' n 
 
 A 
 
 K. 
 
 THE 
 
 rROPOSED REVISION 
 
 OP THE 
 
 WESTMINSTER STANDARDS 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D. 
 
 BX 
 \ 9183 
 ; .S54 
 
 1890 
 
 I- 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1890 \ 
 
{•P ! 
 
 ^7. 10. 19 ^ 
 
 OiCALS^. 
 
 BX 
 
 9183 
 
 .35^ 
 
 1890 
 
 
 She 
 
 dd, W 
 
 illiam Greenough 
 
 
 Th 
 
 ayer, 
 
 1820 
 
 -1894. 
 
 
 The 
 
 prop 
 
 osed 
 
 revision of 
 
 the 
 
 T J/cv c ■<- m -i n 
 
 ■i c f- c\y 
 
 Q,4- o tn /^ o y A c 
 
 
DR. SHEDD'S WORKS. 
 
 Dogmatic Theology. 
 
 Two vols., 8vo, • • §7.00 
 
 A History of Christian Doctrine. 
 
 Two vols., crown 8vo. Seventh Edition, • • • 5.00 
 
 Homiletics and Pastoral Theology. 
 
 Crown 8vo. Ninth Edition, . • • • • 2.50 
 
 Literary Essays (with Portrait). 
 
 Crown 8vo. Revised Edition, • • • * • 2.50 
 
 Theological Essays. 
 
 Crown Svo. Revised Edition, . • • • • 2.50 
 
 Commentary on Romans. 
 
 Crown Svo, ...••••• 2.50 
 
 Sermons to the Natural Man, 
 
 Crown Svo. Third Edition. . . • • • 2.50 
 
 Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 
 
 Crown Svo, ....■••* 2.50 
 
 The Doctrine of Endless Punishment. 
 
 Crown Svo, ......«• 1.50 
 
THE 
 
 JUL 10 I9l,q 
 
 PROPOSED REVISION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 WESTMINSTER STANDARDS 
 
 BY 
 
 WILLIMI G. T. SHEDD, D.D. 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 1890 
 
COPYEIGHT, 1890, BY 
 
 CHAELES SCRIBNER'S SONS 
 
 ■rR0W3 
 
 PRINTING AND BOOKBINDING COMPANY, 
 
 NEW YORK. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 The distinction between doctrines and persons, projects 
 and their advocates, is a valid one. One may have little 
 or no confidence in a doctrine or a project, and yet have 
 confidence in an advocate of it, becanse a person may be 
 different in his spirit and intention from the nature and 
 tendency of his doctrine, while his doctrine is a fixed 
 quantity. Coleridge, in a conversation with a Unitarian 
 friend said : " I make the greatest difference between ans 
 and isms. I should deal insincerely with yon, if I said 
 that I thought Unitarianism is Christianity ; but God 
 forbid that I should doubt that you and many other 
 Unitarians are in a practical sense very good Christians." 
 (Table Talk, April 4, 1832.) This distinction is impor- 
 tant in the present controversy. "When the opponent of 
 revision asserts that revision is anti-Calvinistic in its logic 
 and tendency.^ he does not assert that all of its advocates 
 are anti-Calvinists. The writer of these papers believes 
 that the natural and inevitable effect of the proposed 
 changes in the Confession, will be more or less to weaken 
 and break down the Calvinistic system contained in it, 
 and endeavors to prove it ; but he does not believe or say 
 that this is the desire or intention of many who urge 
 them. 
 
 The spirit of revision, which it is so often said is ^' in 
 the air," is pervading Pan-Presbyterianism. If it pre- 
 
iv PREFACE. 
 
 vails, there can be little doubt that the historical Calvin- 
 ism of the past will be considerably modified ; and doc- 
 trinal modification is an inclined plane. In a materialistic 
 age, when the Calvinistic type of doctrine is vehemently 
 opposed, the Presbyterian Church should not modify the 
 creed from which it has derived its past solidarity and 
 power, but should reaffirm it ; and non-revision is reaf- 
 firmation. 
 
 New York, February 33, 1890. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Inexpediency of the Revision op the Westminster Con- 
 fession, 1 
 
 Objections to the Reyision of the Westminster Con- 
 fession, .13 
 
 Are there Doctrinal Errors in the Westminster Con- 
 fession ? 18 
 
 The Westminster Standards and the Universal Offer 
 of Mercy, 24 
 
 The Meaning and Value of the Doctrine of Decrees, . 30 
 
 What is the Sovereignty of God in Election ? . . .72 
 
 The Westminster Standards and the "Larger Hope," . 78 
 
THE PROPOSED REVISION 
 
 OF THK 
 
 WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 
 
 I. 
 
 INEXPEDIENCY OF THE REVISION OF THE WESTMINSTER 
 
 CONFESSION.! 
 
 The question whetlier tlie Westminster Confession 
 shall be revised, has been referred to the whole Church 
 represented by the presbyteries. The common sentiment 
 of the denomination must determine the matter. The 
 expression of opinion during the few months prior to the 
 presbyterial action is, therefore, of consequence. It is 
 desirable that it should be a full expression of all varieties 
 of views, and as a contribution towards it, we purpose 
 to assign some reasons why the revision of the Confession 
 is not expedient. 
 
 1. In the first place it is inexpedient, because in its ex- 
 isting form as drawn up by tlie Westminster Assembly it 
 has met, and well met, all the needs of the Cliurch for the 
 past two centuries. The Presbyterian Church in the 
 United States since 1700 has passed througli a varied and 
 sometimes difficult experience. The controversies in the 
 
 ' New York Evangelist, September 5, 1889. 
 
2 THE PEOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 beginning between tlie Old and Kew Lights, and still 
 more the vehement disputes that resulted in the division 
 of the Church in 1837, have tried the common symbol as 
 severely as it is ever likely to be. But through them all 
 both theolosfical divisions were content with the Confes- 
 sion and Catechisms as they stood, and both alike claimed 
 to be true to them. J^either party demanded a revision 
 on any doctrinal points ; and both alike found in them a 
 satisfactory expression of their 'faith. What is there in 
 the Presbyterian Church of to-day that necessitates any 
 different statement of the doctrine of decrees, of atone- 
 ment, of regeneration, or of punishment, from that ac- 
 cepted by the Presbyterian Church of 1837, or 1789 ? Are 
 the statements upon these points any more liable to mis- 
 conception or misrepresentation by non-Calvinists now 
 than they were fifty or a hundred years ago ? Are there 
 any more "weak consciences" requiring softening expla- 
 nations and relaxing clauses in the Church of to-day than 
 in former periods ? And with reference to the allowable 
 differences of theological opinion within the Presbyterian 
 Church, is not a creed that was adopted and defended by 
 Charles Hodge and Albert Barnes sufficiently broad to 
 include all who are really Calvinistic and Presbyterian in 
 belief ? "What is tliere, we repeat, in the condition of the 
 Presbyterian Church of to-day that makes the old Con- 
 fession of the past two hundred years inadequate as a doc- 
 trinal Standard ? All the past successes and victories of 
 Presbyterianism have been accomplished under it. Suc- 
 cess in the past is guaranty for success in the future. Is 
 it not better for the Church to work on the very same old 
 base, in the very same straight line ? 
 
 2. Eevision is inexpedient, because the reunion of the 
 two divisions of the Church was founded upon the Con- 
 fession as it now stands. A proposition to unite the two 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. o 
 
 brandies of Presbyterianism by first revising the "West- 
 minster documents would have failed, because in the re\ i- 
 sion individual and party preferences would have shown 
 themselves. But when the Standards pure and simple 
 were laid down as the only terms of union, the whole mass 
 ^of Presbyterians flowed together. It is to be feared that if 
 a revision of the Confession should take place, there will be 
 a dissatisfied portion of the Church who will prefer to re- 
 main upon the historic foundation ; that the existing har- 
 mony will be disturbed ; and that the proposed measures 
 for union with other Presbyterian bodies will fall through. 
 3. Pevision is inexpedient, because it will introduce 
 new difficulties. The explanations will need to be ex- 
 plained. The revision that is called for is said by its 
 more conservative advocates, not to be an alteration of 
 the doctrine of the Confession, but an explanation only. 
 Now good and sufficient explanations of a creed require 
 more space than can be afforded in a concise symbol in- 
 tended for use in inducting officers and members. Such 
 full and careful explanations have been made all along 
 from the beginning, and the Presbyterian Board of Pub- 
 lication has issued a large and valuable library of them. 
 xso one need be in any doubt respecting the meaning of 
 the Confession who will carefully peruse one or more of 
 them. He who is not satisfied with the AYestminster doc- 
 trine as so explained, will not be satisfied with it at all. 
 But if brief explanations are inserted into the Confession 
 itself, their brevity will inevitably expose them to mis- 
 understanding and misconception. Take an illustration. 
 An able minister and divine, whose Calvinism is unim- 
 peachable, suggests that Confession iii. 3 shall read : 
 " By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his 
 glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto ever- 
 lasting life, and othei-s foreordained [for their sins] to 
 
4 THE PROPOSED EEVISIOI^ OF 
 
 everlastins: death." If the clause in brackets is inserted 
 without further explanation, the article might fairly and 
 naturally be understood to teach tliat the reason why God 
 passes by a sinner in the bestowment of regenerating 
 grace is the sinner's sin. But St. Paul expressly says that 
 the sinner's sin is not the cause of his non-election to re- 
 generation. " The children being not yet born, neither 
 having done any good or evil, it was said, The elder 
 shall serve the younger. Esau have I hated" (Kom. 9: 
 11-13). The reason for the difference between the elect 
 and non-elect is not the holiness or the sin of either of 
 them, but God's sovereign good pleasure. " He hath 
 mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will 
 he hardeneth" (Rom. 9 : 18). An explanation like this, 
 without further explanation such as the proposer would 
 undoubtedly make, would not only contradict Scripture, 
 but change the Calvinistic doctrine into the Arminian. 
 The reason for non-election would no lono;er be secret and 
 sovereign, but known and conditional. All this liability 
 to misconstruction is avoided by the Confession itself as 
 it now stands. For in ConfessioTi iii. 7, after saying that 
 tlie " passing by " in tlie bestowment of regenerating 
 grace is an act of God's sovereign pleasure, " w^hereby he 
 extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth," it then 
 adds that "the ordaining to dishonor and wrath^^ is "for 
 sin." Sin is here represented as the reason for the judi- 
 cial act of punishing, but not for the sovereign act of not 
 regenerating. The only reason for the latter, our Lord 
 gives in his, " Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in 
 thy sight." 
 
 Other illustrations might be given of the difficulty of 
 avoiding misconception when a systematic creed is sought 
 to be explained, particularly in its difficult points, by the 
 brief interpolation of words and clauses. The method is 
 
TPIE WESTMINSTER STANDAKDS. 5 
 
 too sliort. Moro s^^ace is required than can be spared. 
 It is better, therefore, to let a carefully constructed and 
 concisely phrased creed like the Westminster stand ex- 
 actly as it was drawn up by the sixty-nine coniniissioners, 
 in the five weekly sessions for nearly nine years, and have 
 it explained, qualified, and defended in published trea- 
 tises, in sermons, and especially in catechetical lectures. 
 Had the ministry been as faithful as it should in years 
 past in catechetical instruction, there would be little dif- 
 ficulty in understanding the Westminster creed. The 
 remedy needed is in this direction, not in that of a re- 
 vision. 
 
 4. Revision is inexpedient, because there is no end to 
 the process. It is like the letting out of water. The doc- 
 trine of the divine decrees is the particular one selected 
 by the presbytery whose request has brought the subject 
 of revision before tlie General Assembly. But this doc- 
 trine runs entirely through the Westminster documents, 
 so that if changes were made merely in the third chapter 
 of the Confession, it would be whollv out of harmonv 
 with the remainder. Effectual calling, regeneration, per- 
 severance of the saints, are all linked in with the divine 
 decree. The most cursory perusal will show that a revi- 
 sion of the Confession on this one subject w^ould amount 
 to an entire recastino; of the creed. 
 
 5. Revision is inexpedient, because it may abridge the 
 liberty of interpretation now afforded by the Confession. 
 As an example of the variety in explanation admitted by 
 the creed as it now stands, take the statement that " God 
 the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the beginning, 
 created or made from nothing the world, and all things 
 therein, in the space of six days." He who holds the 
 patristic view that the days of Genesis were periods, and 
 he who holds the modern opinion that the days were 
 
6 THE PEOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 solar, can subscribe to tlie Westminster statement. But 
 if revised in the interest of either view, the subscriber is 
 shut up to it alone. Another example is found in the 
 statement respecting the guilt of Adam's sin. The advo- 
 cate of natural union, or of representative union, or of 
 both in combination, can find a foothold, provided only 
 that he holds to the 'penal nature of the first sin. An- 
 other instance is the article concerning " elect infants." 
 As the tenet was formulated by the Assembly, it has 
 been understood to mean, (a) that all infants dying in 
 infancy are elected as a class, some being saved by cov- 
 enanted mercy, and some by uncovenanted niercy ; (b) 
 that all infants dying in infancy are elected as a class — all 
 alike, those within the Church and those outside of it, 
 being saved by divine mercy, nothing being said of the 
 covenant ; (c) that djdng infants are elected as individ- 
 uals, some being elect, and some non-elect. Probably 
 each of these opinions liad its representatives in the 
 Assembly, and hence the indefinite form of the state- 
 ment. The writer regards the first-mentioned view as 
 best supported by Scripture and the analogy of faith ; 
 but there are many who advocate the second view, and 
 perhaps there may be some who hold the third. The 
 libert}^ of opinion now conceded by the Confession on a 
 subject respecting which tlie Scripture data are few, 
 would be ill-exchanged for a statement that would admit 
 of but one interpretation. 
 
