The GOSPEL TRUTH

CALVINISM

CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD

AND

MAN'S MORAL NATURE.

by

D. FISK HARRIS.

Copyrighted and Published by the Author

1890

Electrotyped and Printed by

WOMAN'S TEMPERANCE PUBLISHING ASSOCIATION,

161 La Salle St., Chicago.

 

PART II.

CALVINISM CONTRARY TO GOD'S WORD.

 

"Let it be remembered as a very just and very important remark of Doddridge, that the plain sense of the Scriptures, or that which naturally strikes the minds of plain men as the real meaning is almost of course the true sense." Timothy Dwight, D. D.

 

CHAPTER I.

CALVINISM TEACHES A LIMITED ATONEMENT.

 

In a discussion where the Scriptures are the criterion, it is certainly appropriate to consider the leading principles of Biblical interpretation. Not a few in all ages have considered the Bible a book of contradictions. Almost every heresy in theology and many disorders in society have possessed advocates who have claimed protection from the Scriptures. Thus the crime of slavery was prolonged for centuries; the pretended revelations of Mormonism--that festering and contaminating sore on the body politic--have been, and are now accepted by not a few, because of their alleged agreement with the word of God.

Hence there are men that, perplexed by the many different theories and systems of thought; and not possessing sufficient time and skill to expose the sophisms, grow skeptical concerning the authority of the Bible, and like Pilate, cry despairingly "What is truth?"

But beyond all successful contradiction the Bible is God's revelation. It is for the instruction and guidance of the human race. A unity pervades its pages. It was meant to teach something: not anything and everything. While it contains "some things hard to be understood," while it teaches mysteries which the human reason can not fathom, yet the underlying principles, the essentials of salvation are so clearly revealed that "the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein." Jesus Christ is "the true Light which lighteth every man that cometh into the world": consequently he affirmed concerning the unbelieving Jews, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no cloke for their sin."

The Calvinist has been justly admired for his adherence to the divine Word. The spirit which prompts him to go to the Law and the Prophets to search the Scriptures for the reason of the hope which is within him is worthy of all emulation. While it is hoped the same spirit will animate the present discussion, the methods of interpretation adopted may be designated as follows: (1) The clearly revealed Scriptures are to have the pre-eminence; hence (2) The less clearly revealed Scriptures are to be interpreted by the former. (3) The context must be allowed its full weight; and (4) the Analogy of Faith, or general harmony of Scripture must be preserved.

 

SECTION I.

Terms Defined. The Problem Stated.

In this discussion the term atonement is used in its broadest sense. Objectively considered it refers to the vicarious sufferings of the Lord Jesus Christ as satisfying the divine law. Considered subjectively it refers to the results of Christ's [perfect life and] sacrificial death which may be called salvation or redemption from sin. This salvation is possible, and actual even as it is, or is not appropriated by the individual. Says Dr. Samuel D. Cochran: "This substitutional, expiatory, righteous act of Christ, having this infinite value, is provisional for all human sinners, but made actual only for those who appropriate it by faith." Hence the atonement objectively considered is the ground on which salvation is offered to all. By the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, God's veracity and justice are exalted, and his infinite hatred of sin, but boundless love for the sinner wondrously revealed. God's government is honored while at the same time his mercy is freely extended to all. But all men do not accept this mercy: therefore the question before us is, For whom did Christ die? For all men, or for a certain number called the "elect"? Was it the will of God that Christ should die for all in a certain sense--so that all may and do receive benefits therefrom, but only for the elect in a saving or efficacious sense? Or did he die for all men in the same sense? Calvinists answer these questions by saying: "Christ died meritoriously for all, efficaciously only for the elect. To this effect is the declaration of the Westminster Confession of Faith. "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 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 following is from Dr. Lyman Atwater. "All who know anything of the Westminster standards, know that they represent Christ as the 'Redeemer of God's elect,' and that they limit the redemptive efficacy of his death to his people." "Our Savior, likewise, in the course of his preaching, taught the doctrine of reprobation in plain and pointed terms. He told some of his obstinate hearers that he came into the world to save the elect, and destroy the nonelect."

New England, or modern Calvinism differs from that of the Westminster symbol concerning the extent of the atonement. Dr. H. B. Smith says of Emmons: "He symbolized with the younger Edwards and Hopkins, and opposed the older Calvinism as to the extent of the atonement, proclaiming it to be universal in its provisions." To the Arminian, this is a distinction without any essential difference; for while the methods are diverse, the results reached by both systems of Calvinism are the same.

The other view conceives God as really inviting none but the elect, while according to the new school theology, the entire human race is urged to accept salvation. The latter certainly appears more reasonable: but as it is explained by new school advocates it is mere logomachy. Thus Dr. Barnes says of the tenth chapter of Romans, "In the closing part of this chapter the great doctrine is brought forth and defended, that the way of salvation is open for all the world.'' But how is the way of salvation open to all the world? In the sense that it was the purpose of God to save all whom the divine foresight saw would freely accept Jesus? By no means; for as we have seen, Dr. Barnes, with all consistent Calvinists, denies foresight as the ground or basis of election. Here are his words as he explained his position before the Philadelphia Synod: "I may safely challenge any man to point out the place in the whole book (the Confession of Faith) where it is affirmed that the work of Christ in its original applicability is necessarily confined to any number or class of men." Once more: "To the Redeemer's sufferings and death contemplated apart from the actual purpose to apply his merits, I chose, in accordance with many writers, to apply the word atonement. The actual application of his work, I supposed might be appropriately expressed by the word redemption. It was not thought that this was a departure from Scripture usage. The word atonement occurs but once, as applicable to the death of Christ in the New Testament: the word redemption often, and this latter word always with reference to the purpose to apply it. It did not seem then, to be a gross violation of the Scripture usage to describe by the word atonement a thing which may and must be contemplated the highest and best gift of God--the sufferer, the bleeding victim, the atoning sacrifice; still less can it be seen how this usage can be construed into an offense against the Confession of Faith. In all our standards of doctrine the word atonement never occurs. Nor is it the purpose of the standards to describe the thing which I wished to express by the word, the original, independent applicability of the sufferings of Christ. The Confession of Faith states only its application. For that it uses the word redemption. It affirms of that, that it is limited and was intended to be limited. That the sermon never denied." Certainly a most wonderful, and to the present discussion, valuable confession. It shows (1) Dr. Barnes' essential agreement with the Confession of Faith. (2) When he declares "that the way of salvation is open to all" he means that the atonement, the objective atonement is applicable to all; and as thus applicable to all is but once mentioned in the New Testament: and (3) That redemption which often occurs in the New Testament is limited--is meant to be limited to the elect. '

The problem is now clearly before the reader. The Arminian declaring, and the Calvinist denying that so far as the death of Jesus Christ is concerned, it had an equal reference to every man, and thus is the basis of God's offer of mercy to the entire race.

Over the gates of Plato's school were the words, "Let no one not a geometrician enter here"; but the Word says, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price." (Isa. lv. 1. )

 

SECTION II.

Concessions of Calvinists.

Illustrating Certain Passages of Scripture.

 

According to Dr. William Smith "election embraces no decree or purpose that hinders any one from coming to Christ and being saved if they would. There is nothing that hinders their salvation but their own aversion to holiness and their love of sin; and it is for this that God has purposed to damn them."

Dr. Milner says "All men may be saved if they please. There wants the will only. But such is our natural enmity against God, that though the blood of his Son was freely spilt for all men without exception, not one soul would return to God by true repentance, were it not for his blessed and adorable purpose of election, which before the foundation of the world, determined that some souls should be benefited by his universal redemption and led to repentance toward God, to faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ."

Speaking of the election of some, Dr. Nehemiah Adams affirms "No injustice is done to those who are left: salvation is consistently offered to them, and their state is no worse than though all like them had perished." Dr. H. B. Smith, speaking of the differences between the Old and New School Calvinists says, "And as to the limits of the atonement if we do not raise the intricate questions of the order of the decrees and the specific terms of the covenant of redemption, little more than a verbal dispute remains so soon as we agree that the oblation made by Christ is sufficient for all, is to be offered to all, enhances the guilt of those who reject it; and also had some special respect in the comprehensive divine purpose to the elect."

The difficulties pertaining to Calvinistic doctrine of Decrees and the gospel invitations constrained Dr. John Dick to speak as follows: "There is a greater difficulty here than orthodox divines sometimes seem willing to acknowledge and the mode in which they meet it, is not always satisfactory. .... He who sees no difficulty here, has not, as he possibly imagines, more understanding than other men, but less."

Dr. Isaac Watts is more positive and presents a view, which to some is quite plausible. Of the nonelect he says, "God himself has put no effectual and insurmountable bar, or rather no bar at all, in their way, to prevent their acceptance of his grace. His choosing other persons, to make them certain partakers of this grace, is no hindrance to those who were not chosen, from accepting the same. It is my opinion that there is such a thing as a general sufficiency of pardon. grace and happiness provided for all mankind by Jesus Christ. And it is left to their own natural powers under common helps to accept or refuse it." Then follow the reasons for the above. "It is very hard to vindicate the sincerity of the blessed God, or his Son, in their universal offers of grace and salvation to men, and their sending ministers with such messages and invitations to accept of mercy, if there be no such a conditional pardon and salvation provided for them ..... It is hard to suppose that the great God, who is truth itself, and sincere and faithful in all his dealings, should call upon dying men to trust in a Saviour for eternal life, when this Saviour has not eternal life intrusted with him to give them, if they do repent. It is hard to conceive how the great Governor of the world can be sincere in inviting and requiring sinners who are on the brink of hell to cast themselves upon an empty word of invitation--a mere shadow and appearance of support if there be nothing real to bear them up from those deeps of destruction, and nothing but mere words and empty invitations." Yet he says, "It seems evident to me from several texts of the Word of God that Christ did not die with an equal design for all men; but that there is a special number whom the Father chose and gave to the Son, whose salvation is absolutely secured by the death and intercession of Christ."

Agreeing with Dr. Watts, Dr. Venema says, "Common grace, of which even those who perish partake, consists in the offer of Christ made in the gospel, an offer which is intended by God to be made to all, and in which no one at least is excluded ..... All have common grace, and it is possible for all to believe; and if they will believe they will be saved." This is called a general predestination; or, "a general purpose on the part of God to save those who believe--a purpose which had reference also to those who rejected it." If God has not such a general decree or purpose, "then we can not hold that God seriously wills that all men should receive the proposition made to them. If, however, he does so will, then it must have reference to all who read or hear it, and the purpose by which he has ordained a connection between faith and salvation must be general. We are aware, indeed, that there is a particular connection which has reference only to the elect. Yet this proposition is made to all without distinction. For it would be absurd to suppose that God says to all 'believe and ye shall be saved'; and yet that he does not will that they should believe and be saved."

