aiifi Switzerland. The professors of the University of Leyden, Andreas Rivet and Frederick Spanheim, were especially prominent among the opposers of the innovations of the French theologians. The clergy of Geneva drew up a protest in the form of a Consen- sus of the Helvetic Churches which received symbolical author- ity. The doctrines against which this protest was directed are, (1.) That God, out of general benevolence towards men, and not out of special love to his chosen people, determined to redeem all mankind, provided they should repent and believe on the appointed Redeemer. Hence the theory was called hypothetical universal- ism. (2.) That the death or work of Christ had no special refer- ence to his own people ; it rendered the salvation of no man cer- tain, but the salvation of all men possible. (3.) As the call of the gospel is directed to all men, all have the power to repent and believe. (4.) God foreseeing that none, if left to themselves, would repent, determines of his own good pleasure to give saving grace to some and not to others. This is the principal distinguish- ing feature between the theory of these French theologians and of the Semi-Pelagians and Remonstrants. The former admit the sovereignty of God in election ; the latter do not.
This system necessitates a thorough change in the related doc- trines of the gos))el. If fallen men have power to repent and be- lieve, then original sin (subjectively considered) does not involve absolute spiritual death. If this be so, then mankind are not sub- ject to the death threatened to Adam. Therefore, there is no immediate imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity. As they derive a polluted nature from him, which is the ground of the dis- pleasui-e of God, they may so far be said to share in his sin. This is mediate imputation. Again, if the death of Christ does not render certain the salvation of his people, then it was not vicarious in the proper sense of that word ; nor did He die as a substitute. His satisfaction assumes of necessity the character of a general display, a didactic exhibition of truth. At least this is the logical tendency, and the actual historical consequence of the theory. Moreover, if Christ did not act as the substitute and representative of his people, there is no ground for the imputation of his right- eousness to them. The French theologians, therefore, denied that his active obedience is thus imputed to believers. The merit of his death may be said to be thus imputed as it is the ground of the forgiveness of sin. This of course destroys the idea of justification by merging it into an executive act of pardon. Moreover, the principles on which this theory is founded, require that as every
728 PART m. Ch. XIV.— vocation.
other provision of the gospel is general and universal, so also the call must be. But as it is undeniable that neither the written word nor the preached gospel has extended to all men, it must be assumed that the revelation of God made in his works, in his prov- idence, and in the constitution of man, is adequate to lead men to all the knowledge necessary to salvation ; or, that the supernatui'al teaching and guidance of the Spirit securing such knowledge must be granted to all men. It is too obviously inconsistent and unrea- sonable to demand that redemption must be universal, and ability universal as the common heritage of man, and j'et admit that the knowledge of that redemption and of what sinners are required to do in the exercise of their ability, is confined to comparatively few. The " Formula Consensus Helvetica," therefore, includes in its pro- test the doctrine of those " qui vocationem ad salutem non sola Evangelii prsedicatione, sed naturae etiam ac Providently operibns, citra ullum exterius praeconium expediri sentiunt," etc.^ It is not wonderful, therefore, that this diluted form of Augustinianism should be distasteful to the great body of the Reformed Churches. It was rejected universally except in France, where, after repeated acts of censure, it came to be tolerated.
Supernaturalism and Rationalism.
The departure from the doctrines of the church standards of tb<* Protestant churches began early, with the decline of vital godli- ness. The only stable foundation for truth is either the external authority of the Chui'ch tolerating no dissent, or the inward testi- mony of the Spirit, the unction of the Holy One which both teaches and convinces. The former from its nature can secure only apparent conformity or the assent of indifference. Living faith can come only from a life-giving source.
The first great change was effected by the introduction of the Wolf-Leibnitzian method into theology. Wolf assumed that all the truths of religion, even its highest mysteries, were truths of the reason, and capable of being demonstrated to the reason. This was a complete revolution. It changed the foundation of faith from the testimony of God in his Word and by his Spirit, to the testimony of our own feeble, insignificant reason. No wonder that a building resting on such a foundation, first tottered, and then fell. If the demonstration of the doctrine of the Trinity from the truths of the reason failed to convince, the doctrine was rejected. So of all the other great doctrines of revelation, and so especially
1 XX. ; Niemeyer, CoUectio Confessionum, Leipzig, 1840, p. 737.
§ 7.] fflSTORY OF THE DOCTRINE. 729
of the Scriptural doctrines of sin and grace. A class of Rational- ists was therefore soon formed ; some rejecting ev^erything su])er- natiu-al, all prophecy, immediate revelation, inspiration, nnracles, and divine influence other than what was mediate and providential ; and others, while admitting a supernatural revelation supernaturally authenticated, still maintained that the truths of such revelation were only those of natural religion, ail others being explained away or rejected as accommodations to the modes of thinking and speak- in it in i^ast ao-es. This change was of course o;radual. The Ra- tionalists jiroper soon came to deny any supernatural influence of the Spirit of God in the convei'sion of men. Being Theists, and admitting that God exercises a providential efficiency, not only in the external world, but also in the support and guidance of free agents, — an efficiency which is natural, as operatino; in accordance witli natural laws, they I'eferred all that the Scriptures teach and all that the Church teaches of the operations of grace, to the general iiead of jjrovidence. God does no more and no less in the conver- sion of men than He does in their education, and in furthering their success in life, or in causing the rain to fall and the grass to grow. In denying the Scriptural account of the fall of man, the Rationalists rejected the foundation on which the whole Scriptural scheme of redemption rested.
The Supernaturalists, although united against the Ratioi^alists, differed very much among themselves. Some stood on the divid- ing line, admitting supernatural intervention on the part of God, in revelation and in grace, not because asserted in the Scriptures, but because consistent -with reason, and because probable and desirable. Thus Bretschneider says in reference to grace, " Reason finds the immediate operation of God on the souls of men for their illumina- tion and im[)rovement, not only possible, but probable. As God stands in connection with the external world, and in virtue of his infinitely perfect life constantly operates therein ; so must He also stand in connection with the moral world, or there could be no mora! government. But as his working in the natural world ap- pears as natural, so tliat we never apprehend his supernatural effi- ciency; thus his operation in the moral world is also natural con- formed to psychological laws, so that we are never conscious of his operation." ^ This divine influence, therefore, he saj's, is simply " moral." " It can consist only in this, that God, thi'ough the ideas which the truth awakens in the soul, rouses it to decide for the good." 2
i HaiuJbuch der Dogmatik, § 185, 3d edit. Leipzig, 1828. vol. ii. p. 600. 2 Ibid. p. 60i.
730 PART m. ch. XIV. — vocation.
Morns ^ makes the reformation of men the work of God in so far that God sustains "• nostrum in usu ductrinse studium," so that it is successful. He attributes to man the abihty to devote himself to this study, and dechires tliat we do not need to determine, " quid et quantum Deus atque homo faciant, ubi aut quando Deus aut homo incipiat, seu desinat, Deus sohis agat, seu homo aliquid con- ferat."