 6. Kevision is inexpedient, because the Westminster 
 Confession, as it now reads, is a sufiiciently broad and 
 liberal creed. AVe do not say^hat it is sufiiciently broad 
 and liberal for every man and every denomination ; but 
 it is as broad and liberal for a Calvinist as any Calvinist 
 should desire. For whoever professes Calvinism, professes 
 a precise form of doctrine. He expects to keep within 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 7 
 
 definite metes and bounds ; he is not one of those religion- 
 ists who start from no premises, and come to no con- 
 chisions, and hold no tenets. The Presbyterian Chnrch 
 is a Calvinistic Chnrch. It will be the beginning of its 
 decline, as it already has been of some Calvinistic denom- 
 inations, when it begins to swerve from this dogmatic 
 position. It mnst therefore be distingnished among the 
 Churches for doctrinal consistency, comprehensiveness, 
 and firmness. But inside of tlie metes and bounds es- 
 tablished by divine revelation, and to which it has vol- 
 untarily confined itself, it has a liberty that is as large 
 as the kingdom of God. It cannot get outside of that 
 kingdom, and should not desire to. But within it, it is 
 as free to career as a ship in the ocean, as an eagle in the 
 air. Yet the ship cannot sail beyond the ocean, nor the 
 eagle fly beyond the sky. Liberty within the immeasura- 
 ble bounds and limits of God's truth, is the only true 
 liberty. All else is license. The Westminster Con- 
 fession, exactly as it now reads, has been the creed of as 
 free and enlarged intellects as ever lived on earth. The 
 substance of it was the strons^ and fertile root of the two 
 freest movements in modern history: that of the Protes- 
 tant Keformation and that of Hepublican Government. 
 Xo Presbyterian should complain that the creed of his 
 Church is narrow and stiflins:. 
 
 And here we notice an objection urged against the 
 Confession relative to the tenet of limited redemption. 
 It is said that it is not sufficiently broad and liberal in 
 aimouncing the boundless compassion of God towards all 
 men indiscriminatelv, and in invitin<x all men without 
 exception to cast themselves upon it. But read and 
 ponder the following statements : 
 
 " Pepentance unto life is an evangelical grace, the doc- 
 trine whereof is to be preached in season and out of 
 
8 THE niOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 season bj every minister of tlie gospel, as well as that 
 of faith in Christ. It is every man's duty to endeavor to 
 repent of his particular sins, particularly. Every man is 
 bound to make private confession of his sins to God, 
 praying for the pardon thereof, npon which, and the 
 forsaking of them, he shall find mercy. Prayer, with 
 thanksgiving, being one special part of religious worship, 
 is by God required of all men. Prayer is to be made for 
 all sorts of men living, or that shall live hereafter, but not 
 for the dead. God is to be worshipped everywhere in 
 spirit and in truth, and in secret each one by himself. 
 God in his Word, by a positive moral commandment, binds 
 all men in all ages. The grace of God is manifested in the 
 second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offer- 
 eth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation in him. 
 The ministry of the gospel testifies that whosoever be- 
 lieves in Christ shall be saved, and excludes none that 
 wnll come nnto him, God is able to search the heart, 
 hear the requests, pardon the sins, and fulfil the desires, 
 of all." 
 
 These declarations, scattered broadcast through the 
 Westminster Confession and Catechisms, teach the uni- 
 versality of the Gospel, except no human creature from 
 the offer of it, and exclude no human creature from its 
 benefits. Their consistency w^ith the doctrine of election 
 is assumed, but not explained, in the Confession of Faith. 
 And no revision of this by the mere interpolation of a few 
 words or clauses, will make the subject any clearer, or 
 stop all objections. 
 
 '7. Pevision is inexpedient, because the Westminster 
 Standards already make full provision for those ex- 
 ceptional cases, on account of which revision is claimed 
 by its advocates to be needed. It is said that there are 
 some true believers in the Lord Jesns Christ, who cannot 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STAN1-)AKDS. 
 
 adopt all the AVestminster statements, who 3'et should not 
 be, and actually are not, excluded from the Presbyterian 
 Church ; that there are tender consciences of good men, 
 whose scruples are to be respected. But these cases are 
 referred by the Form of Government to the chureli 
 session, and power is given to it to receive into member- 
 ship any person who trusts in the blood of Christ for tlie 
 remission of sin, although his doctrinal knowledge and 
 belief may be unsatisfactory on some points, lie nuiy 
 stumble at predestination, but if with the publican he 
 cries " God be merciful to me a sinner," he has the root 
 of the matter in him, and is a regenerate child of God. 
 But why should the whole Presbyterian Church revise its 
 entire creed, so as to make it fit these exceptional cases? 
 "Why should the mountain go to Mohammed ? Why 
 should a genuine but deficient evangelical knowledge and 
 experience be set up as the type of doctrine for the whole 
 denomination ? These "babes in Christ" need the educa- 
 tion of the full and complete system of truth, and should 
 gradually be led up to it, instead of bringing the system 
 down to their level. There is sometimes a misconception 
 at this point. We have seen it stated that the member- 
 ship of the Presbyterian Church is not required or ex- 
 pected to hold the same doctrine with the officers ; that 
 the pastor, elders, and deacons must accept the Confession 
 of Faith " as containing the system of doctrine taught in 
 the Holy Scriptures,"' but that the congregation need not. 
 But this error arises from confounding the toleration of a 
 deficiency with the endorsement of it. Because a churcli 
 session tolerates in a particular person, who gives evidence 
 of faith in Christ, an error respecting foreordination, or 
 even some abstruse point in the trinity, or the incarna- 
 tion, it does not thereby endorse the error. It does not 
 sanction his opinion on these subjects, but only endures 
 
10 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 it, in view of his religious experience on the vital points 
 of faith and repentance, and with the hope that his sub- 
 sequent growth in knowledge will bring him to the final 
 rejection of it. The Presbyterian Church tolerates thea- 
 ti'e-going in some of its members : that is to say, it does 
 not discipline them for it. But it does not formally 
 approve of and sanction theatre-going. A proposition to 
 revise the Confession by inserting a clause to this effect, 
 in order to meet the wishes and practice of theatre-go- 
 ing church-members, w^ould be voted down by the pres- 
 byteries. 
 
 The position that the officers of a church may have one 
 creed, and the membership another, is untenable. No 
 church could live and thrive upon it. A Trinitarian 
 clergy preaching to an Arian or Socinian membership, 
 would preach to unwilling hearers. And although the 
 difference is not so great and so vital, yet a Calvinistic 
 clergy preaching to an Arminian membership, or an 
 Arminian clergy to a Calvinistic membership, would on 
 some points find unsympathetic auditors. Pastor and 
 people, officers and members, must be homogeneous in 
 doctrine, in order to a vigorous church-life. If, there- 
 fore, a certain class of members is received into a church, 
 who do not on all points agree with the Church creed, 
 this is not to be understood as giving the members gener- 
 ally a liberty to depart from the Church creed, or to be a 
 reason for revising it.^ 
 
 The case is different with the officers of the church. 
 
 ' The qviestion whether there shall be a short creed to be used in the 
 admission of members into the Church, is entirely distinct from that 
 of revision. Such a creed ought not, of course, to contain anything 
 contradictory to tlie larger creed which makes a part of the constitution 
 of the Church, and is used in the induction of ministers, elders, and 
 theological professors. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 11 
 
 There is no exceptional class in this instance. Neither 
 the session nor the pi-esbjtery have any authority to dis- 
 pense with the acceptance of any part of the Confession 
 of Faith, when a pastor, elder, or deacon is inducted into 
 office. There is no toleration of defective views provided 
 for, wiien those who are to teach and rule the Church are 
 put into the ministry. And this for the good reason that 
 ministers and elders are expected to be so well indoctrin- 
 ated, that they are " apt to teach *' and competent to 
 ''rule well." Some propose "loose subscription" as a 
 remedy, when candidates of lax or unsettled views present 
 themselves for licensure and ordination. This is demor- 
 alizing, and kills all simplicit}^ and godly sincerity. Bet- 
 ter a thousand times for a denomination to alter its creed, 
 than to allow its ministry to " palter with words in a 
 double meaning ; " than to permit an Arian subscription 
 to the Xicene Symbol, an Arminian subscription to the 
 Westminster Confession, a Calvinistic subscription to 
 the Articles of Wesley, a Restorationist subscription to 
 the doctrine of endless punishment. 
 
 For these reasons, it seems to us that the proposed re- 
 vision of the Westminster Confession is not wise or ex- 
 pedient. The revision of a denominational creed is a rare 
 occurrence in ecclesiastical liistory. Commonly a denom- 
 ination remains from first to last upon the base that was 
 laid for it in the beginning by its fathers and founders. 
 And when revision does occur, it is seldom in the direc- 
 tion of fulness and precision. Usually the alteration is 
 in favor of vague and looser statements. Even slight 
 changes are apt to be followed by greater ones. The dis- 
 position to revise and alter, needs watching. In an age 
 when the general drift of the unregenerate world is away 
 from the strong statements of the Hebrew prophets, of 
 Christ and his inspired Apostles, it is of the utmost im- 
 
12 THE PROPOSED PvEVISION OF 
 
 portance that the regenerate Church, in all its denomina- 
 tions, should stand firm in the old paths, and liold fast to 
 that " Word of God which is sharper than a two-edged 
 sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and 
 spirit." 
 
THE AVESTMINSTEll STANDAKDS. 13 
 
 II. 
 
 OBJECTIONS TO THE REVISION OF THE WESTMINSTER 
 
 CONFESSION. 1 
 
 The first question sent down to the presbyteries is the 
 most important of the two; nanielj^, Whether a revision of 
 the Confession is desired. If this is answered in the neg- 
 ative, it will mean that the Presbyterian Church of the 
 present day is satisfied with its ancestral faith, as formu- 
 lated in its Standards, and accords witli the Church of the 
 past in this respect. It will be a formal and positive re- 
 affinnation of the historic Calvinism, at a time when this 
 system of doctrine is charged with being unscriptural, er- 
 roneous, and antiquated by modern theological progress. 
 If it be answered in the afiirmative, it will mean that the 
 Church of the present day is more or less dissatisfied with 
 tlie doctrines of the Westminster Assembly, and is no 
 longer willing to endorse and preach them as that body of 
 divines defined and stated them. Revision is alteration^ 
 more or less. The object is not merely to make sure that 
 the creed just as it stands is understood ; but to modify it 
 either in its structural plan, its component parts, its em- 
 phasis, or its general perspective. The second question, 
 How much revision is desired ? is comparatively of less 
 consequence, because it is the first question alone that 
 decides the vital point, whether the Presbyterian Church 
 
 ^ New York Presbytery, November 20, 1889 ; Northwestern Presby- 
 terian, November 23, 1889. 
 
14 THE PROPOSED REVISIOI^ OF 
 
 lias drifted at all from tlie old anchorage. For this rea- 
 son, we present in a brief form the following objections 
 to the revision of the Westminster Confession ; 
 
 1. Revision is objectionable, because the project origin- 
 ated in too small a fraction of the Chnrch. Only iGlfteen 
 presbyteries out of two hundred and two united in over- 
 turins: the Assemblv in its favor. The remainine^ one 
 hundred and eighty-seven will have to be argued and per- 
 suaded into it. But so important a step as the revision of 
 the doctrinal basis of a denomination should begin in a 
 general uprising of the whole body, and be the spontane- 
 ous and strongly expressed desire of the great majority of 
 its members. The revision of secondary matters, like the 
 form of government and discipline, does not require this 
 in the same degree. As the case li0^Y stands, fifteen 
 presbyteries have asked one hundred and eighty-seven 
 presbyteries if the}^ do not want to amend the Confes- 
 sion. There should have been a far wider dissatisfac- 
 tion with the Standards than this indicates, to initiate re- 
 vision. 
 
 2. Revision is objectionable, because the Confession is a 
 correct statement of " the system of doctrine contained in 
 the Scriptures." The system meant in this phrase is uni- 
 versally known as the Calvinistic ; not as resting upon the 
 authority of Calvin, but as a convenient designation of 
 that interpretation of Scripture which is common to Au- 
 gustine, Calvin, the Reformed theologians, and the West- 
 minster divines. The term "evangelical" does not define 
 it, because there are several evangelical systems, but only 
 one Calvinistic. The systems of Arminius, of Wesley, 
 and of the Later-Lutherans, as well as that of Calvin, are 
 alike evangelical, in distinction from anti-evangelical sys- 
 tems like Socinianism and Deism. They are all alike 
 derived from the Bible, and contain the doctrines of the 
 
Tin: AVKST.MI^^STEU STANDARDS. 15 
 
 trinity, tlio incrivnatioii, the apostasy, and the redemption. 
 But the Calvinistic interpretation of Scriptnre, M'liidi is 
 tlie one forniuhited in tlie Westminster Standards, differs 
 from these other "evangelical'' systems, in teaching un- 
 conditional election and preterition, instead of conditional ; 
 limited redemption (not atonement) instead of nnlimited; 
 regeneration wholly by the Holy Spirit instead of partly ; 
 the total inability of the sinner instead of partial. The 
 Calvinistic system, as thus discriminated from the other 
 "evangelical" systems, has been adopted by American 
 Presbyterians for two centuries. Xeitlier Old Li2:hts, nor 
 Xew Lights ; neither Old School, nor Xew School ; have 
 demanded that these tenets which distinguish Calvinism 
 from Arminianism should be eliminated from the creed. 
 They were accepted with equal sincerity by both branches 
 of the Church in the reunion of ISTO, and there is no rea- 
 son for altering the formulas that were satisfactory then, 
 unless the belief of the Church has altered in regard to 
 these distinctive points of Calvinism. 
 