Alluding to the relation of conviction and practice, President Edwards remarks, "And so if men are really convinced of the truth of the things they are told in the gospel, about an eternal world, and the everlasting salvation that Christ has purchased for all that will accept it, it will influence their practice.'' Dr. Hodge says, "The righteousness of Christ being of infinite value or merit, and being in its nature precisely what all men need, may be offered to all men. It is thus offered to the elect and to the non-elect; and it is offered to both classes conditionally. That condition is a cordial acceptance of it as the only ground of justification. If any of the elect (being adults) fail thus to accept of it, they perish. If any of the non-elect should believe, they would be saved. What more does any Anti-Augustinian scheme provide?

In the "Practical Sermons" of Dr. Barnes we find the following: "It is not my purpose in this discourse --though my text (Rev. xxii. 17) might seem to invite it--to dwell on the fact that the gospel is offered to all men; that the Redeemer died for all; that the eternal Father is willing to save all; or that ample provision is made for all who will come. On these points, it is sufficient for my present purpose to say, that my text declares that 'whosoever will may take the water of life freely.'" But of all Calvinists, Dr. Chalmers is, perhaps, the most enthusiastic advocate of the freeness of the gospel. The thought is so fresh and forcible that I can not forbear quoting at some length: "I can not but think that the doctrine of Particular Redemption has been expounded by many of its defenders in such a way as to give an unfortunate aspect to the Christian dispensation. As often treated, we hold it to be a most unpractical and useless theory, and not easy to be vindicated, without the infliction of an unnatural violence on many passages of Scripture. .... But far its worst effect is, that it acts as a drag and a deduction from the freeness of the gospel. Its ministers are made to feel the chilling influence of a limitation upon their warrant. If Christ died only for the elect, and not for all, they are puzzled to understand how they should proceed with the calls and invitations of the gospel. They feel themselves disabled from addressing them to all; and this, in their ignorance of the elect and the reprobate individually, seems tantamount to their being disabled from addressing them to any ..... There must be a sad misunderstanding somewhere. The commission put into our hands is to go and preach the gospel to every creature under heaven; and the announcement sounded forth on the world from heaven's vault was, peace on earth, good-will to men. There is no freezing limitation here, but a largeness and munificence of mercy boundless as space, free and open as the expanse of the firmament. We hope, therefore, the gospel, the real gospel, is as unlike the views of some of its interpreters, as creation in all its boundlessness and beauty is unlike to the paltry scheme of some wretched scholastic in the Middle Ages. In the gospel, the flag of invitation waves in sight of the whole species. It is not inscribed there, 'Whosoever of the elect will'; but 'Whosoever will, let him come and drink of the waters of life freely.' Neither do we read, 'Look unto me, ye specified and selected few'; but 'Look unto me, all ye ends of the earth, and be saved.' It is not in the capacity of an elect sinner, but in the capacity of a sinner, that he who is eventually saved entertains the overtures of reconciliation. These overtures are not made to him as one of the children of election; they are made to him as one of the children of humanity. It is on the stepping-stone of a universal offer that each man reaches and realizes his own particular salvation. The advocates of universal redemption are quite at one with ourselves as to the reception which the universal offer should meet with from all men. It should meet with universal acceptance, and should be pressed, too, on universal acceptance."

Professor Tyndall has confessed to the world that his religious doubts were strongest in moments of intellectual despondency; that his faith in God's existence grew firmer in proportion as he came into the clear sunlight of mental conviction. Possibly the experience of the scientist will explain the position of the theologians whose views we have been considering. Certain it is, these writers believe in and contend for a free gospel--an unlimited salvation--a redemption from sin, which every son of Adam ought to accept. They establish the fact beyond all controversy that God does invite, nay, urge every sinful soul to accept the gift of salvation.

 

SECTION III

Are the Gospel Invitations Sincere?

I much prefer to assume, and not to discuss this question. The very thought shocks our moral sentiments. If long entertained it not only impairs the authority of the Scriptures, but attacks and gradually undermines the very citadel of personal religion--faith in the essential righteousness of God. But there is no alternative. The issue is forced upon the student of theology by the position of the Calvinists. As it has been shown (see Chapters III. and IV. of Part I) one of the fundamental doctrines of Calvinism is the absolute omnipotence of God. In this respect all consistent Calvinists must follow in the footsteps of their great leader; as a recent writer has expressed it, "As we read the Institutes of Calvin, we see that the corner-stone of the whole structure is his doctrine of the Sovereignty of God." Hence, the logical consistency of their position that if God were so disposed he could save every soul in the world.

All modern Calvinists agree in declaring the universality of the gospel invitations. God can, but does not save all whom He invites. Consequently arises the difficulty concerning which Dr. Chalmers says "there must be a sad misunderstanding somewhere," while Dr. Dick declares that the Calvinist, who is determined to see "no difficulty here, has not, as he probably imagines, more understanding than other men, but less." "The many declarations in which God exhorts man to keep his commandments, appear to him ironical, as if a father were to say to his child, 'Come,' while he knows that he can not come!" Of those to whom God does not give efficacious grace, Calvin says, "He directs his voice to them, but it is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that they may be made blind; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that they may be more besotted; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may not be healed."

Rev. John Sladen informs his hearers, "All that God designed to save he saves; but he actually saves some only, therefore, he designed to save only some of fallen Adam's children, for, if we consider God as infinite in wisdom, and of almighty power, there can not be a more rational way of arguing than from his acts to his designs.' This is similar to Symimgton's argument, who says in behalf of a limited atonement, "The event is the best interpreter of the divine intention." Dr. Nehemiah Adams says, "Not one more, not one less will be saved than God purposes" "God never designed to save every individual; since, if he had, every individual would and must be saved; for his counsel shall stand and he will do all his pleasure."

It is now evident that if Calvinists have correctly interpreted the Scriptures, the universal invitations which constantly meet the eye of sinners, such as, "Ho, every one that thirsteth," "Come unto me all ye that labor;" "The spirit and the bride say, Come; And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst, Come, And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely," do not and can not mean what the plain, ordinary readers in all ages have understood by them.

With Justin Martyr, Ambrose and Chrysostom of the early Church, and with many thousands of modern Christians, I had ignorantly thought that the universal invitations to the gospel feast meant what they said--expressed the real sentiments and sincere desires of God. But such is not the ease--if Calvinism be correct--for while the everlasting Father does invite all through his revealed will, his secret will--his real desire is that only a certain number shall accept his overtures of mercy. Thus speaks Dr. Lyman Atwater, who says, "It results from the universality of God's decrees, as now set forth. that they who accept it, must also accept the distinction between the decretive and the preceptive will of God, i.e.., inasmuch as many things occur contrary to his commands, while yet he foreordains all things, it must be that in these cases he proposes one thing and commands another. This can not be evaded by any who admit the universality of his decrees or purposes." Commenting on Rom. ix. 19, Dr. E. D. Griffin says, "His decretive will in distinction from his preceptive--a distinction which the apostle here brings into view and does not deny, but in the context clearly affirms."

Concerning the secret will of God, Dr. Emmons declares that it "solely respects the taking place of those things which he determined from eternity should take place, without any regard to the nature of them, whether morally good or morally evil. It was his secret will that not only holiness and happiness, but that sin and misery also should take place among his intelligent creatures. It is his secret will that all the elect shall repent and believe, and that all the non-elect shall live and die in impenitence and unbelief: though he loves faith and repentance and hates impenitence and unbelief."

In the Bibliotheca Sacra of 1856 there is a Review of Toplady's Theology by Prof. Geo. N. Boardman, D.D. Wesley's great opponent says, "Although the will of God, considered in itself, is simply one and the same; yet in condescension to the present capacities of men, the Divine Will is very properly distinguished into secret and revealed. Thus it was his revealed will that Pharaoh should let the Israelites go: that Abraham should sacrifice his son; that Peter should not deny Christ; but as was proved by the event, it was his secret will that Pharaoh should not let Israel go; that Abraham should not sacrifice Isaac, and that Peter should deny his Lord." To this Professor Boardman adds, as an explanation, "It must not be inferred from this that God's will is ever contrary to itself. The secret will of God is in reality his will: while that which is revealed has reference to the various circumstances of men. The hidden will is peremptory and absolute.'' Here we have new light. It must be confessed the rays therefrom are cold, freezing cold, but it can not be denied that the truth as it is in Jesus has burst upon and overwhelmed us.

As the sincerity of Almighty Love was eluding us, as it was getting every moment less and less real, I had hoped--doubtless, with the reader, that our unerring interpreters of the Bible would leave untouched, the only remaining comfort of the non-elect, viz.: an eternal antagonism between the two Divine wills. But no; even this small hope vanishes as the truth is forced upon me that the universal invitations of the gospel are no more to be relied upon than are the dreams of a madman; for as these theologians tell us, they are in no sense the real expression of the Divine will. These invitations are made out of gracious condescension to our finite capacities: they convey no truth, they express no reality, for in all cases "the secret will of God, is in reality, his will."

The reasoning of this school of Calvinists when explaining the doctrine of a limited atonement, irresistibly leads to a flat denial of the Divine sincerity. To them it may appear reasonable and satisfactory; but to other Calvinists it does not. Thus President R. L. Dabney, while claming "that there is a just distinction between God's decretive and preceptive will," says "but let the question be stated thus: Do all the solemn and tender entreaties of God to sinners express no more, as to the non-elect, than a purpose in God, uncompassionate and merely rectoral, to acquit himself of his legislative function towards them? To speak after the manner of men, have all these apparently touching appeals after all no heart in them? We can not but deem it an unfortunate logic which constrains a man to take this view of them. How much more simple and satisfactory to take them for just what they express? evidences of a true compassion, which yet is restrained, in the case of the unknown class, the non-elect, by consistent and holy reasons, from taking the form of a volition to regenerate." The average reader will agree with Dr. Dabney that there must be some heart in the gospel invitations; that the Divine compassion for lost souls which is constantly breaking forth in such expressions as "Cast away from you all your transgressions whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" must be rooted in everlasting sincerity. But let us see if Dr. Dabney has, in any essential degree, a better solution. After declaring that "the plain Christian mind will ever stumble on this fatal question, How can a truthful and consistent God have two opposite wills about the same object?" he adds. "It is far more Scriptural, and, as we trust, has been shown, far more logical to say, that an immutable and sovereign God never had but one will (one purpose, or volition), as to this lost man; as a faithful God would never publish any other volition than the one he entertained, but that it was entirely consistent for God to compassionate where he never purposed nor promised to save, because this sincere compassion was restrained within the limits God announced by his own wisdom." Certainly this is a remarkable solution. Dr. Dabney believes in, and contends for, God's real compassion for the non-elect; yet he gravely tells us that this yearning of the Father for the return of his lost children does not lead to salvation because "He never purposed nor promised to save." If this signifies anything, it must mean that the universal invitations of the gospel were never intended by God as promises to the non-elect.

