This view represents God as loving the non-elect sufficiently to give them his Son to die for them, but not loving them enough to give them faith and repentance. It represents him as purposing that all men should be ‘saved on condition of faith—a condition known to be impossible ; and at the same time purposing that a large proportion of the race redeemed at such cost should remain in ignorance of the gospel, and of the conditions upon which participation in its. benefits is suspended.* It represents the all-perfect sacrifice as saving no one, and as depending upon a subsequent decree of election for its very partial success. It represents God as will- _ing at the same time that all men be saved and that only the elect be saved. It denies, in opposition to the Arminian, that any of God’s decrees are conditioned upon the self-determined will of the creature, and yet puts into the mouths of professed Calvinists the very catch-words of the Arminian system, such as wniversal grace, the conditional will of God, wriversal redenvption, &e., &c. Although this scheme has been held by some men of talent, who have been at the same time honest professors of the Calvinistic system and of the true doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement in particular -——as, for instance, Amyraldus, Bishop Davenant, and _ Richard Baxter, &e.—yet the judgment of the Methodist theologian Richard Watson is unquestionably true,— that ‘it is the most imconsistent theory to which the at- tempts to modify Calvinism have given rise.” In the case of men otherwise candid and intelligent professors
* Turretin, L. 4, Q. 18, 2 138. { Institutes, vol. i1., p. 411.
CHAPTER IV.
350 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
of orthodoxy, these distinctions amount to nothing but words ; and therefore do not indicate a state of faith to which the predicate heretical properly applies. When Amyraldus and Testardus were brought before the Synod of Alencgon (4.D. 1637) to answer for the “ Novel- ties” wherewith they had greatly disturbed the peace of the Reformed Churches, they explained away their distinctions in terms which satisfied the most orthodox. “They declared that Jesus Christ died for all men suf- ficiently, but for the elect only effectually ; and that consequently his intention was to die for all men in respect to the sufficiency of his satisfaction, but for the elect only with respect to its quickening and saving virtue and efficacy. . : . .. And as for the conditional decree, they declared that they never did understand anything than God’s will revealed in his Word to give grace and life unto believers.”* This declaration re- duces the whole matter to the old Calvinistic common- place, that the work of Christ is sufficient for all, adapted to all, and honestly offered to all, but not intended for all, nor provided for the sake of all) When used by men otherwise orthodox this ‘‘ Novelty” is, therefore, not heresy, but an evidence of absurdly confused thought and disordered language upon the subject. The serious objection to it is, that 2¢ necessarily involves the use of language which properly and by common usage is signifi- cant of Arnunian error, Its use generally marks a state of transition from comparative orthodoxy to more serious error. It often covers a secret sympathy with heresies not distinctly avowed. In latter years it has been gener- ally associated with radically defective views as to the nature of the Atonement. It is of no use, for if it means no heresy, it relieves the hardness of no truth, Every competent thinker knows that the whole difficulty
* Quick’s Synodicon, vol. ii., p. 854.
OPINION OF CALVINISTS. 351
as well as strength of Calvinism les in the conception cuarter of an eternal, all-comprehensive, absolute purpose, deter- mining all things, alike physical and moral. The gloss
we are considering fails to conciliate Socinians or Armi- nians, while it alienates true Calvinists. The experi- enced shun it because they know how often it conceals serious error. In France the national development of this error was cut short by the revocation of the Edict
of Nantes (A.D. 1685); while in England, Scotland, and America, the same language and the same arguments
are used to mark the boundary-lines of a system of error which explorers have discovered to transect all the zones
of modified Calvinism, Arminianism, and radical Pela- gianism.
2. The famous work entitled Marrow of Modern Doctrine Divinity was published in England in 1646. In 1718 Sianow it was republished in Scotland, with a recommendatory mere preface by the Rev. James Hogg of Carnock ; and again reference in 1726, with copious explanatory notes by the Rev. cnenoue Thomas Boston of Ettrick—-which last edition was re- produced a few years ago by our Board of Publication.