 3. The revision of the Confession is objectionable, be- 
 cause the principal amendments proposed by its advocates 
 will introduce error into it, so that it will no longer be 
 " the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures." 
 The four following alterations are ni-ged upon the Church : 
 (a) To strike out the doctrine of the sovei-eignty of God 
 in preterition, leaving the doctrine of election unlimited 
 and universal, (b) To retain preterition, but assign as 
 the reason for it the sin of the non-elect, (c) To strike 
 out the statement that the number of the elect and non- 
 elect is ''so certain and definite, that it cannot be increased 
 or diminished" by "angels and men." (d) To strike out 
 the statement that no man who rejects the " Christian re- 
 ligion," or the evangelical method of salvation, can be 
 saved by the legal method of living " according to the 
 
16 THE PEOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 lio-lit of nature," or some system of morality which he 
 " professes." If these changes are made, the Westminster 
 Standards will no longer contain a class of truths that are 
 plainly taught in Scripture, and will cease to be that "sys- 
 tem of doctrine" which these authors had in mind, and to 
 wliicli the present generation of ministers and elders have 
 subscribed like their fathers before them. 
 
 4. Revision is objectionable, because it will be a conces- 
 sion to the enemies of tlie Standards that their aspersions 
 of them are true. The charges that have been made by 
 the opponents of them from time immemorial are, that 
 Calvinisu] represents God as a tyrannical sovereign who 
 is destitute of love and mercy for any but an elect few, 
 that it attributes to man the depravity of devils, deprives 
 him of moral freedom, and subjects him to the arbitrary 
 cruelty of a Being who creates some men in order to damn 
 them. A few ministers and elders within the Presbyte- 
 rian Church endorse these allegations ; and many assert 
 that the Confession contains no universal offer of salva- 
 tion, teaclies that none of the heathen are saved, and that 
 some infants are non-elect and lost. The great reason 
 assigned by such Presbyterians for revising the Standards 
 is, that they inculcate unscriptural and offensive doctrines 
 that cannot be believed or preached. But this is to con- 
 cede that all preceding Presbyterians have been grossly 
 mistaken in denying that the Confession contains such 
 doctrines, either directly or by implication. It is an 
 acknowledgment that one of the most carefully drawn 
 and important of all the Peformed symbols, inculcates in 
 a latent form some of the most repulsive tenets conceiv- 
 able by the human mind. Presbyterians of all schools 
 have hitherto met this calumny on their creed by contra- 
 dicting it, and trying the issue by close reasoning and de- 
 bate. Revision proposes, in the legal phrase, to give a 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 17 
 
 cognovit, admit the cliarge, and alter the standards to suit 
 the enemy who made it. 
 
 5. Revision is objectionable, because it will reopen the 
 old discussions and controversies upon the difficult doc- 
 trines, without resulting in any better definitions of them 
 than they already have in the Church. On the contrary, 
 the great variety of changes that will be urged, from the 
 very conservative to the very radical, will introduce a pe- 
 riod of speculative dispute and disagreement that will 
 seriously impair the existing harmony of the denomina- 
 tion, and divert its attention from the great practical in- 
 terests of Christ's kingdom in which it is now eno^aojed. 
 
 CD CD O 
 
 These five objections, it seems to us, are conclusive 
 reasons why the Presbyterian Church should not alie?', 
 but reaffirm the doctrines of the Westminster Standards, 
 and continue to teach and defend them as they have been 
 by all the past generations of Presbyterians. 
 2 
 
18 THE PROPOSED REVISION OP 
 
 III. 
 
 ARE THERE DOCTRINAL ERRORS IN THE WESTMINSTER 
 
 CONFESSION ? 1 
 
 The strongest reason presented for the revision of the 
 Westminster Confession is the allegation, that the phrase- 
 ology of some of its sections contains serious error, or is 
 liable to be understood as containing it. Is this true ? 
 In order to answer this question, we shall examine a few 
 of the principal sections which are asserted to be errone- 
 ous either in their direct teaching or in their implication. 
 
 1. Confession iii. 3 asserts that " By the decree of God, 
 for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels 
 are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others fore- 
 ordained to everlastino; death." It is contended that this 
 section teaches, or is liable to be understood as teaching, 
 that the decree of God in election and reprobation has no 
 connection with sin and the fall of man, but that God by 
 an arbitrary decree, wholly irrespective of sin, creates 
 some men in order to save them, and some men in order 
 to damn them. To correct this alleged error, or liability 
 of interpretation, several advocates of revision propose to 
 insert the clause, "On account of their sins," to qualify 
 the clause, " Foreordained to everlasting death ; " and 
 one advocate of revision proposes to strike out the entire 
 section concerning election and reprobation. 
 
 We maintain that the Confession neither teaches the 
 
 ^ Philadelphia Presbyterian, October 19, 1889. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 10 
 
 error aforesaid, nor is fairly liable to be understood to 
 teach it. According to Confession iii. 0, both the elect 
 and non-elect are " fallen in Adam," and are thereby in a 
 eonnnon guilty state of sin. The former are delivered 
 out o£ sin by regenerating grace, and the latter are left in 
 sin. Why are the latter left in sin ? Because " God so 
 pleased," is the reason given by the Confession. " On 
 account of their sins," is the reason which the reviser 
 would insert into the Confession. But this, surely, can- 
 not be the reason why God leaves a sinner in his sin. I 
 see two suicides who have flung themselves into the 
 water. I rescue one of them, and the other I let drown. 
 They are both alike in the water, and by their own free 
 agency. But his being in the water, is not the reason 
 why I do not rescue the one whom I let drown. I have 
 some other reason. It may be a good one or a bad one. 
 But whatever it be, it certainly is not because the man is 
 in the water. Similarly God does not leave a sinner in his 
 own voluntary and loved sin because he is in sin. He 
 has some other reason why lie makes this discrimination 
 between two persons, both of whom are in sin, neither of 
 whom has any claim upon his mercy, and neither of 
 whom is more deserving of election and regeneration than 
 the other. God's reason, in this case, we know must be 
 a good one. But it is a secret with himself. The only 
 answer to the inquiry, "Why didst thou elect and regen- 
 erate Saul of Tarsus, and didst not elect and regenerate 
 Judas Iscariot ? " is, " Because it seemed good in my 
 sight." 
 
 The allegation that there is error in this section of the 
 Confession arises from misunderstandins: the meanino; oE 
 the clause, ''Foreordained to everlasting death." It is 
 the omission to regenerate^ not the pimis/unent of sin, that 
 is intended bv it. When God "foreordains" a sinner 
 
20 THE PEOPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 " to everlasting death," he decides to leave him in the sin 
 which deserves everlasting death and results in it. The 
 non-elect sinner has experienced the operation of common 
 grace. It is an error to saj that God shows no kind or 
 deo-ree of mercy to the non-elect. But he has resisted 
 and defeated it. God decides to proceed no further with 
 him by the bestowment of that special grace which regen- 
 ei-atesj and " makes willing in the day of God's power." 
 The elect sinner has also experienced, resisted, and de- 
 feated common grace. God decides to proceed further 
 Avith him, by effectual calling and regeneration. The par- 
 ticular question, therefore, in this paragraph of the Con- 
 fession is, " AVhy does God leave a sinner to his own wilful 
 ^ free agency ? " and not, " Why does God jyunish him for 
 it ? " The answer to the first question Is, " Because of 
 his sovereign good pleasure." The answer to the second 
 is, " Because of the ill-desert of sin." The reason why 
 God omits to take the second step, and exert a yet higher 
 degree of grace after his first step in exerting a lower de- 
 gree has been thwarted by the resistance of the sinner, is 
 entirely different from the reason why he inflicts retribu- 
 tion upon the sinner's sin. This is more fully explained 
 in the seventh section of the third chapter, which should 
 always be read in connection with the third. Here, the 
 reason for God's " passing by," or omitting to regenerate 
 a sinner, is found in " the unsearchable counsel of his own 
 will whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he 
 pleaseth." This first negative part of reprobation, which 
 is properly called '* preterition," is not qualified by the 
 clause, " for their sin," as the correct punctuation in the 
 Board's edition shows. This latter clause qualifies only 
 the sentence, " And to ordain them to dishonor and 
 wrath." Sinners are jpunished " for their sin," but sin is 
 not the reason why God does not regenerate them. If sin 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 21 
 
 were the reason for non-election, holiness, logically, would 
 be the reason for election. If some men are not reaen- 
 erated because they are unbelieving, others would be re- 
 generated because they are believing. This is the Ar- 
 minian doctrine, not the Calviuistic ; and this is the 
 reason why the Westminster Assembly did 7iot qualify the 
 words, " pass by," by the proposed clause, " for their 
 sins," but left " passing by," or " foreordination to ever- 
 lasting death," to be a purely sovereign act according to 
 " the good pleasure " of God. 
 
 2. Confession iii. 4 teaches that " the angels and men 
 thus predestinated and foreordained are particularly and 
 unchangeably designed ; and their number is so certain 
 and definite that it cannot be either increased or dimin- 
 ished." One advocate of revision proposes that this 
 whole section be struck out of the Standards, because it 
 " is not a scriptural form of expression ; it is mislead- 
 ing." 
 
 What is the meaning of this section ? '•' Increased or 
 diminished " by whom f What is the ellipsis intended to 
 be supplied by the framers of the statement ? Plainly 
 they meant that the number of the elect and non-elect 
 cannot be increased or diminished by the "angels and 
 men " spoken of in the connection : that is, by any finite 
 power. Is^either the human will, nor the angelic, can de- 
 termine the number of God's elect and non-elect, because 
 this depends wholly upon "the counsel of his own will." 
 Of course, the Assembly did not mean to say that God 
 could not have made the number of his elect lai-ger or 
 smaller, if " the counsel of liis own will " had so deter- 
 mined. Probabl}^ no advocate of revision understands 
 the Confession to teach this. But will any advocate of it 
 say that the number of the reo^enerate and saved can be 
 made greater or less by the decision and action of either 
 
22 THE PROPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 the unregenerate world, or the regenerate church? This 
 would contradict the statement of St. John, that the elect 
 "sons of God are horn not of blood, nor of the will of the 
 flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." It would also 
 contradict the corresponding statement in the Confession 
 which teaches that "in effectual calling man is altogether 
 passive, until being quickened and renewed by the Holy 
 Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer the call, and to 
 embrace the grace offered and conveyed by it " (Confession 
 X. 2). This fourth section of the third chapter is simply 
 another way of teaching the common doctrine, running 
 all through the Standards, that the sinful will is in hond- 
 age to sin, and cannot regenerate itself, and that conse- 
 quently the number of the regenerate depends wholly 
 upon the will and decision of God. 
 
 3. Confession x. 4 asserts that " men not professing the 
 Christian religion cannot be saved in any other way what- 
 soever, be they never so diligent to frame their lives ac- 
 cording to the light of nature, and the law of that relig- 
 ion they do profess." This is alleged to be erroneous 
 by an advocate of revision, because " every promise and 
 every warning of God is addressed to man as a free agent, 
 and not as one who cannot be saved." 
 
 Who are the persons " not professing the Christian re- 
 ligion ? " They are those who 7'eject it, either formally, 
 or in their spirit and disposition. The class here spoken 
 of are the legalists of every variety, who repudiate salva- 
 tion through Christ's blood and righteousness, and rely 
 upon "diligently framing their lives according to the light 
 of nature, and the law of that religion which they do pro- 
 fess" — which is some other than "the Christian religion," 
 which they do not " profess," but contemn. The Chris- 
 tian religion is evangelical religion, and this they dislike. 
 They expect to be saved by morality and personal virtue. 
 
THE WEST3IINSTER STANDARDS. 23 
 
 and not by faitli in the vicarious atonement of Jesus 
 Christ. 
 
 The doctrine tlien, in this section is, in brief, that no 
 man can be saved by good works ; by any endeavors how- 
 ever " diligent " to obey tlie wu-itten law of the decalogue, 
 as the Cliristian legalist does, or tlie unwritten law of 
 conscience, as the heathen legalist does. Kow concern- 
 ing this class of persons St. Paul explicitly says that 
 *' they cannot be saved." '' By the deeds of the law shall 
 no flesh be justified." St. Peter says the same. "There 
 is no other name under heaven given among men, where- 
 by we must be saved." 
 
 Therejis notjiingJii_tliis_section that denies the. pofisi-^. ^^ 
 bility of the salvation of any sinner on earth who feels ' ,/ 
 his jin, and trusts in the sacrifice of Christ in case he ^ 
 has heard of it, or would ix'^'^i in it if he should hear of 
 it. It does not teach that no heathen is or can be saved. 
 This fourth section, so often misundei'stood and misrepre- 
 sented, is aimed at the self-righteous moralist, whether in 
 Christendom or Heathendom, who has no sorrow for sin, 
 feels no need of God's mercy as manifested in Christ, and 
 has no disposition to cast himself upon it, but claims the 
 rewards of eternity on the ground of personal character 
 and obedience to "the lio-ht of nature" and the maxims 
 of morality. It is only a bold and strong assertion of 
 the great truth, that no sin ner can Jbe saved by his most 
 strenuous endeavors to keep the moral law. It is not 
 strange, therefoi-e, that this section closes with the affir- 
 mation that " to assert and maintain the contrary is very 
 pernicious and to be detested." 
 
 If this is the correct explanation of these three sections 
 of the Confession, it is evident that they neither teach 
 nor imply error, and therefore do not need any revision. 
 
24 THE PKOPOSED EEVISIOJS^ OF 
 
 lY. 
 
 THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS AND THE UNIVERSAL 
 OFFER OF MERCY. 1 
 
 The Westminster Standards are now meeting an attack 
 from some who liave adopted them as their religious 
 creed. Formerly the onset came from the enemy on tlie 
 outside, now it comes from within the Church. When so 
 many presbyterians are objecting to the. Confession as 
 containing '• offensive articles that wound the consciences 
 of tens of thousands of loyal and orthodox presbyterians," 
 it is proper for an ordinary presbyterian to say a good 
 word for the time-honored symbol which has been sub- 
 scribed by the present generation of ministers and elders, 
 and was dear to all the former generations. May it not 
 be that these " offensive articles " are not in the Stand- 
 ards, and that the advocates of revision, in order to find a 
 sufficient reason for their project, are inventing and fight- 
 ing men of straw ? Let us look at one of these alleged 
 offences. 
 
 It is strenuously contended that the Standards contain 
 no declaration of the love of God towards all men, but 
 limit it to the elect ; that they make no universal offer of 
 salvation, but confine it to a part of mankind. 
 
 The following declaration is found in Confession ii. 1. 
 " There is but one only living and true God, who is most 
 loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant iu 
 
 * New York Observer, November 14, 1889. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 25 
 
 goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression and 
 sin, tlie re warder of them that diligently seek him." Of 
 whom speaketh the Confession this ? of the God of the 
 elect only ? or of the God of every man ? Is he the God 
 of the elect only ? Is he not also of the non-elect ? Is 
 this description of the gracious nature and attributes of 
 God intended to be restricted to a part of mankind ? Is 
 not God as thus delineated the Creator and Father of 
 every man without exception ? Can it be supposed that 
 the authors of this statement meant to be understood to 
 say that God is not such a being for all men, but only for 
 some ? If this section does not teach the unlimited love 
 and compassion of God towards all men as men, as his 
 creatures, it teaches nothing. 
 
 The following declaration is found in Confession xv. 1, 
 Larger Catechism, 159. '' Hepentance nnto life is an 
 evangelical grace, the doctrine whereof is to be preached 
 in season and out of season by every minister of the gos- 
 pel, as well as that of faith in Christ." This certainly 
 teaches that faith and repentance are the duty of all men, 
 not of some only. No one contends that the Confession 
 teaches that God has given a limited command to repent. 
 *' God commandetli all men everywhere to repent." But 
 liow could he give such a universal command to all sin- 
 ners if he is not willing to pardon all sinners ? if his 
 benevolent love is confined to some sinners in particular ? 
 How could our Lord command his ministers to preach the 
 doctrine of faith and repentance to " every creature," if 
 he does not desire that every one of them would believe 
 and repent ? And how can he desire this if he does not 
 feel infinite love for the souls of all ? When the Confes- 
 sion teaches the duty of universal faith and repentance, it 
 teaches by necessary inference the doctrine of God's uni- 
 versal compassion and readiness to forgive. And it also 
 
26 THE PROPOSED REVISIOIi OF 
 
 teaches in the same inferential way, that the sacrifice of 
 Christ for sin is ample for the forgiveness of every man. 
 To preach the doty of immediate belief on the Lord Jesns 
 Christ as obligatory npon every man, in connection witli 
 the doctrine imputed to the Confession by the reviser, 
 that God feels compassion for only the elect, and that 
 Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for all, would be self- 
 contradictory. The two things cannot be put together. 
 The reviser misunderstands the Standards, and reads into 
 them a false doctrine that is not there. 
 
 Confession xv. 5, 6, declares that " it is every man's 
 duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins particu- 
 larly. Every man is bound to make private confession of 
 his sins to God, praying for the pardon thereof, upon 
 which, and the forsaking of them, he sliall find mercy." 
 How shall every such man find mercy, if the reviser's 
 understanding of the Confession is correct ? if it teaches 
 that God's love for sinners is limited to the elect, and 
 that Christ's sacrifice is not sufficient for the sins of all ? 
 According to the revised version, the meaning of the 
 Westminster divines in this section is, that some men 
 who "pray for pardon and forsake sin" shall "find 
 mercy," and some shall not. 
 
 Larger Catechism, 160, declares that " it is required of 
 those that hear the word preached, that they attend upon 
 it with diligence, preparation and prayer ; receive the 
 truth in faith, love, meekness and readiness of mind, as 
 the word of God ; hide it in their hearts, and bring forth 
 the fruit of it in their lives," "VYould God require all this 
 from every hearer of the word, if he were not kindly 
 disposed towards him? if he did not love and pity his 
 immortal soul, and desire its salvation ? Does not this 
 declaration mean that God will encourage, assist, and 
 bless every hearer of the word without exception who 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 27 
 
 does the tilings mentioned ? What shadow of reason 
 is there for alleging that it means that God will help 
 and bless some of these hearej-s, and some he will not ? 
 But in order to make ont that the section does not teach 
 the nniversal oifer of mercy, this must be the allega- 
 tion. 
 
 Larger Catechism, 95, declares that " the moral law is 
 of use to all men, to inform them of the holy natnre and 
 will of God ; to convince them of their disability to keep 
 it, and of the sinf id pollution of their nature ; to humble 
 them in the sense of sin and misery, and tliereby help 
 them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, 
 and of the perfection of his obedience." But what is the 
 use of showing every man his need of Christ, if Christ's 
 sacrifice is not sufficient for every man ? What reason is 
 there for convincing every man of the pollution of his 
 nature, and humbling him for it, unless God is for every 
 man " most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, 
 forgiving iniquity, transgression and sin ? " The doctrine 
 taught in this section, that all men are to be convicted of 
 sin, like the doctrine that all men are to repent and to 
 pray, supposes that God sustains a common benevolent 
 and merciful relation to them all. 
 
 Confession xxi. 3, declares that "prayer with thanks- 
 giving, being one special part of religious worship, is re- 
 quired by God of all men."' How could God require 
 prayer from every man, if he were not disposed to hear 
 the prayer of every man ? And does not this imply that 
 he loves the soul of every man ? The duty of prayer sup- 
 poses a corresponding kind and gracious feeling in God 
 that prompts him to answer it ; that ^' he is the hearer of 
 prayer, and that unto him all flesh should come." In 
 order to make out his "offensive doctrine," the reviser 
 must explain this section by appending to it: "Though 
 
28 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 God requires prayer from all men, he is the hearer of 
 prayer for only the elect." 
 
 Confession vii. 3, declares that " man by his fall hav- 
 ing made himself incapable of life by that (legal) cove- 
 nant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly 
 called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered to 
 sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of 
 them faith in him, tliat they may be saved, and promising 
 to give imto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy 
 Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." Two 
 distinct and different things are mentioned here: (a) an 
 offer of salvation ; (b) a promise of the Holy Spirit to 
 make the unwilling sinner wilHng to accept it. The num- 
 ber of those to whom the offer of salvation is made is un- 
 limited ; of those to whom the promise of. the Spirit to 
 "make them willing" is n)ade, is limited by '^ ordination 
 to life" or election. It is clear that God may desire that 
 to be done by man under the influence of his common 
 grace in the common call, which he may not decide and 
 purpose to raahe him do by the operation of his special 
 grace in the effectual call. His desire that sinners would 
 hear his universal call to repentance may be, and is un- 
 limited ; but his purpose to overcome their unwillingness 
 and incline them to repentance may be, and is limited. 
 God offers Christ's sacrifice to every man, without excep- 
 tion, and assures him that if he will trust in it he shall be 
 saved, and gives him common grace to help and encour- 
 age him to believe. This is a proof that God loves his soul 
 and desires its salvation. But God does not, in addition 
 to this universal offer of mercy, promise to overcome every 
 man's aversion to believe and repent and his resistance 
 of common grace. Election and preterition have no ref- 
 erence to the offer of salvation or to common grace. They 
 relate only to special grace and the effectual application of 
 
THE wp:stminster standards. 29 
 
 Christ's sacrifice. The universal offer of mercy taught in 
 this section evinces the universality of God's compassion 
 towards sinners. 
 
 Larger Catechism, 63, declares that '' tlie ministry oli the 
 gospel testifies that whosoever believes hi Christ shall be 
 saved, and excludes none that will come unto him." The 
 reference here is not to the members of the visible Church, 
 as one reviser contends who denies that the universal offer 
 is in this section, because the persons spoken of are those 
 who have not yet believed in Christ, and have not yet 
 come to him. The motive is held out to such persons, 
 that if they loill believe and come, they shall be saved by 
 the infinite and universal mercy of God which "excludes 
 none that will come unto him." 
 
 With what show of reason can it be said that a symbol 
 containing such declarations as these respecting the nature 
 and attributes of God, his requirement that every man 
 confess sin to him, repent of it, pray for its forgiveness 
 and trust in his mercy, contains no announcement of his 
 infinite love and compassion ? This great and blessed 
 truth is worked and woven all throuo-h the Standards, as 
 the doctrines of the Divine existence and the immortality 
 of the soul are through the Bible. The Bible is nonsense 
 without these latter, and the Confession is nonsense witli- 
 out the formei". 
 
 The Westminster creed is being wounded in the house 
 of its friends. To a spectator it appears amazing that so 
 many who have "received and accepted" it as teaching 
 "the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures" 
 should charge so many and so great errors upon it. If the 
 Confession and Catechisms really are what they have been 
 alleged to be, during the last six months, by some advo- 
 cates of revision, they ought not to be revised at all, but 
 to be repudiated. 
 
30 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 y. 
 
 THE MEANING AND VALUE OF THE DOCTRINE OF DECREES.' 
 
 The proposal to revise the Westminster Standards lias 
 bronglit the doctrine of the Divine Decrees into the fore- 
 ground. The controversy turns upon this pivot. Other 
 features come in incidentally, but this is capital and con- 
 trolling. This is the stone of stumbling and rock of of- 
 fence. If election and reprobation were not in the Con- 
 fession and Catechism, probably the fifteen presbyteries 
 would not have overtured the Assembly. It is for this 
 reason that we purpose to discuss the Meaning and Value 
 of the Doctrine of Decrees^ so plainly inculcated in the 
 Scriptures, and from them introduced into the Westmin- 
 ster symbol. We are certain that the Biblical truth of 
 the sovereignty of God in the salvation of sinners, and of 
 his just liberty to determine how many he will save from 
 their sin, and how many he will leave to their self-will in 
 sin, is greatly misunderstood by some who profess the 
 Presbyterian faith, and who describe it in much the same 
 terms with the anti-Calvinist, and inveigli against it with 
 something of the same bitterness. Though differing 
 greatly from one another in personal feeling and attitude 
 towards the Confession, the conservative and the radical 
 reviser nevertheless practically meet together at this point, 
 and while the former has no desire to make any changes 
 
 ^ By permission, from the Presbyterian and Reformed Review, Janu- 
 ary, 1890. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 31 
 
 in the doctrine of decrees that will essentially impair the 
 integrity of the Calvinistic system, he yet unintentionally 
 aids the radical in bringing about a revolution in the sen- 
 timent and creed of the Presbyterian Church concerning 
 one of the most distinctive articles of its belief. Because 
 revision, be it conservative or radical, contends that tJicre 
 is more or less that is uii- Scriptural in the tenets of elec- 
 tion and reprobation as they are now formulated in the 
 Standards, and that they are bad in their influence. The 
 amount of error in them, and the degree in which they 
 are injurious, is variously stated by advocates of revision. 
 But the general opinion of this class is, that they require 
 more or less amending to get rid of certain elements that 
 are derogatory to the character of God, and are inconsist- 
 ent with the Christian redemption. Anti-revision denies 
 this. The only question of importance, therefore, in this 
 juncture, is: Kevision, or Nonrevision. And this, as we 
 have said, turns mainly upon the third chapter of the 
 Confession, entitled " Of God's Eternal Decree," together 
 with the kindred declarations growing out of this, in other 
 parts of the Standards. It will therefore be our aim to 
 show that the doctrine of decrees, as it is found in the 
 "Westminster Standards, is neither un-Scriptural nor erro- 
 neous ; and that it is a highly useful and edifying doctrine 
 in the formation of the Christian character. We heartily 
 adopt the affirmation of the Thirty-nine Articles, that 
 " the godly consideration of predestination, and our elec- 
 tion in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable 
 comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves 
 the workings of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works 
 of the flesh and their earthly members, and drawing up 
 their minds to high and heavenly things, as well because 
 it doth greatly establish and confirm their faith, and fer- 
 vently kindle their love tov/ards God." 
 
32 THE PROPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 In carrying out our purpose, we shall mention certain 
 characteristics of the Westminster doctrine that are both 
 Scriptural and rational, and of great value both specula- 
 tively in constructing the Christian system, and practically 
 in forming the Christian experience. 
 
 1. The first characteristic of the Confessional statement 
 that we mention is, that it hrings sin vjithin the scojye^ 
 and under the control of the Divine decree. Sin is one 
 of the " whatsoevers " that have "come to pass," all of 
 which are " ordained." Some would have the doctrine 
 that sin is decreed stricken from the Confession, because 
 in their view it makes God the author of sin. The Con- 
 fession denies this in its assertion that by the Divine de- 
 cree "violence is not offered to the will of the creatui-e, 
 nor is the liberty of second causes taken, away, but rather 
 established." In so saying, the authors had in mind the 
 common distinction recognized in Calvinistic creeds and 
 systems, between the efficacious and the permissive decree, 
 though they do not use the terms here. The latter, like 
 the former, makes an event certain, but by a different 
 mode from that of the former. "When God executes his 
 decree that Saul of Tarsus shall be '' a vessel of mercy," 
 he works efficaciously within him by his Holy Spirit "to 
 will and to do." When God executes his decree that Ju- 
 das Iscariot shall be " a vessel of wrath fitted for destruc- 
 tion," he does not work efficaciously within him " to will 
 and to do," but permissively in the way of allowing him 
 to have his own wicked will. He decides not to restrain 
 him or to regenerate him, but to leave him to his own ob- 
 stinate and rebellious inclination and purpose; and accord- 
 ingly " the Son of man goeth as it was determined, but 
 woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed" (Luke 22 : 
 22; Acts 2: 23). The two Divine methods in the two 
 cases are plainly different, but the perdition of Judas was 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 33 
 
 as mucli foreordained and free from chance, as tlic con- 
 version of Sanl. Man's inability to explain how God can 
 make sin certain, bnt not compulsory, by a. permissive de- 
 cree, is no reason for denying that he can do it or that he 
 has done it. 
 