True, the same language between man and man would always be understood as a promise; is so understood by every ordinary reader of the Bible throughout Christendom: but nevertheless it is all a mistake. God has never purposed nor promised to save the nonelect; he has simply announced to the world that he really pities, sincerely compassionates them. Beyond all controversy Dr. Dabney and Dr. Toplady are in the same dilemma. They simply differ in the choice of the horn on which they shall be impaled. Dr. Toplady says God's universal invitations are not real, because they are in no essential sense the expression of his will. Dr. Dabney replies, "No, you are mistaken, Dr. Toplady. Your logic is at fault; these invitations of God are sincere; they express his real compassion, you err in supposing them to be promises; that, they are not and were never intended to be.

One moment's serious thought will explode these sophisms. The universal invitations of the gospel are sincere, not only because they express God's real compassion, but because they are his promises to be fulfilled the instant the conditions are truly met. There is not one declaration within the pages of the Bible, offering peace and salvation to the troubled soul that is not a promise to any and every one who reads. As Dr. Chalmers has said: "In no place in the Bible is pardon addressed to any man on the footing that he is one of the elect; but in all places of the Bible pardon is addressed to every man on the footling that he is one of the species. On the former footing, there would be no warrant to any for the faith of the gospel, for no man knows at the commencement of his Christianity that he is one of the elect. On the latter footing, there is a distinct warrant to all, if they so choose, for the faith of the gospels for every man knows that he is one of the human race. It is most assuredly in his latter capacity and not in his former, that the calls and offers and entreaties of the gospel are brought to his door." He who was "the Way, the Truth, and the Life," who was a perfect scourge to all hypocrites, and who declared that every idle word shall be brought to judgment, meant exactly, without any qualifications or evasions whatsoever, what his words seem to mean when he said "Come unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart; and ye shall find rest unto your souls." (Matt. xi. 28, 29). Anything short of this is unmitigated hypocrisy.

 

SECTION IV

The Atonement, An Expression of God's Universal Love

Beyond all controversy the attributes and character of Deity should be considered with veiled faces and in the spirit of profound reverence. We can not "find out the Almighty unto perfection," for as "the heavens are higher than the earth" so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts. Hence as the devout theologian analyzes the Divine Attributes he has no intention of unduly magnifying one above another. Like the subsistences in the Godhead, each is perfect in its sphere, while of necessity all are related by a governing principle. What this central attribute of Deity is, has been variously defined, just as the student of theology has been most influenced by natural or by moral ideas of God's government. As we have seen, Calvinism has always taken the natural as the central principle of the Divine procedure, and consequently the omnipotence of God is the key which unlocks the mysteries of Calvinistic theology. Hence this attribute has been called "the first article of our Faith," while those who deny it are charged with being "Atheists." Against this false view of the Divine character many thoughtful men have always rebelled. Nor do the Scriptures speak with any uncertainty. So far as any one term can express the governing attribute in the nature of God, it is not power, nor wisdom, but love. "He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." (1. John iv. 8-6.)

It will be interesting and profitable to notice a few of the many comments on this passage. Says Alford, "Love is the very essence, not merely an attribute, of God. It is co-essential with Him." Cowles remarks "In form, the statement seems abstract, metaphysical; for observe, it is not that God is kind, affectionate, evermore manifesting his good will; but that he is love itself--the very impersonation of love; all love, and nothing else but love. It is of course comprehensive, all embracing. It means that there can never be anything in him, nothing coming from him, that is not loving--an outgoing of His love.

Christlieb declares, "....As spirituality is the vital foundation of his physical and intellectual perfections, so holy love is the internal basis of all his moral perfections, and a necessary deduction from the true idea of the absolute." Delitzseh says, ".... When the apostle says of God, not that he is the love, but that he is love, i.e., that he is love in the deepest ground and entire circuit of his nature living itself forth, we obtain the disclosure--which follows, besides, from the fact, that he is light, absolutely free from darkness (1. John i. 5)--that the will which is the root of his being has love as its impulse, and is thus the will of love."

This all controlling characteristic of the Divine Nature dearly and beautifully explains the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He is not only "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world," but he is the very Incarnation of the Father's love for every one whom he has created. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." All attempts of the Calvinists to change the obvious meaning of this passage so as to favor their doctrine of a limited atonement have signally failed. The object of God's love was the world, the entire human race, and it was the same to all, not restricted to a certain class otherwise designated as "the elect." The same doctrine is expounded by the Apostle Paul. "For the love of Christ constraineth us: because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." (II. Cor. v. 14-15.) On this passage, Dr. Barnes says, "The phrase 'for all' evidently means for all mankind; for every man. This is an exceedingly important expression in regard to the extent of the atonement ..... It demonstrates that the atonement was general, and had, in itself considered, no limitation and no particular reference to any one class or condition of men, and no particular applicability to one class more than another." Speaking of the ministry of reconciliation, Paul says "that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them:" (verse 19). Lange says the "world .... signifies the human race, and as it is here without the article, it means perhaps a 'whole world.'"

"Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time;" (1. Tim. ii. 6). "For, therefore, we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe" (iv. 10). Of the former passage Alford says, "This oneness of the Mediator, involving in itself the universality of Redemption, was the great subject of Christian testimony." "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men" (Titus ii. 11). "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man" (Heb. ii. 9). Commenting on this Dr. Charles Hodge says, "Christ tasted death for every one of the objects of redemption" thus contradicting the plain sense of the passage; for allowing full scope for all differences of opinion concerning the gender, the "all" is incontestably declared. The same truth is taught in Rom. v. 18: "Therefore, as by the offense of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." While this passage gives no hope to Universalism, it positively condemns the doctrine of a restricted atonement. "And he is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world" (1. John ii. 2). "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John iii. 14,15). The historic scene to which the Master here alludes is familiar to all. The Israelites were in a spirit of wicked distrust and bitter murmurings. As a punishment the Lord sent fiery serpents which destroyed many of the people. The infliction had the desired effect: the people were humbled and sought the intercession of Moses. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Make thee a fiery serpent and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And Moses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole; and it came to pass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent of brass he lived." Here the intention and the provision were as wide as the disease. So, according to Jesus is the divine remedy. Hence, sorrowing men in all ages have found comfort in reading that wonderful prophecy--the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah. It speaks with no uncertainty of the universal provisions of the gospel, declaring "All we, like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." According to Neander, the Parable of the Prodigal Son reveals the Father's love for the sinful and rebukes "not merely the Jewish exclusiveness, but all those limitations of God's purposes for the salvation of the human race, whether before or after Christ, which the arbitrary creeds of men have attributed to the divine decrees. The parable clearly implies that the love of the Father contemplates the salvation of all his fallen children among all generations of men."

It will now be in order to notice one or two objections often urged against the Arminian view of these and other passages. (I) It may be said, as President Dabney has affirmed, that these expressions of love mean nothing more than "a propension of benevolence not matured into the volition to redeem, of which Christ's mission is a sincere manifestation to all sinners." Without anticipating the consideration of this solution upon which Dr. Dabney so confidently relies, I may say, in passing, that it radically fails to account for the plain, unequivocal language of the Bible. In all of these passages there is but one class of men considered. That class embraces all who are lost in sin. For them God has an infinite love. Christ came as the incarnation of that love to die for them that they through Him might be saved. The expressions of God's love have, or have not a reference to "the elect." Dr. Dabney may take his choice. Whatever is declared of one is declared of all.

This is substantially the same answer which is to be made to the second objection, namely, "Christ's death was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect." Thus Dr. N. L. Rice remarks, "It is objected again, that according to the Calvinistic view, Christ made no atonement for the non-elect, and our Arminian friends have urged against the doctrine all those passages of Scripture which represent Christ as having died for all men. But the word 'for,' like all other prepositions, has a number of meanings. What, then, do they mean by affirming that Christ died for all men? Do they mean that he made an atonement, which, in consequence of his infinite dignity, is sufficient for all men? If so, we have no controversy with them; for we hold that the Atonement is of infinite value, and that no one is lost because its virtue is exhausted. Do they mean that in making an atonement Christ designed to offer salvation indiscriminately to all men? If so, we agree with them. Our views of the gospel require us to preach it 'to every creature.' Do they mean that Christ really purposed to save all men by his death? They can not mean this; for, in the first place, multitudes were forever lost before he died, and it will scarcely be pretended that he designed to save them. In the second place, he certainly knew who would believe and be saved: for he knew all things; and it would be absurd to say that he designed to save those he knew he never would save." I have purposely quoted this author at some length that his argument may be fairly analyzed. Notice (a) Dr. Rice confesses that Christ did not really purpose to save all men; yet (b) Christ offers "salvation indiscriminately to all men." Query: Is Christ divided in that he offers a thing while at the same time he never really purposes to give it? This must be, or else Dr. Rice uses the word "purposed" in the double sense of sincere desire, or honest intention and positive volition. The Arminian readily answers the question by saying Christ really purposed to save all who would freely yield themselves to the influences of the Holy Spirit. So far, the "purpose" is as wide as the race. But if the question of divine knowledge or foreknowledge is brought into the problem--which Dr. Rice raises, and by-the-way, one can not help wondering why a Calvinist should confound the divine purpose, or decree to save, with the knowledge of who would believe,--then the intention or purpose of Christ passes into the positive volition to save those only who are foreseen to be obedient. If this is what Dr. Rice means by saying Christ "certainly knew who would believe and be saved" he has passed into the domain of Arminian theology. If not, then this part of his argument not only amounts to nothing, but it makes Jesus offer to all men that which he never purposed to bestow,--which is usually designated as hypocrisy. But (c) Dr. Rice is generous in saying the atonement "is sufficient for all men." Doubtless it is; but of what account in the saving of sinners is its mere sufficiency unless applied by the divine purpose? Moreover, this language is not biblical. I gladly challenge any Calvinist to produce one passage of God's Word declaring Christ did not die for all, or affirming that while his death is sufficient for all it is efficacious only for the elect. The proposition is of that scholastic spirit which can and would never have been thought of were it not that a pet theory demanded an additional prop. Dr. Jenkyn has truly said, "An all-sufficiency, yet not intended for all who are invited to partake of it, is such an awful imposture that I grudge the very ink that mentions it in connection with the Gospel of Truth."

