FROM AUGUSTINE TO PETER LOMBARD (430-1160). BY THE REV. M. S. FREEMAN, NEWELL, IOWA. [NOTE. The following paper constituted a portion of the work of the Historical Seminary at Oberlin for the Winter Term of 1889. Martin Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin all teach a very strong doctrine of predestination, and it became a matter of importance in the studies of that Winter to know whether they had simply followed Augustine blindly, without the light of modifying ideas, or whether their view was founded upon personal thought, and thus in their minds held a closer relation to the system of evangelical truth which it was their office to present to the world. Hence the question arose whether there had been any thought upon the subject since the time of Augustine by which they might have profited,-which question the writer sought to answer in the paper here given. It is now published in the hope that, though perhaps bearing traces of an immaturity which is generally characteristic of the first fruits of independent research, it may be not without interest to a wider public. For Hincmar's doctrine, the opportune publication of two short treatises of his against Gottschalk in the Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte for 1888, afforded indispensable material.] THE doctrine of predestination was first formally set forth in the writings of Augustine during the Pelagian controversy. It was somewhat modified by the so-called semipelagian discussions. If we hope to understand the course of its development, we must have a definite knowledge of the doctrine in its original shape and the character of its first modifications. The first questions before us, then, are these: What was Augustine's statement and understanding of the doctrine? To what extent did he carry with him the church of his time? What changes of statement and theory were introduced by the Semi-Pelagians? and what was the common doctrine of the church at the close of that period? |