 It is sometimes argued that the Confession excludes the 
 tenet of the permissive decree, by its declaration that the 
 " providence of God extendeth itself even to the first fall, 
 and all other sins of angels and men, and that not hy a 
 'bare j>erm.lsslon " (Conf . v. 4). The '• bare permission " 
 which the Assembly rejects here is that of the Tridentine 
 theologians, who asserted that sin arises from the " mere 
 permission " of God. The Ileformed theologians under- 
 stood this to mean, that in respect to the fall of angels and 
 men God is an idle and helpless spectator (deo otioso 
 spectante), and that sin came into the universe without 
 any positive decision and piirj?ose on his part. This kind 
 of "permission" implies that God could not haye j7/*e- 
 veiited sin had he so decided, and is really no permission 
 at all ; because no one can properly be said to permit what 
 lie cannot prevent. In order to exclude this view of 
 " permission," the Assembly assert " suck [a permission] 
 as hath joined with it a most holy, wise, and powerful 
 bounding and otherwise ordering and governi7ig of [the 
 sins of angels and men], in a manifold dispensation, to 
 his own holy ends ; yet so as the siorfuhiess thereof ]:n'o- 
 ceedeth only from the creature, not from God, who neither 
 is nor can he the author of sin.'''' This last clause declares 
 that God's relation to the sin which he decrees, is not that 
 of efficiency, but permission. For if God worked directly 
 and efficaciously in angel or man " to will," when he wills 
 wickedly, the " sinfulness of sin " would " proceed from 
 God," and God would be " the author of sin." The per- 
 missive decree is taught also in Larger Catechism, 19. 
 
Gi THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 '• God by his providence jyermiUed some of tlie angels, 
 wilfully and irrecoverably, to fall into sin and damnation, 
 limiting and ordering that, and all their sins, to his own 
 glory." 
 
 The permissive decree is supported by Scripture, in the 
 statement that God " in times past suffered {elacre) all na- 
 tions to walk in their own ways " (Acts 14 : 16) ; that 
 " the times of this ignorance God overlooked " {vTrepiScov) 
 (Acts IT: 30); that God "gave rebellious Israel their 
 own desire (Psalm Y8 : 29) ; that " he gave them their 
 request " (Psalm 106 : 15). This phraseology is never 
 employed when holiness is spoken of. The Bible never 
 says that God permits man to be holy, or to act right- 
 eously. He efficaciously influences and actuates him to 
 this. Accordingly the other Reformed creeds, like the 
 Westminster, mark the difference between God's relation 
 to holiness and sin. The Second Helvetic, Ch. viii., says : 
 " Quotiescunque Deus aliquid mali in Scriptura facere 
 dicitur atqne videtur, non ideo dicitur, quod liomo malum 
 lion faciat, sed quod Deus fieri sinat et noji prohiheat, 
 justo suo judicio, qui prohibere potuisset, si voluisset." 
 The Belgic Confession, Art. 13, assei-ts that God's " power 
 and goodness are so great and incomprehensible, that he 
 orders and executes his work in the most excellent and 
 just manner even when the devil and wicked men act un- 
 justly. We are persuaded that he so restrains the devil 
 and all our enemies that without his will and permission 
 they cannot hurt us." The Dort Canons, i, 15, teach that 
 "God, out of his sovereign, most just, and unchangeable 
 good pleasure hath decreed to leave some men in the com- 
 mon misery into which they have wilfully plunged them- 
 selves, and not to bestow upon them saving faith and the 
 grace of conversion, hwi permitting them in his just judg- 
 ment to follow their own way, at last, for the declaration 
 
 \ 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 35 
 
 of his justice, to condeiim and pun is! i them forever, not 
 only on account of their unbelief, but also for all their 
 other sins." 
 
 And here is the phace to notice the error of those who 
 represent supralapsarianisni as differing from infralapsa- 
 rianisni by referring sin to the efficacious decree, thereby 
 making God the author of it. Dr. Schaff, for example, 
 asserts that " Calvin carried the doctrine of the Divine 
 decrees beyond the Angustinian infralapsarianism, which 
 makes the fall of Adam the object of a permissive or pas- 
 sive decree, to the very verge of supralapsarianism, which 
 traces even the first sin to an efficient or positive decree " 
 (Creeds, i. 453). But both schemes alike refer sin to the 
 permissive decree, and both alike deny that God is the 
 author of sin. Supralapsarians like Beza and Gomar re- 
 pel this charge, which anti-Calvinists made against both 
 divisions of the Calvinists. Brandt, who was on the Ar- 
 minian side, so understood Gomar. In describing the 
 difference between Arminius and Gomar, he says of the 
 latter : " Gomarus maintained tliat it was appointed by an 
 eternal decree of God, who among mankind should be 
 saved, and who should be damned. From whence it re- 
 sulted that some men should be drawn to righteousness, 
 and being drawn were preserved from falling; but that 
 God suffered all the rest to remain in the common corrup- 
 tion of human nature, and in their own iniquities " (Re- 
 formation in the Low Countries, Book xviii.). Calvin, 
 Inst. III. xxii., says that " man falls according to the ap- 
 pointment of Divine providence, but falls by his own 
 fault." ^ The difference between them relates to an alto- 
 
 ^ Sliedd : Dogmatic Theology, i. 409 (Xote), A remark is in place 
 here, upon the often cited "decretum horribile " of Calvin. The Di- 
 vine sovereignty in the salvation of sinners when properly viewed, in- 
 spires a solemn and religious aice before that Infinite Being who, in the 
 
36 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 gethei* different point : namely, the order in which the 
 decrees of election and reprobation stand to that of crea- 
 tion. Tlie supralapsarian asserts that in the logical order 
 of nature (not of time, for all the decrees are eternal), the 
 decree to elect and reprobate certain men is before (supra) 
 the decree to create them ; the infralapsarian, that it is 
 after (infra). The former contends that God hegins by 
 electing some men and reprobating others, and in order to 
 execute these two decrees creates man and permits (not 
 efficiently causes) the fall. The infralapsarian contends 
 that God begins by creating man and permitting (not 
 causing) the fall, and then out of this fallen and guilty 
 race elects some to life, and leaves others to their volun- 
 tary sin and its just penalty. The supralapsarian order is 
 liable to the charge that " God creates some men in order 
 to damn them," because creation follows from reprobation. 
 The infralapsarian order is not liable to this charge, be- 
 cause creation does not follow from reprobation, but pre- 
 cedes it.' The Westminster Assembly, in common with 
 
 language of Elihu, " giveth not account of any of his matters " (Jol> 
 33 : 13). This is the meaning of Calvin's " decretum quidem horribile 
 fateor " (Inst. III. xxiii. 7). Those who quote this in disparagement of 
 the doctrine of predestination, suppose that he used "horrible" in the 
 modern vulgar sense of *' hateful " and " repulsive," as when persons 
 speak of a "horrible stench," or an "awful noise." Of course he 
 could not have intended to pour contempt upon what he believed to be 
 a truth of revelation, by employing the word in this popular and some- 
 what slangy signification. Calvin was a highly educated classical 
 scholar, and his Latin is as accurate and elegant as any since the days 
 of Cicero and Virgil. In the classical writers, "horror " sometimes sig- 
 nifies awe and veneration. Lucretius, for example, describes the wor- 
 ship of the gods as originating in the " mortalibus insitus horror'''' (Do 
 Natura, v, 1164). The feeling of reverential fear is expressed in 
 Jacob's words, " How dreadful is this place ! " (Gen. 28 :17). In this 
 sense of the word, the doctrine of predestination might be called "a 
 dreadful decree," without disparaging it in the least. 
 
 * The Arminian Remonstrants stated the difference between the two 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 37 
 
 the Calvinistic creeds previously made, adopted the infra- 
 lapsariaii order, though some theologians, like the elder 
 Hodge, find a concession to the supralapsarians in some of 
 their phraseology. 
 
 Tiie doctrine of the permissive decree has great value 
 in two respects: {a) In taking sin out of the sphere of / 
 chance, {b) In explaining the tenet of preterition, or 
 " foreordination to everlastine: death." 
 
 First, by the permissive deci-ee, sin is brought within 
 the Divine plan of the universe, and under the Divine 
 control. Whatever is undecreed must be by hap-hazard 
 and accident. If sin does not occur by the Divine pur- 
 pose and permission, it occurs by chance. And if sin oc- 
 curs by chance, the deity, as in the ancient pagan theolo- 
 gies, is limited and hampered by it. He is not " God 
 over all." Dualism is introduced into the theory of the 
 universe. Evil is an independent and uncontrollable prin- 
 ciple. God governs only in part. Sin with all its effects 
 is beyond his sw^ay. This dualism God condemns as er- 
 ror, in his words to Cyrus by Isaiah, " I make peace and 
 create evil ; " and in the words of Proverbs 16 : 4, " The 
 Lord hath made all things for himself ; yea, even the 
 wicked for the day of evil." '^ We believe," says the Eel- 
 divisions of Calvinists as follows: "Our opponents teach, First, that 
 God, as some [i e., supralapsarians] assert, has ordained by an eternal 
 and irresistible decree some from among men, whom he does not con- 
 sider as created much less as fallen, to eternal life, and some to ever- 
 lasting perdition, without any regard to their obedience or disobedience, 
 in order to exert both his justice and his mercy. Secondly, that God, 
 as others [i.e., infralapsarians] teach, considers mankind not only as 
 created hwt fallen in Adam, and consequently as obnoxious to the curse ; 
 from which fall and destruction he has determined to release some, and 
 save them as instances of his mercy, and to leave others under the 
 curse for examples of his justice, without any regard to belief or unbe- 
 lief" (Brandt: Reformation in the Low Countries, Book xix.). 
 
38 THE PKOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 gic Confession, Art. 13, " that God after lie had created 
 all things did not forsake them, or give them up to for- 
 tune or chance, but that he rules and governs them ac- 
 cording to his holy will, so that nothing happens in this 
 world without his appointment ; nevertheless, God neither 
 is the author of, nor can be charged with, the sins which 
 are committed." 
 
 Secondly, by the permissive decree, the preterition of 
 some sinners and thereby their " foreordination to ever- 
 lasting death " is shown to be rational as well as Scriptu- 
 ral, because God, while decreeing the destiny of the non- 
 elect, is not the author of his sin or of his perdition. 
 Preterition is a branch of the permissive decree, and 
 stands or falls with it. Whoever would strike the doc- 
 trine of preterition from the Standards, -to be consistent 
 must strike out the general doctrine that sin is decreed. 
 If God could permissively decree the fall of Adam and 
 his posterity without being the cause and author of it, he 
 can also permissively decree the eternal death of an in- 
 dividual sinner without being the cause and author of it. 
 In preterition, God repeats, in respect to an individual, 
 the act which he performed in respect to the race. Pie 
 permitted the whole human species to fall in Adam in 
 such a manner that they were responsible and guilty for 
 the fall, and he permits an individual of the species to 
 remain a sinner and to be lost by sin, in such a manner 
 that the sinner is responsible and guilty for this. 
 
 The Westminster Standards, in common with the Cal- 
 vinistic creeds generally, begin w^ith affirming the univer- 
 sal sovereignty of God over his entire universe : over 
 heaven, earth, and hell ; and comprehend all beings and 
 all events under his dominion. IN'othing comes to pass 
 contrary to his decree. E'othing happens by chance. 
 Even moral evil, which he abhors and forbids, occurs by 
 
THE Vv'i:8T31INSTEK STANDARDS. 39 
 
 " the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God ; " 
 and yet occurs tJirougli the agency of the unforced and 
 self-determining will of man as the efficient. 
 
 AVhy should such a tenet as this, taught by Scripture 
 and supported by reason, be sti-icken out of tlie Confes- 
 sion ; or if not stricken out, so minimized as to declare 
 that God decrees holiness but not sin, elects but does not 
 pass by ? On the contrary, why should it not be pro- 
 claimed boldly and everywhere, that above all the sin, 
 and the misery caused by sin, in this world of mankind, 
 there sits on the throne a wise, benevolent, and omnipo- 
 tent Sovereign who for reasons sufficient in his view 
 fcrmittecl^ but did not cause or comjjel^ the fall of angels 
 and men, with tJie intention of guiding the issue of it all 
 to an ultimate end worthy of himself — namely, the mani- 
 festation of his two great attributes of mercy and justice : 
 of merc}^, in the salvation from sin of '' a great multitude 
 whom no man can number ; " of justice, in leaving a 
 m.ultitude that can be numbered to tlie sin which they love 
 and prefer, and its righteous punishment. 
 
 2. The second characteristic of the Westminster doc- 
 trine of decrees is tJie miio7i of election and preterition. 
 It includes both tenets, and is consistent in doinir so. Tlie 
 discontent with the Confession is greater upon this point 
 than upon the first that we have mentioned. Many do 
 not object to what the Standaids say upon the abstract 
 subject of the Divine decree, who particularly dislike its 
 concrete teaching upon election and preterition. The dis- 
 crimination wdiich the Confession makes between sinners ; 
 the Divine purpose to save some and not all ; they as- 
 sert to be un-Biblical and unjust. '' The foreordination 
 of some men to everlasting life, and of others to everlast- 
 ing death, and preterition of all the non-elect, are equally 
 inconsistent with a proper conception of Divine justice," 
 
40 THE PKOPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 is the assertion of a strenuous advocate of revision. Some 
 vi'ould strike out both election and preterition ; others 
 would strike out preterition and retain election. We shall 
 endeavor to show that one of these proposals is as destruc- 
 tive of the integrity of the system as the other ; that both 
 tenets must stand, or both must go. 
 