(3) With all Calvinists, Dr. Charles Hodge argues a limited atonement from the Express Declarations of Scripture. These are such passages as "Even as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it" (Eph. v. 25). "As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep" (John x. 15). "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends" (John xv. 13). The Reader will notice that these expressions are of the same general character as Paul's words to Timothy--previously quoted--where God is declared to be the Saviour "of all men, specially of those that believe." Of necessity there is a more intimate and vital relation existing between Jesus Christ and his followers, than there can be between him and those who have not exercised saving faith. To deny this is to affirm the unreality of all spiritual distinctions; hence Paul appropriately notices this relation by saying that while God is the Saviour of all men, yet he is specially so of those who love him. As Alford remarks, "He is the same Saviour towards, and of all; but these alone appropriate his salvation." Now as Scripture best explains Scripture, it is certainly fair to say that the passages adduced by Dr. Hodge do not mean anything essentially different from those which we have been considering. If the clearly expressed parts of the Bible are to have the preference, if they are to interpret the more obscure passages, then the many clear and unequivocal affirmations of the universal extent of the atonement are not to be interpreted by such tantalizing words as "the Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the elect." Moreover, the terms "church," "sheep" and "friends" are susceptible of a different meaning from that conveyed by Dr. Hodge, namely, those foreseen to be true believers. As thus considered, they do sustain a peculiar relation to the Saviour--as Paul declares, and as already explained while at the same time the truth for which I am here contending is fully vindicated.

 

SECTION V.

The Salvation of All Men, The Pleasure and Will of God.

This proposition is a logical deduction from the universality of God's love. But not satisfied with the statement that the Father of Mercies "with whom there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning" has an infinite love for every sinful soul, the Bible unmistakably declares that the salvation of all men is according to the pleasure and will of God. "Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit; for why will ye die, 0 house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye" (Ezek. xviii. 31, 32). "Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?" (Ezek. xxxiii. 11). "For he doth not afflict willingly, nor grieve the children of men" (Lamentations iii. 33). Paul exhorts that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men," giving as a reason, "For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (i. Tim. ii. 3, 4). Of this passage Calvin says, "By this he assuredly means nothing more than that the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men." If I should say this was far from expressing the meaning of the passage, and that indicates a lamentable lack of exegetical fairness on the part of the great Reformer, the reader might possibly charge me with being prejudiced. Let Alford speak, who certainly can not be charged with Arminian tendencies. "Calvin most unworthily shuffles out of the decisive testimony borne by this passage to universal redemption, saying, 'The Apostle simply means, that no people or rank in the world is excluded from salvation.'" The testimony of Dr. Albert Barnes is equally explicit. "This verse (4th) proves (1) that salvation is provided for all: for if God wished all men to be saved, he would undoubtedly make provision for their salvation; and if he had not made such provision, it could not be said that he desired their salvation, since no one can doubt that he has power to provide for the salvation of all; (2) that salvation should be offered to all men; for if God desires it, it is right for his ministers to announce that desire, and if he desires it, it is not proper for them to announce anything contrary to this: (3) that men are to blame if they are not saved. If God did not wish their salvation, and if he had made no provision for it, they could not be to blame if they rejected the gospel. If God wishes it, and has made provision for it, and they are not saved, the sin must be their own." This is anything but sound Calvinism, but nevertheless it rings with good common sense and is Scripturally consistent. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance" (ii. Peter iii. 9).

A brief resume of the Bible argument on this subject may assist the reader in determining the correctness of the position here maintained. We have found (1) that all men are invited to partake of a common salvation, Calvinists themselves being the judges. (2) That these universal invitations are uttered in all Godly sincerity. (3) That they are thus offered because Jesus Christ has made an unlimited atonement, has tasted death for every man. (4) That this universal atonement is the expression of the sincere pleasure and will of God, who is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

This naturally leads us to the consideration of the question, What is meant by the "will of God" as used in the above passages? In the Princeton Review of July, 1878, President Robert L. Dabney considered this question in an article entitled "God's Indiscriminate Proposals of Mercy as Related to His Power, Wisdom and Sincerity." It is the best Calvinistic solution with which I am acquainted, and I should be constrained to accept it were I not convinced that its foundation principles are decidedly fallacious. In former pages I have alluded to, and quoted a few sentences from this article. I now propose to examine it more thoroughly, and, so far as possible, fairly test it upon its own merits.

Commencing his article, Dr. Dabney says, "If God makes proposals of mercy to men, who, he foresees, will certainly reject them and perish, and whom he immutably purposes to leave without effectual calling, how can his power and wisdom be cleared, save at the expense of his sincerity? or his sincerity at the expense of his wisdom or power? This is obviously the point in the Reformed or Augustinian theology most difficult of adjustment.... The occasion for calling in question either God's sincerity, or his wisdom, or power, upon the supposition of an unconditional decree, arises from three classes of Scriptures. One is the indiscriminate offer of salvation. Another is the ascription of Christ's sacrifice to love for 'the world' as its motive, and the calling of him the 'Lamb of God who taketh away the sins of the world,' 'giveth himself for the world,' etc. The third is composed of those which present God as pitying all sinners, and even those who are never saved. Every reader's mind will suggest texts of each class. Now, it is notorious that these furnish the armory from which the Arminians equip their most pertinacious attacks on Calvinism; that it is on these texts the Calvinistic exegesis labors most and displays the most uncertainty; and that the usual Calvinistic solutions of them are scornfully denounced as inadequate by their opponents. These facts, of course, do not prove that the Arminians are right; but they evince the occasion for, and utility of, more satisfactory discussion. Doubtless the reader rejoices with me in knowing that President Dabney is not of that class of Calvinists who think their theology beyond improvement. He has clearly and satisfactorily stated the problem. He has confessed the seeming strength of the Arminian position, and the corresponding difficulties of the "usual Calvinistic solutions." Let us now candidly examine his argument in behalf of a limited atonement.

The main point in the solution is "best indicated by an analogical instance." Thus he says, "A human ruler may have full power and authority over the punishment of a culprit, may declare consistently his sincere compassion for him, and may yet freely elect to destroy him." Washington is selected as the ruler and Major Andre as the culprit. Chief-Justice Marshall in his "Life of Washington" speaks of this historic scene as follows: "Perhaps on no occasion of his life did the commander-in-chief obey with more reluctance the stern mandates of duty and of policy." Commenting on this, Dr. Dabney says, "Washington had plenary power to kill or to save alive. His compassion for the criminal was real and profound. Yet he signed his death-warrant with spontaneous decision. The solution is not the least difficult either for philosophy or common sense." After analyzing human volitions, Dr. Dabney returns to the analogy. He says "Washington's volition to sign the death-warrant of Andre did not arise from the fact that his compassion was slight or feigned, but from the fact that it was rationally counterpoised by a complex of superior judgments and propensions of wisdom, duty, patriotism, and moral indignation." "Let us suppose that one of Andre's intercessors (and he had them---even among the Americans)standing by, and hearing the commanding general say, as he took up the pen to sign the fatal paper, 'I do this with the deepest reluctance and pity;' should have retorted: 'Since you are supreme in this matter, and have full bodily ability to throw down that pen, we shall know by your signing this warrant that your pity is hypocritical!' The petulance of this charge would have been equal to its folly. The pity was real; but was restrained by superior elements of motive: Washington had official and bodily power to discharge the criminal; but he had not the sanction of his own wisdom and justice. Thus his pity was genuine, and yet his volition not to indulge it free and sovereign." This is followed by an exposition of the Arminian and the ordinary Calvinistic views, which are to "be exploded by explaining the nature of motive and free rational volition." Here the principle is applied to the question at issue. "The correct answer to the Arminian is to show him that the existence of a real and unfeigned pity in God for 'him that dieth' does not imply that God has exhausted his divine power in vain to renew the creature's 'free will' in a way consistent with its nature, because the pity may have been truly in God, and yet countervailed by superior motives, so that he did not will to exert his omnipotence for that sinner's renewal."

"The other extreme receives the same reply: the absence of an omnipotent (and inevitably efficient) volition to renew that soul does not prove the absence of a true compassion in God for him; and for the same reason the propulsion may have been in God, but restrained from rising into a volition by superior rational motives." It is quite probable that Dr. Dabney has made himself sufficiently clear to the reader; but desiring to have the principle thoroughly understood I will conclude this part of the argument in his own words, namely, "that God does have compassion for the reprobate, but not express volition to save them, because his infinite wisdom regulates his whole will and guides and harmonizes (not suppresses) all its active principles.''

To our author "the supposed obstacles" against the adoption of this solution, "seem to class themselves under three heads. (1) The difference between a finite and an infinite almighty governor makes the parallel worthless. (2) Such a theory of motive and free agency may not be applied to the divine will, because of God's absolute simplicity of being, and the unity of his attributes with his essence, the total lack of 'passive powers' in his glorious nature, and the unity and eternity of his whole will as to all events. It is feared that the parallel would misrepresent God's activities of will by a vicious anthropomorphism. (3) No such balancing of subjective motives takes place without inward strivings, which would be inconsistent with God's immutability and blessedness."

Not wishing to forget the real question at issue I shall rest the case on the first objection suggested by Dr. Dabney, namely, "The difference between a finite and an infinite almighty governor makes the parallel worthless." Our author disposes of this objection by affirming two propositions, namely: (1) That in case of the lost there are other reasons known only by God, than indifference to their fate, or a conscious inability to save. (2) That the ultimate end of God's government is his own glory.

To all intents and purposes the first statement belongs to the second. This is conceded by Dr. Dabney. Speaking of the ultimate ends of God's government as not including "the happiness of the largest possible number of sinners, but something else still more worthy of God ;" he says, "When we have admitted this, we have virtually admitted that God may see, in his own omniscience, a rational ground other than inability for restraining his actual propension of pity towards a given sinner."

The argument, therefore, is restricted to the one consideration whether optimism is, or is not, a correct philosophical solution of God's government. Upon this question there is a great diversity of opinion even among eminent Calvinists. Speaking of the hypothesis of Leibnitz, Dr. Chalmers says: "If it be not an offensive weapon with which we may beat down and demolish the strongholds of the sceptic, it is, at least, an armor of defense with which we may cause all his shafts to fall harmless at our feet."

Dr. Fitch of New Haven fame speaks much more positively saying, "Show us a God who, able to advance the holiness of the universe forever and to protect it from all the inroads of sin, does nevertheless, in the choice of his heart respecting a whole universe, actually reject such protection, and prefer to gratify his subjects with a mere exhibition at the expense of the sin and misery of one or many of his subjects; and we shall always see him purposely leading off the holy into sin and preferring their rebellion to obedience."

Beyond all question this is a radical departure from Old School theology. It is in the right direction; for whether we accept or reject the philosophical terminology of optimism the substantial truth of the doctrine is rapidly gaining acceptance. As it is a question upon which even Calvinists do not agree, and as it involves a critical study of the Intuitions, I shall dismiss it by affirming that which I regard as a moral axiom, namely, God's glory can never ignore the rights of his creatures.

