Testardus, in connection with the theological school of ea Saumur, France, during the first half of the seventeenth century. The two latter, in whose writings this pecu- liarity was specially developed and made -ldle over and over again professed their cordial acquiescence with the rigidly Calvinistic deliverances of the Synod of Dort, and their irreconcilable opposition to Arminianism. Their own system was generally styled Universalismus Hypo- theticus—an hypothetic or conditional universalism. They taught that there were two wills or purposes in God in respect to man’s salvation. The one will is a purpose to provide, at the cost of the sacrifice of his own Son, salvation for each and every human being without excep- tion, if they believe-—a condition foreknown to be uni- versally and certainly impossible. The other will is an absolute purpose, depending only upon his own sovereign good pleasure, to secure the certain salvation of a defi- nite number, and to grant them all the gifts and graces necessary to that end. “This synthesis of a real parti- cularism with a merely zdeal unwersalism (not really saving a single individual)—that is, the addition of a merely ideal universalism to the orthodox acknowledged Calvinistic Dordrecht system of doctrine—is the peculia- rity of Amyraldism.”’*
In the controversies consequent upon the appearance of these views it was customary to contrast the different conceptions entertained by the two parties as to the divine purpose in the following manner: The great body of the Reformed theologians conceived that the eternal purpose of God as to man’s salvation might be represented thus: He purposed to create man; then to permit him to fall; then out of the great mass of fallen and equally guilty and helpless men, he, moved by an unparalleled personal love, out of the mere good pleasure
* Schweitzer in Herzog’s Encyclopedia.
CHAPTER IV.
a)
Doctrine of Amyr- aldus, and its reception by the French Synod.
348 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
of his will elected some to eternal life and to all the means thereof; and then, in order to accomplish this purpose of electing love, he gave his Son to redeem his people by his death.* Here all is consistent. There are no two inconsistent purposes; no inefficacious will; no love making infinite sacrifices for its objects, yet sus- pending their participation in the benefits thereof upon conditions known to be impossible; and no conditional decrees in the infinite God; but one single, consistent, sovereign purpose, logically pursued from beginning to end.
Amyraldus, on the other hand, unfolded his concep- tion of the divine purposes in this manner: God pur- posed to create man, then to permit him to fall, then out of a general love for all men he gave his Son to die for all, and to secure their salvation on the condition of their believing on him; but foreseeing that, if left to themselves, not one of the whole race would believe, and thus the redemption of Christ utterly fail of its end, and moved by a special personal love for the elect, he sovereignly determined to give them special grace to lead them to faith, and hence certainly to secure their salvation., According to this view, there are two dis- tinct purposes respecting salvation in the divine mind from eternity ;—the general purpose, which concerns the human race as a whole without making any discrimina- tion of persons; the special purpose, selecting out of the mass certain persons and appointing them to salva- tion. The general purpose has respect to objective grace, which it gives to all alike ;—the special purpose has respect to subjective grace, which it gives alone to the elect. The general purpose respects the removing that
* Turretin, L.-4, Q: 18,411. ; + Dissert. Theol. Quatuor, Salm. 1645. Exercitatio de Gratia Univer- sali. Salm. 1646.
OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 349
external impediment to salvation out of the way of all curzer - which results from their inability to satisfy divine jus- — tice ;—the special purpose respects the removing out of
the way of the elect that internal impediment which results from their inability to believe.*