 That individual election is taught in the Bible is very 
 generally conceded. But individual preterition is taught 
 with equal plainness. The Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour 
 of sinners, is as explicit upon this subject as he is upon 
 that of endless punishment. Upon two occasions (Matt. 
 13 : 14, 15 ; John 12 : 38-40), he .quotes the words of 
 God to Isaiah, 6 : 9, 10 : " Go and tell this people. Hear 
 ye indeed, but understand not ; and see ye indeed, but 
 perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and 
 make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see 
 with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand 
 with their lieart, and convert, and be healed." The 
 prophet was instructed to declare the preterition of a part 
 of Israel, and our Lord endorses the doctrine. And he 
 frequently connects the voluntary and guilty rejection of 
 liis gracious offer of mercy with the eternal purpose and 
 plan of God. The impenitence of Capernaum and of 
 Chorazin and Bethsaida was guilty, and punishable with 
 a punishment greater than that of Sodom ; yet these sin- 
 ners were " the wise and prudent " from whom the " Lord 
 of heaven and earth " had " hid the things " of salvation 
 (Matt. 11 : 20-26). " Many," he says, " are called, but 
 few are chosen " (Matt. 22 : 14 ; Luke 17 : 34-36). "With 
 grief and tears over the hardness of heart and the bitter 
 enmity of the Jerusalem sinners, he at the same time de- 
 clares their reprobation by God. '' Upon you shall come 
 all the righteous blood shed upon earth, from the blood of 
 righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias. Behold your 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 41 
 
 house is left unto you desolate " (Matt. 23 : 35-38). That 
 the Apostolical Epistles teach pretention, we need not 
 stop to prove. One principal objection made to tlie Paul- 
 ine Christianity by its opponents is, that it is full of pre- 
 destination both to holiness and sin. The Dort Canons, 
 I. vi., enunciate Paul's doctrine in the following state- 
 ment : " That some receive the gift of faith from God, 
 and others do not receive it, proceeds from God's eternal 
 decree. According to which decree, he graciously softens 
 the hearts of the elect, liowever obstinate, and inclines 
 them to believe ; while he leaves the non-elect in his just 
 judgment to their own wickedness and obduracy." " Unto 
 you," says our Lord, " it is given to know the mysteries 
 of the kingdom of Heaven, but to them it is not given " 
 (Matt. 13:11). 
 
 JSTot only are both individual election and preterition 
 taught in Scripture, but both are necessary in a creed 
 in order to self-consistence. Preterition is the contrary 
 of election, and one of two contraries necessarily implies 
 the other. Pight implies wrong ; light implies dark- 
 ness. 'No one would contend that there is light but 
 not darkness ; right but not wrong. And no one should 
 contend that there is an election of individuals, but not a 
 pretention.^ It is impossible to think of individual elec- 
 
 ' The qualifying epitliet "individual" is important here; because 
 while individual electiou implies individual preterition as its contrary, 
 classical election does not. If a whole class (say dying infants) are 
 elected, no individuals of it are passed by. The true contrary to clas- 
 sical election is classical preterition, not individual preterition. In clas- 
 sical election, there cannot be the salvation of a i:)art and perdition of 
 a part, as there can be in individual election. The whole class must 
 either be elected, or else the whole class must be passed by ; the whole 
 of it must be the objects of mercy, or else the whole of it must be the 
 objects of justice. All must be saved, or else all must be lost. No dis- 
 crimination is possible between individuals, as is the case in individual 
 election. 
 
42 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 tion alone by itself, or to teach it alone by itself. Indi- 
 vidual election implies and suggests individual reprobation. 
 The elect himself (that is, one who hopes he is of the 
 elect) sometimes fears that he is one of the non-elect. St. 
 Paul kept his body under, lest he should be a reprobate 
 " cast away." That Christian who denies the doctrine of 
 pi-eteritiou, and does not sometimes fear that God may 
 pass him by, is not a model for imperfectly sanctified men. 
 If God does not elect a sinner, he must of course pass him 
 by. If God decides not to convert a sinner into a 
 saint, he must of course decide to let him remain a sinner. 
 If God does not purpose to make Judas Iscariot "a vessel 
 of mercy," he must of course purpose to leave him *' a 
 vessel of wrath." Individual election without its anti- 
 thetic preterition is only one-half of the" circle of Divine 
 truth. "When God operates efficaciously in the sinner's 
 heart, to overcome his resistance of common grace, and 
 his enmity to the law of God, this is election. When God 
 does not work efficaciously, but permissively leaves the 
 sinner to himself, this is preterition. And he must do 
 one thing or the other, in the instance of every sinner. 
 And he must purpose to do one thing or the other, in 
 every instance. And the purpose is an eternal one. Con- 
 sequently to affirm in a creed the decree of individual 
 election, and deny that of preterition, is the height of ab- 
 surdity. 
 
 Accordingly, the Reformed creeds contain both doc- 
 trines ; sometimes both of them verbally expressed, and 
 sometimes preterition implied from election verbally ex- 
 pressed. Both doctrines are specified in the following 
 symbols : Second Helvetic, Galilean, Belgic, First Scotch, 
 Irish, Lambeth, Dort, Westminster. Election alone is 
 specified in Augsburg, First Helvetic, Heidelberg, and 
 Thirty-nine Articles. That the decree of individual elec- 
 
THE WEST]\[INSTER STAXDAllDS. 43 
 
 tion necessarily involves the antithetic decree of individual 
 preterition, is evinced by the fact that Ursinns, one of the 
 authors, and the principal one, of the Heidelberg Cate- 
 chism, which verbally affirms election but not preterition, 
 ])resents an elaborate statement and defence of reproba- 
 tion in his Christian Theology (Qu. 5-i), composed in ex- 
 planation of this creed/ 
 
 What is preterition ? It is God's passing by a sinner in 
 the bestowment of regenerating^ not of connnon grace. 
 All men are blessed with common grace. There is no 
 
 ' Dr. Scliaff, in the Evangelist, for November 14, 1889, asserts that 
 the Gallican, Belgic, Second Helvetic, First Scotch, and Dort symhols, 
 "are silent on the decree of reprobation and preterition." The foUov*-- 
 ing extracts from liis Creeds of Christendom show that this is an error. 
 Gallican, Art. 12: *'God calleth out of corruption and condemnation 
 those whom he hath chosen without consideration of their works, in 
 order to display in them the riches of his mercy ; leating (laissant) the 
 rest in this same corruption and condemnation, in order to manifest 
 in them his justice.'' Belgic, Art. IC : *' God is merciful, since he 
 delivers from perdition all whom he hath elected in Christ Jesus, 
 without any respect to their works ; just, in leamng (laissant) the others 
 in the fall and perdition wherein they have precipitated themselves." 
 Second Helvetic, Cap. x. 4, 6 : " Though God knows who are his, and 
 sometimes the fewness of the elect is spoken of, yet we are to have hope 
 for all, and no one is rashly to be numbered with the reprobate. We do 
 not approve of the impious words of those who say : *If I am elected, I 
 shall be saved, however I may act ; if I am one of the reprobate, 
 neither faith nor repentance will be of any use, since the decree of God 
 cannot be altered.'" First Scotch, Art. 8: "For this cause we are 
 not afraid to call God our Father, not so much because he has created 
 us, which we have in common with the reprobate^ as that he has given 
 to us his only Son to be our brother.'' Dort Canons, i. 15: "Holy 
 Scripture testifieth that not all, but some only, are elected, while others 
 are passed by in the eternal decree ; whom God out of his sovereign 
 good pleasure hath decreed to leave in the misery into which they have 
 wilfully plunged themselves, permitting them to follow tlieir own way. 
 And this is the doctrine of rejwobatmi, which by no means makes God 
 the author of sin (the very thought of which is blasphemy), but declares 
 him to be a righteous judge and punisher of sin." 
 
44 THE PROPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 election or reprobation in tins reference. God's mercy in 
 this form and degree of it is universal and indiscriminate. 
 Bat common grace fails to save the sinner, because of his 
 love of sin, his aversion to holiness, and his unbelief. 
 The martyr Stephen's words are applicable to every man 
 in respect to common grace : " Ye stiff-necked, ye do 
 always resist the Holy Ghost " (Acts 7 : 51). Conse- 
 quently, in order to save any sinner whatsoever requires a 
 still higher grade of grace which, in the phrase of the 
 Larger Catechism (67), " powerfully determines " his will 
 by regenerating it. Here is where the Divine discrimina- 
 tion comes in. It is with reference to this kind and de- 
 gree of grace that God says : " I will have mercy on w^hom 
 I will have mercy " (Ex. 33 : 19 ; Eom. 9 : 15). And this 
 is the Scripture truth which is now on trial in the Pres- 
 byterian Church. This is the particular doctrine which 
 excites animosity in some minds, and which it is con- 
 tended must be cut out of the Confession like cancerous 
 matter that is killing the body. Let us consider the ob- 
 jections that are made to it. 
 
 1. It is objected that preterition is inconsistent toith 
 the infinite compassion of God for the souls of all men, 
 and cannot be squared with such assertions as, " As I live, 
 saith the Lord, I have no pleasure in the death of the 
 wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: 
 turn ye, turn ye, for why will ye die? God so loved the 
 world that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whoso- 
 ever believeth in him might not perish but have everlast- 
 ing life." 
 
 The first reply to this is, that these and many similar 
 affirmations of the Divine pity for the sinful soul and 
 desire for its salvation, are written in the same inspired 
 volume that contains such assertions as the following : 
 " Many shall seek to enter in and shall not be able. He 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 45 
 
 hath blinded tlieir ejes and liardened their liearts, that 
 they should not sec with their eyes, and be converted, 
 and I should heal them. The Son of man goeth as it was 
 determined ; but woe unto that man by whom he is be- 
 trayed. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, 
 and I will have compassion on wliom I will have compas- 
 sion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him 
 that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. The chil- 
 dren being not yet born, neither having done any good or 
 evil, that the purpose of God according to election mi^rht 
 stand not of works but of him that calleth, it was said. 
 The elder shall serve the younger. The disobedient stum- 
 ble at the word, whereunto also they were appointed." 
 Since both classes of passages come from God, he must 
 perceive that they are consistent with each other whether 
 man can or not. Both, then, must be accepted as eternal / 
 truth by an act of faith, by every one wdio believes in the 
 inspiration of the Bible. They must be presumed to be 
 self-consistent, whether it can be shown or not. 
 
 But, secondly, there are degrees of mercy. Because 
 God does not show the highest degree of it to a particular 
 sinner, it does not follow that he does not show him any 
 at all. lie may grant him the mercy of common grace, 
 and when this is resisted and nullified by his hostile self- 
 will and obstinate love of sin, he may decide not to bestow 
 the mercy of special grace, and yet not be chargeable with 
 destitution of love and compassion towards him.* Any 
 degree of love is love ; and any degree of compassion is 
 compassion. To contend that the Divine love must be of 
 exactly the same degree towards all creatures alike or else 
 
 ^ Man is compelled to speak of God's decision or decree in this way, 
 tliougli strictly there is no before or after for him. All his decrees are 
 eternal and simultaneous. Yet there is an order of nature. Special 
 grace supposes the failure of common grace. 
 
46 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 it is not love, is untenable. It is certain that God can 
 feel love and pity towards the souls of all men, as bis 
 creatures and as sinners lost by their own fault, and mani- 
 fest it in that measure of grace which " leads to repent- 
 ance " (Rom. 2 : 4), and would result in it if it were not 
 resisted, and yet not actually save them all from the con- 
 sequences of their own action. The Scriptures plainly 
 teach that God so loved the whole world that he gave his 
 only-begotten Son to make expiation for " the sins of the 
 whole world ; " and they just as plainly teach that a part 
 of this world of mankind are sentenced, by God, to eternal 
 death for their sins. The Arminian and the Calvinist 
 both alike deny the doctrine of universal salvation, yet 
 believe that this is compatible with the doctrine of God's 
 universal benevolence. Both deny the inference that if 
 God does not save every human being, he does not love 
 the soul of every human being ; that if he does not do as 
 much for one person as he does for another, he is unmer- 
 ciful towards him. It is a fallacy to maintain, that unless 
 God does all that he possibly can to save a sinner, he does 
 not do anything towards his salvation ; as it would be fal- 
 lacious to maintain, that unless God bestows upon a person 
 all the temporal blessings that are within his power, he 
 does not show him any benevolence at all. This fallacy 
 lies under the argument against preterition. It is asserted 
 that if God "passes by" a sinner in the bestowment of 
 regenerating grace, he has no love for his soul, no desire 
 for its salvation, and does nothing towards its welfare. 
 But if God really felt no compassion for a sinner, and 
 show^ed him none, he would im mediately j^'i^msA him for 
 his sin, and the matter would end here. The sinner's 
 doom would be fixed. Just retribution would follow 
 transgression instantaneously, and forever. And who can 
 impeach justice? "As all men have sinned in Adam, 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 47 
 
 and are obnoxious to eternal death, God would have done 
 no injustice by leaving them all to perish, and delivering 
 tlieni over to condenniation on account of sin, according 
 to the words of the Apostle : ' That every mouth may be 
 stopped, and all the world may become guilty before 
 God ' " (Dort Canons, I. i.). But God does not do this. 
 lie suffers long and is forbearing with every sinner with- 
 out exception. Theie is not a transgressor on earth, in 
 Christendom or Heathendom, who is not treated by his 
 Maker Ijeitcr than he deserves / who docs not experience 
 some degree of the Divine love and compassion. God 
 showers down upon all men the blessings of his provi- 
 dence, and bestows upon them all more or less of the 
 common influences and operation of the Holy Spirit. 
 This is mercy to the souls of men universally, and ought 
 to move them to repent of sin and forsake it. This com- 
 mon grace and universal benevolence of God is often 
 spoken of in Scripture. " Despisest thou, O man, the 
 riches of God's goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffer- 
 ing, not knowing [recognizing] that the goodness of God 
 leads [tends to lead] thee to repentance ; but after thy 
 liardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself 
 wrath against the day of wrath ? " (Rom. 2 : 4, 5). Here 
 is the common grace of God enjoyed by men universally, 
 and thwarted by their love of sin, and obstinate self-will 
 in sin. But is God unmerciful and destitute of compas- 
 sion towards this man, if he decides to proceed no further 
 with him, but leave him where he is, and as he is ? Is all 
 that God has done for him in the w^ay of long-suffering, 
 forbearance, kindness, and inward monitions in his con- 
 science, to count for nothinij: ? If this treatment of the 
 sinner is not benevolence and compassion, what is it? It 
 is mercy in God to reveal to every man the law of God, 
 nay even " the wrath of God against all ungodliness and 
 