Inasmuch as the above objection is the only one noticed by Dr. Dabney as vitiating his analogy, I suppose it never occurred to him that there were other objections far more serious. They will now be considered. The analogy is fallacious because it offers no just comparison between Washington and the spy on one hand, and God and the non-elect on the other. Of course I do not claim that the analogy must be perfect in all respects. By no means. Allowing for all reasonable divergencies, I yet claim that the analogy is radically defective, because (1) The language of Washington is essentially different from that used by the Lord God. I agree with Dr. Dabney that Washington's pity for Andre was sincere; but observe, the commanding general never conveyed, by word or hint, to any one the idea that he could and would save the unfortunate officer. On the contrary, he made the one impression on Andre's friends that the spy must die. Had he told the officer or his friends that he should be saved, had he made the impression over and over again that the spy could be saved, while, at the same time, knowing that it was not true, then it would have been in order for Dr. Dabney to have spoken of Washington's supposed sincerity. But while the commander-in-chief did not thus speak, God has so declared to the world. He has not only expressed sympathy and pity for the non-elect, but he has invited them to the same salvation which is given to the elect. He urges them to accept, tells them that Jesus died that they might live, makes the impression upon all of them that he is waiting for them to come that he may bestow the gift of eternal life upon them, while at the same time, according to Dr. Dabney, God has never "purposed" any such thing. If this would not be insincerity, then I confess I do not know what it could be. Nor do I see how the so-called "solution" adds one ray of light. Nay, it is like the theology of Job's friends which "darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge" in that it creates a new difficulty in trying to solve an old one. The sincerity of God's pity is saved at the expense of his sincerity in offering salvation to all. But possibly the reader may say that I have misunderstood Dr. Dabney in supposing him to teach that God does promise salvation to all: I reply, if this be so, then so much the worse for the theory. Beyond all controversy God offers salvation to all. This, as we have seen in a previous section, is conceded by nearly all Calvinists. If this truth is denied by Dr. Dabney, then a "Thus saith the Lord" will be sufficient to silence him. But he does not deny it: on the contrary he repeatedly asserts it. In the first place, the very title of the article proves it" God's indiscriminate proposals of mercy." Again, he says, "Let us now represent to ourselves the large number of texts in which God entreats sinners to turn from the ways of destruction. They are addressed by him to all men, without distinction of elect and nonelect. When, for instance, the Redeemer commands us to 'preach the gospel to every creature' it is impossible by any exegetical pressure to make the words mean 'every elect creature' because he adds in the next verse (Mark xvi. 16), 'He that believeth not shall be damned.' This possible subject is among the 'every creature' body to whom the overtures of mercy are to be made. But no 'elect creature' can be damned. Now, no straightforward mind can ever be satisfied that the utterance of entreaties to shun destruction are not the expression of compassion, if they come from a sincere person. The explanations of the gospel calls to the non-elect which do not candidly recognize this truth, must ever carry a fatal weight with the great body of Christians."

Doubtless this confession is sufficient. God does make "indiscriminate proposals of mercy": he does offer Jesus Christ as a Redeemer to every creature: he does entreat every creature "to shun destruction"; he does make the impression upon every creature that he may be saved: and yet, this is all one grand mistake, a stupendous delusion, for he has "never purposed nor promised to save" all. I do not know how Dr. Dabney would define a "promise," but it seems to me his solution involves a serious self-contradiction.

(2) Equally fallacious is the analogy between Andre and the non-elect. The spy is justly called a "culprit," a "criminal"; of course the non-elect are not only assumed to be such, but are declared to be worthy of eternal condemnation. If this were true, if the decree of passing by the non-elect is conditioned on the divine foreknowledge of their character, then so far Dr. Dabney would remain untouched by this argument. All Calvinists are supralapsarians or sublapsarians. In a subsequent chapter more than a passing thought will be given to these terms. At present let it suffice to say the supralapsarians affirm that before creation, and hence before the existence of any human moral character, God determined to save some and to pass others by. The sublapsarians declare this doctrine harsh and unreasonable, and maintain that God's decree to save or not to save presupposes the race as fallen; and therefore as deserving of condemnation. Concerning this Dr. Dabney says, supralapsarians retort that this scheme makes God's decree as truly conditioned on the creature's action as the Arminian, though on a different condition. So the debate proceeds."

Now it is evident that if Dr. Dabney had claimed to be a Sublapsarian Calvinist, so far my second argument would not be valid. But he makes no such claim. On the contrary, he thinks the distinction is useless and should never have been made.

"But he who apprehends the action of the infinite mind reasonably and Scripturally at once, sees that, while the sublapsarian is right in his spirit and aim, both parties are wrong in their method, and the issue is one which should never have been raised .....One result decreed is to depend on another result decreed. But as the decree is God's consciousness, all is equally primary. Thus there will be neither supra- nor infra-lapsarian, and no room for their debate." Consequently I am strictly within the bounds of Christian fairness when I say that the analogy of Dr. Dabney is radically wrong in assuming the criminal state of the non-elect. Andre was a spy: as such he was extremely dangerous to the American cause. As a patriot, Washington was bound, by every sacred impulse, by the dictates of sober judgment, to sign the death-warrant. But no such language can be used in reference to the non-elect. As yet they have no existence: hence they have no moral character. Consequently where is the reason, where is the sense of justice which must be satisfied by the eternally decreed rejection of the non-elect? Truly we search in vain for it, as it nowhere exists except in the Calvinistic dogma that God's glory demands the eternal condemnation of the non-elect.

This brings us to the consideration of the third objection against Dr. Dabney's argument: namely (3) It is grounded on the Arminian doctrine of Foreknowledge. Of course this is a serious charge to bring against a Calvinistic writer. Nor do I suppose for a moment that Dr. Dabney will admit its correctness, but I doubt not the reader will be able to judge of the merits of the case, and to him, therefore, I leave the issue. In different parts of the article we are told "that God's election to life is unconditioned," "that God's selection of Jacob was not conditioned on his foreseen penitence or faith."

Rejecting divine foresight as the condition of election, it is more than probable that Dr. Dabney also rejects it as the condition why some men are not elected: because (a} This, as we have seen, (see Chapter II. of Part I.) is consistent Calvinism. Calvin says, "No one can deny but God foreknew Adam's fall, and foreknew it because he had ordained it by his own decree." Equally explicit is the Westminster Confession of Faith. "Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass, upon such conditions." Luther taught "All things whatever, arise from, and depend upon the divine appointment; whereby it was preordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them: who should be justified and who condemned." Much more might be said, but doubtless I have quoted enough to show that Calvinism has always denied that the decree to pass by the non-elect was conditioned on man's foreseen rejection. (b) Dr. Dabney tells us that to the supralapsarians the order of the decrees adopted by the sublapsarians is "as truly conditioned on the creature's action as the Arminian, though on a different condition." This recognizes the essentially Arminian tendency of making some condition the basis of the decrees. (c) Dr. Dabney declares that the terms "supralapsarian" and "sublapsarian" --the only place where there is any possible reason for mentioning the decrees in connection with foresight--are wrong, and the issue "should never have been raised." (d) Moreover, the decrees are one. "The decree which determines so vast a multitude of parts is itself a unit. The whole all-comprehending thought is one, co-etaneous intuition, the whole decree one act of the will." This clearly shows that if it is wrong to say that election is based on divine foresight, it is equally wrong to say it of reprobation. Hence, I ask in all seriousness, What right has Dr. Dabney to speak so often and fluently of the divine foresight? He does this repeatedly. The first sentence in his article begins with the assumption, "If God makes proposals of mercy to men, who he foresees will certainly reject them, and perish." Speaking of Jacob's sins and of his election, he asks "Did not God feel, notwithstanding this properly overruling rational motive, the abhorrence for Jacob's foreseen original sin and actual meanness, suitable for an infinitely holy nature to feel, and naturally tending, had it not been counterpoised, to Jacob's righteous rejection? Again, "God doubtless felt then a similar moral reprehension for Jacob's foreseen, supplanting falsehood to that which he felt for Esau's heady self-will." "We dare not say that God could distinctly foresee all Jacob's supplanting falsehood, and feel no disapprobation whatever; it would come near to blasphemy." "Foresee," indeed! Why not say, decreed or determined "falsehood"? Doubtless because it would not only come near to being, but would be blasphemy. Yet the latter is the real meaning of Dr. Dabney; or at least what his position logically and irresistibly means. I trust the reader now sees the justness of my charge against Dr. Dabney. His article is permeated with, and many of his assumptions are based upon, the divine foresight of men's actions. As a Calvinistic argument it is extremely fallacious: yet it is important because it shows the constant tendency of Calvinists to leave their position, and adopt one-half of the Arminian's.

(4) Another objection against the solution which we are considering, is that it makes a radical antagonism between God and Jesus Christ. As we have seen, President Dabney claims that God has never purposed nor promised to save the non-elect. He is an earnest advocate of the divine sincerity in the expressions of compassion; but he always maintains "that an immutable and sovereign God never had but one will (one purpose or volition) as to this lost man; as a faithful God would never publish any other volition than the one he entertained, but that it was entirely consistent for God to compassionate where he never purposed nor promised to save, because this sincere compassion was restrained within the limits God announced by his own wisdom." Granting this--for the sake of the argument--I affirm that Jesus Christ went far beyond it, teaching that so far as his purpose or will was concerned it was thwarted by the unbelief of men. Although the truth is quite prominently revealed in the Gospels, yet perhaps it is most impressively taught in the Lamentation of Jesus over Jerusalem. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not" ( Matt. xxiii. 37). It is true, Dr. Dabney not only notices this passage but also shows the absurdities of many Calvinistic interpretations: but while this is justly admired by all Arminians, they cannot escape the conviction that the new solution makes the Father and the Son antagonistic. Beyond all controversy the tears which Jesus shed upon this occasion were the outward manifestation of sincere pity. Had the Saviour remained silent, so far forth as this scene is concerned, Dr. Dabney's position might be correct. But such was not the fact. The Master spoke, declaring that his intention would have resulted in their salvation had they not prevented. Beyond all dispute, this event reveals the wicked intention, purpose or will of the Jews as opposing and thwarting the intention, purpose or will of the Saviour. Thus says Neander, "The earnest exclamation of Christ, recorded in Luke xiii. 34, Matt. xxiii. 37, distinctly implies that he had often endeavored, by his personal teaching in Jerusalem, to rouse the people to repentance and conversion that they might be saved from the ruin then impending over them."

