I 122. CONTENDING THEORIES ON PREDESTINATION. 5ol
parable from the immutability of God; while with Augustin it was only a logical inference from his anthropological premises. He began where Augustin ended. To employ a later (Calvinistic) terminology, he was a supralapsarian rather than an infralapsarian. He held a two-fold predestination of the elect to salvation, and of the reprobate to perdition ; not in the sense of two separate predestinations, but one predestination with two sides (ycminay i. c. bipartita\ a positive side (election) and a negative side (reprobation). He could not conceive of the one without the other ; but he did not teach a predestination of the sinner to sin, which would make God the author of sin. In this respect he was misrepresented by Rabanus Maurus.1 In his shorter Confession from his prison, he says : " I believe and confess that God foreknew and foreordained the holy angels and elect men to unmerited eternal life, but that he equally (pariter) foreordained the devil with his host and with all reprobate men, on account of their foreseen future evil deeds, by a just judgment, to merited eternal death." He appeals to passages of the Scrip tures, to Augustin, Fulgent-ins, and Isidor, who taught the very same thing except the pariter. In the larger Confession, which is in the form of a prayer, he substitutes for equally the milder term almost or nearly (propemodum), and denies that God predes tinated the reprobates to sin. " Those, O God/' he says, " of whom thou didst foreknow that they would persist by their own misery in their damnable sins, thou didst, as a righteous judge, predes tinate to perdition." He spoke of two redemptions, one com mon to the elect and the reprobate, another proper and special
1 Rabanus makes Gottschalk teach a " pradestinatio Dei, sicitt in bono, xic it a et in malo, , . quasi Deus eos [rf probes'] fecfaet ah initio incorrigibiles" But even Hincmar concedes (De Prcrd.> c. lo, in Migne 125, col. 126) that the prcdestinarians of his day (moderni Prcedestinatiani) taught only a predestination of the reprobates ad inter it urn, not ad peccatitm. Cardinal Noris and Heftle (IV. 140) admit the perversion of Gottpchalk's words in malam partem by Rabanus. The same charge of making God the author of sin by prede>tinating and crea ting men for sin and damnation, lias again and again been raised against 8Qpralapsarians and Calvinists generally, in spite of their express denial.
532 FOURTH PERIOD. A. D. 590-1049.
for the elect only. In similar manner the Calvinists, in their controversy with the Arminians, maintained that Christ died efficiently only for the elect, although sufficiently for all men.
His predestinarian friends brought out the difference in God's relation to the good and the evil more clearly. Thus Ratramnus says that God was the author (auctor) as well as the ruler (ordinator) of good thoughts and deeds, but only the ruler, not the author, of the bad. He foreordained the punishment of sin, not sin itself (poenam, not peccatum). He directs the course of sin, and overrules it for good. He used the evil counsel of Judas as a means to bring about the crucifixion and through it the redemption. Lupus says that God foreknew and permitted Adam's fall, and foreordained its consequences, but not the fall itself. Magister Florus also speaks of a prcedestinatio gemina, yet with the emphatic distinction, that God predestinated the elect both to good works and to salvation, but the reprobate only to punishment, not to sin. He was at first ill-informed of the teaching of Gottschalk, as if he had denied the meritum damnationis. Remigius censured the "temerity" and "untimely loquacity" of Gottschalk, but defended him against the inhu man treatment, and approved of all his propositions except the unqualified denial of freedom to do good after the fall, unless he meant by it that no one could use his freedom without the grace of God. He subjected the four chapters of Hincmar to a severe criticism. On the question whether God will have all men to be saved without or with restriction, and whether Christ died for all men or only for the elect, he himself held the par ticularistic view, but was willing to allow freedom of opinion, since the church had not decided that question, and the Bible admitted of different interpretations.1
The Synod of Valence, which met at the request of the Em-
1 The particularists appealed to the passage Matt. 26: 26, pro multis iroMtiv, without the article), and understood it in the restricted sense as dis tinct from pro omnibus; while they arbitrarily restricted the omnes (navTeg) in I Tim. 2 : 3 and similar passages.