48 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 unrigliteousness of men who liold the truth in unright- 
 eousness," for by this revelation the man is warned and 
 urged to turn from shi and live. This is one way in 
 which God says to the sinner, ''Turn ye, turn ye, for why 
 will ye die? As I live I have no pleasure in the death of 
 him that dieth." It is mercy in God, and is so represented 
 by St. Paul, when he " does not leave himself without 
 witness, in that he does good, sending rain from heaven, 
 and fruitful seasons, filling men's hearts with good and 
 gladness, and makes of one blood all nations of men for 
 to dwell on all the face of the earth, and. determines the 
 bounds of their habitation, that they should seek the Lord, 
 if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though 
 he be not far from every one of us" (Acts 14: 17; 17: 
 26, 27). That this gracious and fatherly' interest in their 
 souls' welfare is repelled and nullified by their preference 
 for sin and love of worldly pleasure, and comes to naught, 
 does not alter the nature of it as it lies in the heart of 
 God. It is Divine mercy and love for human souls, not- 
 withstanding its ill success. 
 
 Common grace is great and undeserved mercy to a sin- 
 ner^ and would save him if he did not resist and frustrate 
 it. In and by it, " God commandeth all men everywhere 
 to repent," and whoever reperits will find mercy. In and 
 by it, God commands every hearer of the written word 
 to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and whoever believes 
 shall be saved. The common grace of God consists of 
 the written, or in the instance of the heathen the unwrit- 
 ten word, together with more or less of the convicting 
 operation of the Holy Spirit. Says Hodge (ii. 667), 
 " The Bible teaches that the Holy Spirit, as the Spirit of 
 truth, of holiness, and of life in all its forms, is present 
 with every human mind, enforcing truth, restraining fi-om 
 evil, exciting to good, and imparting wisdom, or strength. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 49 
 
 when, where, and in what measure seemeth to him good. 
 In this sphere, also, he ' divideth to every man severally 
 as he will.' " Whoever is in any degree convinced of 
 sin, and is in any degree urged by his conscience to con- 
 fess and forsake it, is a subject of common grace. And 
 whoever stifles conviction, refuses confession, and " holds 
 down the truth in unrighteousness," resists common grace. 
 St. Paul charges this sin upon both the heathen and the 
 evangelized. Common grace, we repeat, is great and un- 
 deserved mercy to a sinner, and by it God evinces liis 
 pity for his soul, and his desire for its salvation. But 
 man universally, unevangelized and evangelized, nullifies 
 this form and degree of the Divine mercy, by liis opposi- 
 tion. The opponent of preterition comes in here at this 
 point, and contends that God is bound to go yet further 
 than common grace with sinful man, and subdue his en- 
 mity by creating him anew in the spirit of his mind ; and 
 that if he " passes him by," and leaves him whei-e lie is, 
 and as he is, he has no love for his soul. The sovereignty 
 of God in this matter of bestowing regenerating grace is 
 denied. To bestow it upon Jacob but not upon Esau, 
 upon some but not upon all, is said to be injustice and 
 partiality. 
 
 Scripture denies that God is under obligation to follow 
 up his defeated common grace with his irresistible special 
 grace. It asserts his just liberty to do as he pleases in 
 regard to imparting that measure of grace which produces 
 the new birth, and makes the sinner " willing in the day 
 of God's power." The passages have already been cited. 
 And reason teaches the same truth. Mercy from its very 
 nature is free and optional in its exercise. God may mani- 
 fest great and unmerited compassion to all men in com- 
 mon grace and the outward call, and limit his compassion 
 if he please to some men in special grace and the effectual 
 4 
 
50 THE PKOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 call. He may call upon all men to repent and believe, 
 and promise salvation to all that do so, and yet not incline 
 all men to do so. No one will saj that a man is insin- 
 cere in offering a gift, if he does not along with it produce 
 the disposition to accept it. And neither should one as- 
 sert this of God. God sincerely desires that the sinner 
 wonld hear his outward call, and that his common grace 
 might succeed with him. lie sincerely desires that every- 
 one who hears the message : " Ho, every one that thirst- 
 eth, come ye to the waters ; yea, come buy wine and milk 
 without money," would come just as he is, and of his own 
 free will, " for all things are ready." . The fact that God 
 does not go further than this witli all men and conquer 
 their aversion, is consistent with this desire. Ko one con- 
 tends that God is not universally benevolent because he 
 bestows more health, wealth, and intellect upon some than 
 upon others. And no one should contend that he is not 
 universally merciful, because he bestows 7nore grace upon 
 some than upon others. The omnipotence of God is able 
 to save the whole w^orld of mankind, and to our narrow 
 vision it seems singular that he does not ; but be this as 
 ^ it may, it is false to say that if he does not exert the 
 whole of his power, he is an unmerciful being towards 
 those who abuse his common grace. That degree of for- 
 bearance and long-suffering which God shows towards 
 those who resist it, and that measure of effort which he 
 puts forth to convert them, is real mercy towards their 
 souls. It is the sinner who has thwarted this benevolent 
 approach of God to his sinful heart. Millions of men in 
 all ages are continually beating back God's mercy in the 
 outward call and nullifying it. A man who has had 
 common grace, has been the subject of the Divine com- 
 passion to this degree. If he resists it, he cannot charge 
 God with unmercifulness, because he does not bestow 
 
THE AVESTiMINSTER STANDARDS. 51 
 
 upon him still greater mercy in the form of regenerating 
 gface. A beggar who contemptuously rejects tlic five 
 dollars offered by a benevolent man, cannot charge stiniri- 
 iiess upon him because after this rejection of the five dol- 
 lars he does not give him ten. Any sinner who complains 
 of God's "passing him by " in the bestowment of regen- 
 erating grace after his abuse of common grace, virtually 
 says to the High and Holy One who inhabits eternity, 
 " Thou hast tried once to convert me from sin ; now try 
 again, and try harder." ' 
 
 God's desire that a sinner should " turn and live " 
 under common grace, is not incompatible with his pur- 
 pose to leave him to " eat of the fruit of his own ways, 
 and be filled with his own devices " — which is the same 
 thing as " foreordaining him to everlasting death." A 
 decree of God may not be indicative of what he desires 
 and loves. He decrees sin, but abhors and forbids it. 
 He decrees the physical agony of millions of men in 
 earthquake, flood, and conflagration, but he does not 
 take delight in it. His omnipotence could prevent this 
 
 'An advocate of revision remarks that "the Calvinist is doubtless 
 right in saying that God is under no obligations to save us. Still, 
 even if this be the case, God may be, and I believe is under obliga- 
 tions to afford every man an opportunity to be saved ; that he has no 
 right to 'pass by' anyone." Two criticisms upon this suggest them- 
 selves. First, God in the outward call docs afford every man an oppor- 
 tunity to be saved. To every evangelized man he says, "Believe on 
 the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.'' This is " an oppor- 
 tunity to be saved." To every unevangelized man he says, " Repent of 
 thy sins, and I will forgive them." This is "an opportunity to be 
 saved." That in both instances the opportunity is rejected, does not 
 destroy the fact. Secondly, if God is " under obligations to afford the 
 opportunity to be saved," then salvation is an act of justice and the 
 performance of a duty. In affording man the opportunity to be saved, 
 God discharges his obligations. In this case, " grace is no more grace " 
 (Rom. 9 : 6). 
 
52 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 suffering in which he has no pleasure, bnt he decides for 
 adequate reasons not to do so. Similarly he could pre- 
 vent the eternal death of every single member of the 
 human family, in which he takes no pleasure, but decides 
 not to do so for reasons that are wise in his sight. The 
 distinction between the revealed will and the secret 
 will of God is a valid one ; ' and the latter of these 
 wills may be no index of the former, but the exact 
 contrary of it. This is particularly the case w^hen evil 
 is the thing decreed.^ 
 
 2. Secondly, it is objected to preterition that it is j)ar- 
 tlality. It would be, if sinners had a claim upon God for 
 his regenerating grace. In this case he could make no 
 discrimination, and must regenerate and save all. Par- 
 tiality is impossible within the sphere of" mercy, because 
 the conditions requisite to it are wanting. It can exist 
 only within the sphere of justice, where there are rights 
 and duties j claims and obligations. A debtor cannot 
 pay some of his creditors and " pass by " others, without 
 partiality. But in the sphere of mercy, where there is 
 no indebtedness, and no claim, the patron may give to 
 one beggar and not to another, if he so please, because he 
 " may do what he will with his own " — that is, with what 
 
 ' God's revealed •will, or will of desire, is expressed in Isa. 55 : 1 ; 
 Ezek. 33 : 11 ; 1 Tim. 2:4; Tit. 2:11. His secret will, or will of de- 
 cision and purpose in particular instances, is expressed in Mat. 13: 11 ; 
 John 6 : 37, 44, 65; Rom. 9 : 16, 18, 19. 
 
 '^ The difference between will as general desire and inclination, and 
 will as a particular volition or decision in a special instance, is seen in 
 human action, and is well understood. For sufficient reasons, a man 
 may decide in a particular case to do by a volition something entirely 
 contrary to his uniform and abiding inclination. He is uniformly 
 averse and disinclined to physical pain, but he may decide to have liis 
 leg amputated. This decision is his ''decree," and is no index of 
 what he is pleased with. 
 
THE AVESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 5'} 
 
 lie does not owe to any one. The parable of tlie talents 
 Avas spoken by our Lord to illustrate the doctrine of the 
 Divine sovereignty in the bestownient of unmerited gifts ; 
 and the regeneration of the soul is one of the greatest of 
 them. 
 
 This is a conclusive answer to the charge of partiality 
 and injustice, but some would avoid the charge by striking 
 out the tenet of preterition, and retaining that of election. 
 In this case, election becomes universal. If no men are 
 omitted in the bestowment of regenerating grace, all men 
 are elected. This is universal salvation, because all the 
 elect are infallibly regenerated and saved. And this is *^ 
 the manner in which the Later Lutheranism handles the 
 doctrine. It denies preterition, and strenuously opposes 
 this article of the Eeformed creed. If the Presbyterian 
 Church, after having adopted preterition for two centu- 
 ries, shall now declare that it is an un-Scriptural and erro- 
 neous tenet, the meaning of the revision will be, that God 
 has no sovereign liberty to ''pass by" any sinners, but 
 must save them all. This is the form in w^hich election 
 is held by Schleiermacher and his school. They contend 
 that there is no reprobation of any sinner whatsoever. 
 All men are elected, because to pass by any is injustice 
 and partiality. " Calling (vocatio)," says Dorner, " is 
 universal, for the Divine purpose of redemption is just 
 as universal as the need and capacity of redemption so that 
 the notion of a Divine decree to ^x^ss hy a jportion of 
 mankind^ and to restoi^e freedom of decision only to the 
 rest, is out of the question " (Christian Doctrine, iv. 183). 
 It is this form of Universal ism, which postulates the offer 
 of mercy to all men as something due to them, if not in 
 this life then in the next, and denies that the regener- 
 ating work of the Holy Spirit is confined to earth and 
 time, but goes on in the intermediate state, that is per- 
 
 -K 
 
54 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 colatiiig into the Scotch and American Calvinism from 
 the writino;s of one class of German divines. Should 
 tlie presbyteries reject the doctrine of preterition they 
 will help on this tendency. A creed like the Heidel- 
 berg, or the Thirty-nine Articles, may not have preteri- 
 tion verbally stated, and yet im^iily it by its statement 
 of election and by other parts of the symbol. But if 
 a creed like the Westminster, whicli has both doctrines 
 verbally stated, is subsequently revised so as to strike out 
 preterition, then this tenet cannot be implied. It is 
 positively branded as error, and lejected by the revising 
 Church. If therefore the presbyteries shall assert that 
 God does not " pass by " any sinner in respect to regener- 
 ating grace, they ^vill commit themselves to universal 
 salvation in the form above mentioned. Election will no 
 longer be balanced and limited by preterition, but will be 
 unlimited and universal. 
 