Dr. Dabney truly says: "It is our happiness to believe that when we see Jesus weeping over lost Jerusalem, we 'have seen the Father'; we have received an insight into the divine benevolence and pity." No less truly do the words of Jesus reveal the Father's purpose or volition to save, thwarted by the perversity of determined sinners. In a different sense from that meant by Dr. Dabney do I quote his words, saying: "Some better solution must be found, then, of this wondrous and blessed paradox, of omnipotent love lamenting those whom yet it did not save." Unless Dr. Dabney can purify his solution of the four objections which are now before the reader, that which he rejects as Pelagian --"freewill"--is yet to be triumphant.

Concerning the will of God I ask, in the words of Dr. Dabney, "Why not let the Scriptures mean what they so plainly strive to declare?" In them the will of God is revealed in two different aspects, namely, the actual and the ideal. The ideal will of God is the unconditioned expression of his sincere desires. It is that which he wishes to do, and would accomplish were he not prevented by some exterior cause or causes. Thus it is God's will, volition, or purpose, ideally expressed, that the wicked should not perish, but that all should come to repentance. For this goal he strives with all the influences at his command. Yet infallibly knowing who will yield to the influences of the Holy Spirit, his actual will, purpose, or volition, is completely realized in the salvation of all true believers. Hence, the atonement, is--in one sense-limited, but the limitation is manward instead of Godward. As has been admirably said by Dr. John Miley: "Nothing respecting the atonement is more certain than the real conditionality of its saving grace. Hence, it is a mere assumption that the atonement is necessarily saving, and, therefore, that the actual saving is the extent of it ..... With an atonement in vicarious suffering sufficient for all, but really conditional in the saving result, its Universality is in full logical accord with a limited actual salvation .....Hence, eternal destinies are determined according as the gospel is received or rejected."

At this stage of the discussion--while in the full light of the atoning love of the Lord Jesus Christ--it is proper to notice the recent theological movement among evangelical Congregationlists. It is variously designated. Opponents have called it "The Andover Controversy," "The New Departure." For convenience its friends have adopted the term "New Theology," or have described it as a "Renaissance." It has two important features--the positive and the negative. It believes and therefore speaks. It doubts, and therefore questions. Hence its relative strength and weakness. Its affirmations are not new. As has been said by an able advocate, "they prevailed in the first centuries of the church, while the stream ran clear from the near fountain, and they have appeared all along in individual minds and schools, as the higher peaks of a mountain range catch the sunshine, while the base is enveloped in mist and shadow--not many, and often far separate, but enough to show the trend and to bear witness to the light."

Hence the "New Theology" is a strong protest against, and a radical abandonment of Calvinism. In some important respects it affiliates with Arminianism. The chief antagonisms with the latter are in its principles of Eschatology, which, while drawn from various sources may be more directly traced to Dr. Dorner. He teaches that salvation is conditioned on the personal acceptance of the Saviour. All human beings of whatever age or condition who have not exercised a bona fide determination for or against the historic Christ, will have this opportunity in the future life. This acceptance or rejection--before or after death--is necessary to decide the eternal destiny of the soul.

What that destiny will be, is not affirmed by Dorner by his American allies. He concedes that "the exegetical grounds for the statement that some will be forever lost, are indeed preponderant." In his "Orthodox theology of To-Day," Dr. Newman Smyth says the Scriptures "hold up no promise of the hereafter to any man who here and now determines himself against the Spirit of Christ." Answering some questions propounded by members of the Ecclesiastical Council at New Haven, Sept. 20, 1882, he said, "There is nothing definite in the Scripture with regard to a possible future probation." Consequently, so far as the "New Theology" postulates a future probation, it finds its justification in the moral axiom that a fair or "decisive probation" is the condition of a divine condemnation; and from a few obscure passages of Scripture, notably 1 Pet. iii. 19, 20, and iv. 6. But it is by no means certain that Peter teaches this doctrine. Scholars of equal piety and learning do not agree. Each side may justly claim a large number of distinguished exegetes. But granting all that may be fairly claimed by the advocates of a future probation, their position is Scripturally untenable; the most that can be claimed from these passages is that Christ preached the gospel of salvation to all who lived before his advent. As we know nothing of the reasons for the supposed proclamation; as there is not the least hint that the alleged mercy is extended to any who have lived under the Christian Dispensation, the limits of the discussion are greatly circumscribed. But this is not the end of the matter. The Scriptural argument is not simply negative. The Word of God knows no future probation for any who have lived since the birth of the Christian Church. The many promises and warnings presuppose and assert that our eternal destiny is determined by our earthly character. Delitzsch has well said, "If this paedagogic form of world be destroyed, man is, and remains, that which he has become within himself. He is, and remains; he is not annihilated; for Scripture no more teaches the final annihilation of the wicked than it does their apokatastasis or restoration. Human reason would like in one way or another to abolish the dualism with which the history of the world closes. Let her do it upon her own responsibility, but let her not falsify the Scripture. This teaches an eternal personal continuance of all personal beings, and a continuance fundamentally conditioned by what they have become in time."

Hence, so far as a fair probation is the condition of final destiny, the Scripture's predicate it to the race. Here then, is the crucial question, What is a fair or decisive probation? Dorner's definition is untenable because its legitimate conclusions are contradicted by the Word. As against Calvinism, he is right in maintaining that each soul will be treated justly, yea, according to the yearnings of infinite Love. The idea of a probation has no place in the Reformed Theology. Extremes meet. One unduly exalts, and the other denies probation. The Scriptural idea of probation involves (1) Sufficient intelligence to distinguish between right and wrong. (2) Ample power to choose the right and reject the wrong. So far as a personal acceptance of Jesus Christ is necessary to salvation, there is another element in probation, namely, (3) Sufficient knowledge of his atoning love as to justify a faith in him.

Wherever this last condition does not exist a personal acceptance of the Saviour is not necessary to salvation. "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?" and "how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" "Then Peter opened his mouth and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is accepted with him" (Acts x. 34, 35). "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing, one another" (Rom. ii. 14, 15). In all ages there has been a spirit of faith in God which has been graciously counted for righteousness. The light may have been dim, the faith very imperfect; but the loving Father saw the spirit of receptivity, knew the inner strivings after a nobler life and the prompt yielding to the Spirit's influences: hence every responsible being has a fair probation. God knows all the conditions of each soul. He has an infinite understanding of the surroundings, the inherited tendencies, the hopes and fears, the love and hate by which each character is formed, and therefore, unerringly judges in accordance with eternal right and infinite love.

Let it not be said that this view undervalues the atoning work of the Lord Jesus Christ. On the contrary it exalts him and his work by postulating the atonement as the basis of God's dealings with the race.

According to Arminian principles the divine promise of a Saviour was the condition of race propagation. Hence, the universality of the Holy Spirit's work. The Old Testament saints were enlightened and guided by his influences. The divine promise on which they relied (Heb. xi. 13) were fulfilled in Christ. They were saved through a prospective Saviour, while we are saved through the historic Saviour.

So far, there is no need for affirming a future probation: hence the second phase of the subject refers to irresponsible adults and dying infants. Both classes are in the same moral condition of irresponsibility. As members of the human race they are indeed subject to those physical and psychological laws by which man exists. Their moral natures are disorganized: they have sinward tendencies, which in the responsible, result in a free determination to evil: but as moral responsibility is the fundamental condition of sin, they are not and cannot be justly called sinners. Sin is an impossibility without a free choice with power to the contrary. Of course this proposition is applicable only to those who have never deprived themselves of this power by previous sinning.

These fundamental principles clearly understood. it is legitimate to affirm the salvation of all dying infants and irresponsible adults. True, the question is speculative; but as it is not condemned by Scripture its admissibility can not be denied. The Master's allusions to and gracious reception of little children confirm the hypothesis. The mode by which salvation is bestowed is also speculative. Excluding all theories of baptismal regeneration, the following are the principal suppositions: (1) All dying infants become moral agents after death. Exercising a holy choice they "are saved on the ground of the atonement and by regeneration." This seems to be the prevailing view of Congregationalists. Prof. Joseph Cook says, "As they have not learned the evils of sin, it is to be hoped that in death at the sight of God's face, they will acquire entire harmony of soul with him:" Prof. G. F. Wright, D. D., says, ".... our general confidence in God's abounding mercy leads us to believe that he secures their development under such circumstances that they will be saved." Doubtless this is substantially the view of Prof. Egbert C. Smyth: but he disagrees with Mr. Cook in affirming that it necessarily involves a future probation. (2) All dying infants are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. This is the Presbyterian doctrine. The Westminster Confession of Faith says, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." (3) All infants enter the world justified and therefore saved. This is the view which has most prevailed in the Methodist Episcopal Church, although not a few of its members accept the second theory. Leading Arminians, including Wesley, Fletcher and Fisk have earnestly maintained that so far as infant justification or regeneration exists, it "is not congenital, but post-genital." The position is ably stated by Dr. D. D. Whedon. "The born individual, thereby, though not judicially condemned, is displacent, and, as unholy, is offensive to God; and so the reconciliation of that displacency, in order that God's face may shine upon him, is a blood-bought grace. That unholiness is so expiated, and that divine displacency is, through Christ's sole merits, so propitiated, that the infant's actual guiltlessness may be divinely recognized and held by God available for his justification as truly as that unreal, but virtual, guiltlessness of the adult procured through pardon. He thereby stands in the same essential gracious position as the forgiven and justified adult. No justice, human or divine, can indeed pardon the guiltless, just because there is nothing to pardon. But pardon and declaratory justification are two things. Christ, by his self-oblation, is entitled, as our Advocate, to declare the infant's justification, unworthy though he be through his sinward nature, against all who would lay charge against him. 'Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth,' just because 'it is Christ that died.' And thus being justified and reconciled, the infant becomes fit subject for the gracious influence of the Spirit that cures that sinwardness and regenerates the nature; so that (whether we use the term regenerate or not) the infant is in the same essential condition as that into which the justified and regenerate adult is brought by voluntary faith."

The conception is beautiful and logically self-consistent. Its advocates are not so presumptuous as to think there are no objections. On the contrary adverse arguments have been fairly considered, and, in their opinion, satisfactorily answered. I shall not attempt to decide the question. My purpose is realized if I have shown that the salvation of dying infants and irresponsible adults does not necessarily demand a future probation.

 

CHAPTER II.

CALVINISM TEACHES INFANT DAMNATION.

"I am not aware that any intelligent Christian can be found who maintains the unauthorized and appalling position that infant children, who are not guilty of any actual sin, either outwardly or inwardly, will be doomed to misery in the world to come.

"On this particular point our opinions have been often misrepresented. We are said to hold that God dooms a whole race of innocent creatures to destruction, or considers them all deserving of destruction, for the sin of one man. Now, when I examine the writings of the earlier Calvinists generally on the subject of original sin, I find nothing which resembles such a statement as this."--Rev. Leonard Woods, D.D.

 

This is not to be affirmed of modern Calvinists. Without exception this doctrine is now denied by all the followers of Calvin, whether in the Presbyterian, the Congregational, or the Baptist Churches. Hence were it not that the Confession of Faith--which does teach the doctrine--is still accepted as the true exponent of Calvinistic theology; and especially were it not that this fact has been and is denied by Calvinistic theologians the reader would have been spared this chapter. The subject is important not only because it involves a correct understanding of history, but also because it enables the reader to judge more intelligently of the merits of the system under discussion.

 

SECTION I.

Does The Westminster Confession of Faith Teach Infant Damnation?

 

This issue was forced upon the Arminian. His statements of history are constantly denied by eminent Calvinists. Thus Dr. N. L. Rice, after having quoted the clause from the Confession which relates to this subject, says: "It is certain that Presbyterians have never understood this language as teaching the doctrine of infant damnation. Persons have often asserted that they had heard the doctrine preached, but on particular inquiry it has been found that their statements were either maliciously false, or were inferences of their own from what the preacher said. But no respectable Presbyterian writer can be found, either in ancient or modern times, who has taught that any dying in infancy are lost ..... The doctrine of Infant Damnation was charged upon the Presbyterian Church by Alexander Campbell, in a public debate with the author of these pages. In reply we said: 'I am truly gratified that the gentleman has brought forward the charge against us, of holding the doctrine of the damnation of infants; because it is believed by many who are unacquainted with our views.' He says, our Confession of Faith teaches this doctrine. This is not correct. It is true that it speaks of elect infants,--'Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit.' Are all infants, dying in infancy, elect? All Presbyterians who express an opinion on the subject, so believe. The expression, 'elect infants,' the gentleman seems to think, implies non-elect infants; but I call upon him to produce one respectable Presbyterian author who has expressed the opinion that, 'infants dying in infancy are lost.' .... In answer to this demand, repeatedly made, Mr. Campbell quoted one or two passages from the writings of Calvin and one from Turretine, in which those great and good men opposed the doctrine of the Pelagians and Socinians, who hold that Adam's sin did not affect his posterity, and that men are not born in Original sin; and in which they affirmed that all Adam's posterity are exposed to eternal death, and might justly have been left to perish. But neither of them taught that any infant is, in fact, lost. They simply taught that the salvation of all, infants as well as adults, is of grace, not of justice."

Professor David Swing in his "Truths of To-Day," speaks of this and kindred doctrines as follows: "All those formulas which looked toward a dark fatalism, or which destroyed the human will, or indicate the damnation of some infants, or that God, for his own glory, foreordained a vast majority of the race to everlasting death ..... I have declared to them that the Presbyterian Church had left behind these doctrines, and that her religion was simply Evangelical, and not par excellence the religion of despair." To this the editors of "The Presbyterian Quarterly" of 1874, replied, "The class of articles here caricatured and rejected, teach none of the things thus charged upon them, although it is common for adversaries thus to reproach them. Nor have these things been held more by the Presbyterian Church of the past than of the present." To the same effect speaks Dr. Charles Hodge. Dr. Krauth in his work on "The Conservative Reformation and its Theology," made some statements concerning the Westminster Confession of Faith and infant salvation. Dr. Hodge replies, "We are sorry to see that Dr. Krauth labors to prove that the Westminster Confession teaches that only a certain part, or some of those who die in infancy are saved; this he does by putting his own construction on the language of that Confession. We can only say that we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held that doctrine. We are not learned enough to venture the assertion that no Calvinist ever held it; but if all Calvinists are responsible for what every Calvinist has ever said, and all Lutherans for everything Luther or Lutherans have ever said, then Dr. Krauth as well as ourselves will have a heavy burden to carry."

That the meaning of Dr. Hodge may be more dearly understood, let me recall the readers' attention to one sentence--the only proof given against the conclusion of Dr. Krauth, viz., "We can only say that we never saw a Calvinistic theologian who held that doctrine." By this Dr. Hodge must mean one of two things, or both: viz., (1) That he never personally saw a Calvinistic theologian who held the doctrine; or (2) That he never saw the doctrine in the writings of any Calvinistic theologian. But if he means to prove that the Confession of Faith does not teach infant condemnation because he never saw a theologian who held that doctrine, it amounts to nothing, for the simple reason it proves too much. By the same kind of argument I can prove that no one has ever held the Ptolemaic theory of astronomy. On this kind of reasoning numberless absurdities may be safely promulgated.

On the other hand, if Dr. Hodge means he has never seen this doctrine in the writings of any Calvinistic theologian, it proves nothing to the point. Before the assertion can prove anything favorable to the Confession, Dr. Hodge must be able to say that he has very carefully read the writings of every Calvinistic theologian before, and contemporary with the Westminister Assembly. This, however, is the very thing he has not done: hence the weakness of his position. He charges Dr. Krauth with "putting his own construction on the language of the Confession." Is Dr. Hodge innocent of the same charge?

In this chapter I shall endeavor to find the true answer to the question, Does Calvinism, through the Westminister Confession of Faith, teach Infant Condemnation?

 

SECTION II.

No Proof that Only Elect Infants Die.

As we have seen, Dr. Rice and Dr. Hodge claim that infants who die are of the elect: hence, of course, there can be no infant condemnation. But where is the proof of this? Let us see if it is in the Confession. "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 sin: nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed condition; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as 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."

From these declarations three legitimate deductions irresistibly follow: viz., (1) There are persons foreordained to eternal condemnation irrespective of their foreseen rejection of Christ. (2) All these persons have been infants: hence (3) There are non-elect infants. Now one of two things must be true. (a) None of the non-elect infants die, and so live beyond the age of infancy, and then die, and are everlastingly condemned: or (b) Some non-elect infants die in infancy, and are eternally condemned. If none of the non-elect infants die in infancy, I ask for the proof. It is not in the Scriptures, nor does the Confession pretend to give any Scripture bearing on this point. The only passages given are Luke xviii. 15, 16, and Acts ii. 38, 39. The former reads as follows: "And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them, but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God." Observe, it says "little children." It makes no distinction: hence all little children are included. So far as the words and actions of the Saviour are concerned, they embrace the non-elect, as well as the elect infants. Not a hint is given regarding the non-elect infants dying or not dying, and therefore, to interpret the Master's words as teaching that only elect infants die, is a clear begging of the question.

The passage in Acts is, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call."

This has no reference to the question in dispute. It simply mentions the children of believers and those afar off. It says not a word even indirectly concerning the death of any person, much less elect or nonelect infants. Hence, if the Confession has no proof, either in itself or from Scripture, affirming that only elect infants die, then so far as the present question is concerned there is no proof and the assumption is wholly groundless. But the eternal condemnation of infants is so very repugnant to our moral nature that many Calvinists declare the Confession must be interpreted in favor of all dying infants. This moral repugnance however, is soon seen to be narrow; for is it any worse for God to condemn dying infants, than it is to condemn persons before they were born, and hence as innocent as the infants? There is not a particle of difference. Both classes are condemned at the same time, even from all eternity. Therefore this intense moral repugnance, which but a moment ago was in favor of the Calvinist, now recoils with a strong force against this same Calvinist, and says--The eternal condemnation of any one irrespective of a foreseen rejection of saving truth is a horrible libel on God's character.

Moreover, what a curious position is necessitated by this assumption that only elect infants die! If the death of an infant is the certain indication of election, then it is possible for man to secure the election of every infant now in existence. Beyond all reasonable doubt there are infants now living, of whom it may be said, They are of the non-elect: Yet their destiny which has been decreed of God from all eternity can be reversed by a single act of man. To say this is not susceptible of demonstration is to affirm the exact condition of the Calvinistic postulate "all dying infants are of the elect." Unquestionably among the abandoned classes of society are many dying infants, who, were they to live, would become dissolute and hardened characters.

 

SECTION III.

Infant Condemnation was Taught Prior to the Westminster Assembly.

Augustine taught "That infants dying without baptism, will on account of their imputed sin be in the mildest punishment."

Friar Berthold says, "If your children die without baptism or are baptized improperly, they can never enter into the heavenly joys. They go, together with the Jewish and Gentile children who are still without belief, to the limbus to which those of old went. There they do not suffer any pain, except this that they do not go to heaven."

Thomas Aquinas says, "Children who die without baptism have not that hope of eternal salvation which the fathers had prior to the manifestation of Christ." Zanchius affirms, "Infants are deservedly damned on account of the nature they have, to wit, a wicked nature, repugnant to the laws of God."

We now come to John Calvin. Let us see how he and Dr. Rice agree. "Moreover, infants who are to be saved (and that some are saved at this age is certain), must, without question, be previously regenerated by the Lord." "I again ask how it is that the fall of Adam involves so many nations with their infant children in eternal death without remedy, unless that it so seemed meet to God?"

Peter Martyr says: "Neither must it be thought that I would promise salvation unto all the children of the faithful which depart without the sacrament .....I dare not promise certain salvation, particularly unto any that departeth hence. For there be some children of the saints which belong not unto predestination."

The Synod of Dort met on the 13th day of November, 1618, to oppose Arminianism. Its members were strongly Calvinistic, and as Calvin had taught infant condemnation, they would naturally do the same. H. Alting who was a member of the Synod replies to, and repels the charge, and here I quote: "Third, that we hold and teach the salvation of all infants indiscriminately, who die without baptism. No truly orthodox theologian has ever said or written this. Neither Zwingle nor Calvin, nor any other of like note has so taught." Mr. Alting was a learned divine and as far as we know an honest man. From him we learn what was the orthodox opinion on this subject and hence if the Synod of Dort did not teach infant condemnation, so far forth it was heterodox. But the charge of heresy has never been raised against this Synod, and therefore it is more than probable that it taught infant condemnation. The Synod officially declared, "Of the infants of believers only, who die of an age before they can be indoctrinated, we determine that they are saved.""

 

SECTION IV.

Infant Condemnation Taught by the Westminster Assembly

To a large degree the Assembly was composed of pronounced Calvinists. It met in I643, only twenty-five years after the Synod of Dort. Its doctrines were similar to those of Dort. Dr. Shedd says: "The system of Doctrine constructed by this Assembly is thoroughly Calvinistic, and bears a close resemblance to the canons of the Synod of Dort." But there is a vast difference between a belief in the condemnation of some infants and a belief in the salvation of all infants. Hence it is highly probable that the Assembly believed in infant condemnation unless it emphatically stated the contrary. There is no such statement on record. If the Assembly believed in infant condemnation it is highly probable that it testified concerning that belief; for (1) They were honest men. (2) They possessed strong convictions. (3) The occasion was important. (4) Every member was obliged to take the following oath: "I----, do seriously promise and vow in the presence of Almighty God, that in this Assembly, whereof I am a member, I will maintain nothing in point of doctrine but what I believe to be the most agreeable to the Word of God; nor in point of discipline, but what I shall conceive to conduce most to the glory of God and the good and peace of his church."

The only record we have from this representative body of divines on the subject under discussion is, "Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth." It is very probable that this was meant to teach infant condemnation; for (1) The doctrine was held by Dr. Twisse, the first Prolocutor of the Assembly. He taught that "Many thousands, even all the infants of Turks and Saracens dying in original sin, are tormented by him in hellfire"

(2) If the declaration of the Confession was not intended to teach infant condemnation it must have been so understood, not only by those attending, but also by all who were contemporary with the Assembly. If it had been interpreted as teaching the salvation of all dying infants it would have been condemned by many Calvinists such as Dr. Twisse and highly applauded by many Arminians. But so far as history records the events of this period such a condemnation, or approbation was never in existence. (3) If the passage in question does not teach infant condemnation those who composed it were either dishonest or very ignorant. Beyond all controversy the Assembly made and left the impression that the doctrine of infant condemnation was the teaching of Scripture. As we have seen the members were honest. Hence their words are extremely ambiguous, or else they intended to teach the doctrine. But they were too intelligent to be guilty of such ambiguity, for, as Baxter says, "The divines there congregated were men of eminent learning and goodness, and ministerial ability and fidelity; and, as far as I am able to judge, the Christian world since the days of the Apostles had never seen a synod of more excellent men than this Synod and the Synod of Dort."

"Hallam admits that they were equal in learning, good sense, and other merits to any Lower House of Convocation that ever made figure in England." Then if the members of the Assembly were not dishonest nor ignorant, they meant to and did declare that which they actually believed. Hence the passage in question is a part of the Calvinistic theology of the Seventeenth Century, and as thus related unequivocally teaches infant condemnation.

 

SECTION V.

The Doctrine More or Less Distinctly Taught Since the Westminster Assembly.

 

The few extracts which I have selected for this section will appropriately form the conclusion to the subject and also enable the reader to see how accurately our Calvinistic theologians have interpreted history. The following is from the celebrated poet and theologian Dr. Isaac Watts: "But whereas Dr. Ridgley supposes the immortal existence of such infant souls in a sort of stupid ignorance or insensibility, which the Scripture nowhere intimates, I think it is much more natural and reasonable to suppose that God will deprive both body and soul of life which Adam had forfeited for himself and for them according to the first threatening of death. And since the book of Scripture has not revealed it, I can not find it in the book of reason; nor can I conceive what end it can attain in divine providence, to continue so many millions of infant souls in an eternal state of stupor. Is it agreeable to the conduct of infinite wisdom, and the government of God, to maintain such an innumerable multitude of idiots equal in number to almost all the rest of the human race, in a long, endless duration, and to reign over such an immense nation of senseless and thoughtless immortals? .... Upon the whole, therefore, the state of non-existence to which we here suppose them to be reduced after death, is much more probable, being the least demerit of imputed sin, or an everlasting forfeiture of life, and a sort of endless punishment without pain." The difference between children of pious and non-pious parents is clearly drawn in the following: "I add in the last place, that if all children dying in infancy, are certainly saved, what are the special privileges which are so often asserted in Scripture to belong to the children of pious parents and the seed of Abraham, in having God to be their God?"

Dr. Nathanael Emmons says of God, "He has not been pleased to inform us expressly whether he does renew the hearts of a whole, or a part, or none of those little children who die soon after they become moral agents. As they then become morally depraved, it is plain, that in point of justice, he may then leave them all to perish in their native depravity and guilt. Or in mercy he may renew them all. But from all the light we can find in Scripture on this subject, it seems to be the most probable opinion that he renews only some of those who die soon after they become morally depraved and guilty." Before these remarks can be thoroughly understood we must know at what age Dr. Emmons predicated moral agency. Concerning this, the editor of Dr. Emmon's works, Dr. Ide, say, "His own belief is as clearly expressed in the body of the discourse that they become moral agents as soon as they become natural agents."

Dr. E. D. Griffin is not quite so positive. "Justice therefore approved of the actual destruction of a whole race that were to be born infants. They meet a condemnation at the threshold of their existence. Their just doom in the cradle is, that first or last they shall sink to perdition. And this doom would have been just had no Saviour been provided ..... A large part of the race die in infancy and go to heaven or hell. If to the latter, (which for certain reasons I hope is not the case,) then they justly perish; if to the former, then they are saved by grace and by Christ, and therefore might justly have been consigned to death."

In an article written some years since for "The Interior," Professor W. M. Blackburn, D. D., frankly admits the validity of my position, he says, "By the words 'covenant' and 'elect' the Westminster Assembly meant to run a line through the adult world. While thus applying those terms to adults, they debate about the 'elect of infants,' and the same line was evidently run through the class of dying infants. The 'elect infants' are those within the covenant of redemption."

In concluding this subject I doubt not the candid reader will readily see whose construction I have placed upon the Confession of Faith. It is neither Dr. Krauth's, Dr. Hodge's nor mine. It is the construction of the members of the Westminster Assembly, and as such, is entitled to our implicit confidence.

That the issue should have terminated so overwhelmingly against these honored divines is no fault of mine. I have simply quoted facts which for some unaccountable reason they thought best to deny. Since the above was written I have examined the recent work by Dr. Charles Briggs. He says, "We are able to say that the Westminster divines were unanimous on this question of the salvation of elect infants only. We have examined the greater part of the writings of the Westminster divines, and have not been able to find any different opinion from the extracts given. The Presbyterian churches have departed from their standards on this question and it is simple honesty to acknowledge it. We are at liberty to amend the Confession, but we have no right to distort it and to pervert its grammatical and historical meaning."

 

CHAPTER III.

CALVINISM CONTRADICTS THE BIBLE BY DECLARING SAVING FAITH TO BE A DIRECT GIFT OF GOD.

 

"In order that Christ may do anything for a man, he everywhere prescribes an absolutely necessary condition. This condition is faith. Christ always says: 'If you would be saved by me, you must believe me.' .... So always between all that Christ can do and longs to do for men and the men themselves rises this inevitable and rocky condition, faith ..... Christ respects a man's free volition. Faith is that movement of the soul through which it passes into surrender to him and seizure of him. Faith is the appropriating faculty. Without faith, nothing in religion is possible; with faith, everything is possible, because by faith the soul allows the incoming and the energy of the saving Christ."--Rev. Wayland Hoyt, D. D.

 

Having considered the Atonement as the foundation of God's universal offer of mercy, it is now in order to turn our attention to that which secures to the individual, the blessings of Christ's death, namely, Saving Faith.

 

SECTION I.

Calvinism Declares that Faith is Not a Condition of Salvation.

 

This affirmation is emphatically denied by some Calvinists among whom is the Rev. Robert Aikman, D.D. In his article "The Position of Calvinism," he says: "Now the decrees of salvation are unconditional as being the self-originated, independent purposes of the divine mind, but the salvation which is decreed is a salvation whose conditions are faith, repentance and love ..... There are none who endeavor more fully to proclaim the conditions of salvation than we do."

The whole subject depends on the question, What is meant by the term "conditions"? Evidently by it Dr. Aikman means one thing, while Arminians mean something totally different. Dr. Aikman probably means that as long as faith, repentance and love are not exercised by the individual, salvation is not bestowed. True, this may be a condition in a certain restricted sense: but as thus understood, the source of the given condition is never sought. Or in other words, according to Calvinism God's election to salvation is orderly; the elect are not separated from the non-elect until God gives them repentance, faith and love. These graces are the outward conditions or occasions of the secret, irresistible love of God. He makes the universal promise to save all who will believe, and in the elect he fulfills the condition by giving them repentance, faith and love; as a consequence they are known as among the redeemed. This is a distinction without a valid difference, for if the divine, irresistible grace makes good the conditions, the individual has not performed them, and hence, salvation is really unconditional. That this is all the conditionality of salvation allowed by Calvinism, I shall now attempt to prove.

In chapter second of Part First I discussed at length the question "Are God's Decrees Conditional or Unconditional"? I there made it clear that every Calvinistic writer from Augustine to Dr. Charles Hodge had taught that the decrees were unconditional. Inasmuch therefore as salvation is an essential part of the decrees, and especially as Dr. Dabney has informed us that the decrees are one, the conclusion is irresistible that salvation is unconditional. But it may be profitable to notice what a few of these writers say concerning faith, repentance and love as conditions of salvation. John Sladen taught "Faith and repentance are not the conditions of God's decreeing salvation to any, but the qualifications of the persons whom God has absolutely decreed to save." Andrew Fuller says: "The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination supposes that holiness of heart and life are as much the object of divine appointment as future happiness, and that the connection can never be broken." The following from Dr. Griffin clearly shows that I have correctly defined what Calvinists mean by "condition." "Faith (the condition of salvation) and holiness generally, instead of being independent acts of the creature under the persuasions of the Spirit, are the gift of God." The following is from Dr. John Dick and admirably sets forth both views. "l remark once more that the decrees of God are absolute and unconditional.... Here we have many opponents, Lutherans, Arminians, Jesuits ..... When he decreed to save those who should believe, he decreed to give them faith ..... That any decree is conditional in the sense of our opponents, that it depends upon the will of man, of which he is sovereign, so that he may will or not will as he pleases, we deny." Dr. George Duffield declares "New School Presbyterians do not affirm that faith foreseen is the condition with God for his decree of election." Dr. Venema says, "The act of the decree is absolute; not uncertain or doubtful. It is not suspended on any condition on the part of man." Moreover, this is precisely what Dr. Aikman believes and has said; for on page 313 of his article from which I have quoted, he gives the view of Dr. N. W. Taylor, "The orthodox doctrine is not that God has purposed to save a part of mankind on condition of foreseen repentance and faith," heartily indorsing it by saying, "If this is 'modified Arminianism' some of us would be happy to have it pervade all the pulpits of the Methodist Episcopal Church."

Against this view the Arminian strongly protests. He affirms that God has made provision for the salvation of all; has promised to save all who will repent of their sins and exercise faith in his only begotten Son: that this condition must be fulfilled by each individual under the influences of the Holy Spirit. This being man's duty, God can not save unless it has been performed; hence so far forth as man will not believe, will not exercise faith in the Saviour, to that same degree is the desire of God thwarted. Were all men to meet the required condition, the ideal plan of God would become the actual. Having thus briefly outlined the contents of this chapter, I shall attempt to show that this is the teaching of Scripture.

 

SECTION II.

The Importance of Faith

On this subject the words of Dr. Charles Hodge are admirable: he says, "As so much prominence is assigned to faith in the Scriptures, as all the promises of God are addressed to believers, and as all the conscious exercises of spiritual life involve the exercise of faith, without which they are impossible, the importance of this grace can not be overestimated. To the theologian and to the practical Christian it is indispensa