 And with this will be connected another fatal error : 
 namely, that God is under ohligation to elect and regen- 
 erate every man. If justice forbids him to " pass by " any 
 sinners, and " ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their 
 sin," he is bound to elect all sinners and " predestinate 
 them to everlasting life." He has no liberty or sover- 
 eignty in the case. He cannot say, " I will have mercy 
 upon whom I will have mercy, and whom I will I harden 
 [do not soften] " (Eom. 9 : 18). This transmutes mercy 
 into justice. Pardon becomes a Divine duty. The offer 
 of Christ's sacrifice, nay even the providing of it, becomes 
 a debt which God owes to every human creature. This is 
 the assumption that lies under all the various modes of 
 Universalism. Sinful men, loving sin, bent on sin, are 
 told that they are entitled to the offer of mercy and re- 
 generating grace ; that they must have a '' fair opportu- 
 nity " of salvation, if not here, then hereafter. Sinful men, 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 66 
 
 full of self-indulgence, confessing no sin and putting up 
 no prayer for forgiveness, and wlio have all their lifetime 
 suppressed the monitions of conscience and quenched the 
 Holy Spirit's strivings with them in liis exercise of com- 
 mon grace, are taught that if God shall pass them by, and 
 leave them to the sin that they prefer, he is an unmerci- 
 ful despot. 
 
 And here is the point where \.\\q jpractlcal value of the 
 doctrine of election and preterition is clearly seen. With- 
 out it, some of the indispensable characteristics of a gen- 
 uine Christian experience are impossible. Hence it is 
 that St. Paul continually employs it in producing true re- 
 pentance for sin, deep humility before God, utter self-dis- 
 trust, sole reliance on Christ's sacrifice, and a cheering 
 hope and confidence of salvation, founded not on the sin- 
 ner's ability and what God owes him, but on God's gra- 
 cious and unobliged purpose and covenant. This is the 
 doctrine which elicits from him the rapturous exclama- 
 tion, " O the depth of the riches both of the w^isdom and 
 knowledge of God. For who hath first given to him, and 
 it shall be recompensed unto him again ? For of him, 
 and through him, and to him are all things : to whom be 
 glory forever. Amen." This is the doctrine which in- 
 structs the believer to ascribe all his holy acts, even the 
 act of faith itself, to the unmerited and sovereign grace of 
 his redeeming God, and with Charles Wesley to sing : 
 
 * ' Hangs my helpless soul on Thee. " 
 
 It is said that the doctrine of preterition is not and can- 
 not be preached. It does not require technical terms and 
 syllogistical reasoning, in order to preach a doctrine. 
 Who so preaches the doctrine of the trinity, or of regen- 
 eration, or of original sin, or of vicarious atonement, or 
 of endless punishment? The doctrine of preterition is 
 
r,6 THE PROPOSED KEVISION OF 
 
 preaclied whenever the herald proclaims to the transgres- 
 sor of God's law that sin is gnilt and not misfortune ; that 
 the criminal has no claim npon the pardoning power for 
 pardon ; that the Supreme Judge might justly inflict 
 upon him the penalty which his sin deserves ; that his 
 soul is helplessly dependent upon the optional nnobliged 
 decision of his Maker and Saviour ; and that it is noth- 
 ing but God's special grace in regeneration that makes 
 him to differ from others who go down to perdition. 
 That these humbling and searching trutlis are taught 
 more thoroughly at some times than others, is true. That 
 they will empty some pews at all times, is true. It may 
 be that they are less taught now than formerly ; and if 
 so, this is not the time either to revise or construct creeds. 
 But whenever the Divine Spirit is present" with his illum- 
 ination, and the Scriptures are plainly preached, they 
 come into the foreground. If they shall be revised out of 
 the Confession, it is certain that they will be taught less 
 and less, and will finally disappear from the religious ex- 
 perience. 
 
 The sinner's acknowledgment that God might justly 
 pass him by, and leave him in his resistance of common 
 grace, is a necessary element in genuine repentance. 
 Whoever denies this, lacks the broken and contrite heart. 
 Such was the sorrow of the penitent thief: " We are in 
 this condemnation justly ; for we receive the due reward 
 of our deeds." Such was the penitence of the prodigal 
 son : " Father, I have sinned against heaven, and am no 
 niore worthy to be called thy son ; make me as one of thy 
 hired servants." Such w^as the temper of the leper : 
 " Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." I^o one 
 of these penitents took the ground that God owed him 
 pardon and regeneration, and that to pass liim by and or- 
 dain him to the eternal death which sin deserves would 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 57 
 
 be an act dishonorable to God. To deny God's sover- 
 eignty in. his exercise of mercy, is to set np a claim for 
 salvation, and whoever does this evinces that he has no 
 true view of sin as ill desert, and no true sorrow for it as 
 such. There is need of this doctrine in all aires, owino- to 
 the pride of the human heart, and its unwillingness to 
 bend the knee and renounce all merit and confess all de- 
 merit before God. And there is special need of it in our 
 age, when the Christian expeiience is defective at this 
 point, and i-edemption is looked upon as something which 
 God owes to mankind, and is bound to provide for them. 
 Unless this important truth is repristinated, and restored 
 to its proper place in the consciousness of the Church, the 
 current of Restorationism will set stronger and strongci-, 
 and the result will be a gi-eat apostasy in Christendom. 
 This is no time to eradicate it from the Calvinistic creeds, 
 but on the contrary to reaffirm it with confidence, and 
 defend it out of Scripture. 
 
 Some say that preterition is liable to be understood as 
 preventing a sinner's salvation, and would have an ex- 
 planation added to the doctrine, to the effect that this is 
 not its meaning or intent. We would respect the opin- 
 ion of any Christian believer who sincerely thinks that 
 the language of the Standards is unguarded, and who 
 does not desire to change their doctrines but only to make 
 sure that they are understood. This is not revision, but 
 explanation ; and a declarative statement similar to that of 
 tlie United Presbyterians, which leaves the Confession un- 
 touched, is the least objectionable of all the plans before 
 the Presbyterian Churches. But if it be borne in mind 
 that preterition is by the permissive^ not efficacious de- 
 cree, what call is there for such a guarding clause ? How 
 does or can God's decision to leave a sinner to do just 
 \vhat he likes, hinder the sinner from faith and repent- 
 
'\ ^' 
 
 58 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 ance ? How does or can God's purpose to save another 
 sinner, prevent this sinner from smiting on his breast, 
 saying, ^' God, be merciful to me, a sinner ? " " It is not 
 the fault of the gospel,'' say the Dort Canons (I., iii. iv. 
 9), " nor of Christ offered therein, nor of God who calls 
 men by the gospel and confers upon them various gifts, 
 that those who are called by the ministry of the word re- 
 fuse to come and be converted. The fault lies in them- 
 selves." There is nothing causative in the decree of pret- 
 erition. John Bunyan's statement of the matter is plain 
 common sense. " Eternal reprobation viakes no man a 
 sinner. The foreknowledge of God that the reprobate 
 will perish, inahes no man a sinner. God's infallible de- 
 termining upon the damnation of him that perisheth, 
 makes no man a sinner. God's patience and forbearance 
 until the reprobate fits himself for eternal destruction, 
 7naJces no man a sinner" (Reprobation Asserted, xi.). 
 Whatever God does by a permissive decree, excludes 
 causation on his part. God is not the author of the sin 
 in which he leaves the sinner ; or of the impenitence to 
 which he gives him over. His action in preterition is in- 
 action, rather than action. He decides to do nothing to 
 prevent the free will of the sinner from its own action. 
 With what color of reason can it be said that God forces 
 a man into perdition, when this is all he does to him ? 
 that God hinders a man from faith and repentance, when 
 he lets him entirely alone % To put the proposed expla- 
 nation and caveat into the Confessional doctrine of pret- 
 erition, would be like writing under Landseer's lions, 
 '• These are not sheep," or under Paul Potter's bull, 
 " This is not a horse." 
 
 The preterition of a sinner is not his exclusion from 
 salvation. Exclusion is a positive act ; but preterition is 
 a negative one. When God gives special regenerating 
 
THE AVESTMINSTEK STANDARDS. 59 
 
 grace to only one of two persons, lie does not work upon 
 the other to prevent him from believing and repenting 
 nnder the operation of the common grace which he has 
 bestowed upon both alike, lie merely leaves the other 
 to his own free will to decide the matter ; assnring him 
 that if he repents he will forgive him ; that if he believes 
 lie will save him. The bestowment of common grace 
 upon the non-elect shows that non-election does not ex- 
 clude from the kingdom of heaven by Divine efficiency, 
 because common grace is not only an invitation to believe 
 and repent, but an actual hel}} towards it ; and a help that 
 is nullified solely by the resistance of the non-elect, and 
 not by anything in the nature of common grace, or by 
 any preventive action of God. The fault of the failure 
 of common grace to save the sinner, is chargeable to the 
 sinner alone ; and he has no right to plead a fault of his 
 own as the reason why he is entitled to special grace. It 
 is absurd for him to contend that God has no rio:ht to re- 
 fuse him regenerating grace, because he has defeated the 
 Divine mercy in common grace. The true way out of the 
 difficulty for the sinner is, not to demand regenerating 
 grace as a debt by denying that God has the right to 
 withhold it, but to confess the sinful abuse and frustra- 
 tion of common grace, and to cry with the leper : " Lord, 
 if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean." 
 
 Having thus demonstrated the Scriptural and self-con- 
 sistent character of the doctrine of decrees as contained in 
 the Westminster Standards, we turn now to consider two 
 erroneous conclusions that are drawn from it, which are 
 urged as reasons for their revision : First, that it shuts 
 out the entire heathen world from Christ's redemption ; 
 and, second, that it implies the damnation of a part of 
 those who die in infancy. 
 
 Some adv^ocates of revision seem, unintentionally prob- 
 
60 THE PEOPOSED KEVISIOIsr OF 
 
 ably, to load down the Confession with faults not belong- 
 ing to it. They put the worst interpretation upon its 
 terms and phraseology ; insist that its defenders have no 
 rio'ht to its necessary implications and natural inferences 
 in determining what it really means ; and that an analytic 
 and positive affirmation of every particular point must 
 be found in it. Interpreting in this prejudiced manner, 
 they assert that the Standards do not declare the universal 
 love and compassion of God ; that they teach that God 
 creates some men in order to damn them ; ^ that their doc- 
 trine of election discourages ministers from making the 
 nniversal oifer of Christ's salvation,. and hinders sinners 
 from accepting it ; and that he wdio adopts them as they 
 read cannot consistently believe that any of the heatlien 
 are saved, and that no dying infants are lost. The}' carry 
 a wrong idea of election and reprobation into their exege- 
 sis of the Standards. They suppose that these necessarily 
 imply that only a very few are elected, and that very many 
 are reprobated. But there is nothing in the nature of 
 either election or preterition, that determines tlie nuiiibev 
 of each ; nothing that implies that the elect must bo the 
 minority, and the non-elect the majority, or the converse. 
 
 ^ A false exegesis of Romans 9 : 20 is sometimes employed to prove 
 that God crea^^s men sinners. "Shall the thing formed {irXda/jLa) saj 
 to him that formed {Tr\d(ravTi) it, Why hast thou made me thus ? " does 
 not mean, " Shall the thing created say to him that created it, Why hast 
 thou created me thus ? " Creation ex nihilo would require kt'ktis, not 
 TrKda/xa. The latter term denotes only the formative act of a moulder, 
 not the supernatural act of a creator. The whole sinful mass of man- 
 kind whom God created holy, have become sinful by their own act, and 
 lie in his hand like clay in the hands of the potter. Compare Isa. 29 : 
 16 ; 45 : 9. The potter, as sucJ), does not give the clay its properties, 
 but merely shapes the clay into vessels of honor or dishonor as he 
 pleases. Says Hodge, in loco, "It is to be borne in mind, that Paul 
 does not here speak of the right of God over his creatures as creatures^ 
 but as sinfid creatures." Compare Shedd : On Romans, 9 : 20. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. Gl 
 
 The size of each circle depends upon the will of him wlio 
 draws it. God, conceivably, might have elected the whole 
 human family without an exception, as Schleiermacher 
 says he did. Or, conceivably, he might have reprobated 
 the whole human family, because he was not in justice 
 obliged to save it. There is nothing in the nature of elec- , 
 tion that makes it inapplicable to the heathen, or of pret- 
 erition. God may elect and regenerate a heathen if he 
 please, or he may leave him in the sin which he loves. 
 And the same is true of the ideas of election and preteri- 
 tion as related to dying infants. Since everything in this 
 matter depends wholly upon the sovereign loill of God, he 
 may regulate his choice as he pleases. lie may choose 
 dying infants as individuals, as he does adults ; or he may ^ 
 choose them as a class. x\nd he might reject dying in- 
 fants as individuals, as he does adults ; or he might reject 
 them as a class. For since infants like adults have a sin- 
 ful nature, and, in the phrase of the Auburn Declaration, 
 ^' in order to be saved, need redemption by the blood of 
 Christ, and regeneration by the Holy Ghost," they re- 
 quire the exercise of unmerited mercy, which on grounds 
 of justice might be withheld. 
 
 We cannot, therefore, determine from the mere idea of 
 election how many are elected, or from that of pretention 
 how many are passed by. This question can be answered 
 only by God himself, and this answer, so far as he has 
 vouchsafed to give it, is contained in his word. That 
 the Scriptures plainly teach that the total result of Christ's 
 redemption will be a triumphant victor}' over the king- 
 dom of Satan, and that the number of tlie redeemed will 
 be vastly greater than that of the lost, we shall assume. 
 It is also plainly taught in Scripture, that God's ordinary 
 method is to gather his elect from the evangelized part of 
 mankind. Does Scripture also furnish ground for the 
 
62 THE PEOPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 belief, that God also gathers some of his elect by an ex- 
 traordinary method from among the unevangelized, and 
 without the written word saves some adult heathen " by 
 the w^ashing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy 
 Ghost ? " We contend that the Confession so under- 
 V stands the Scriptures, in its declaration that there are some 
 "elect persons [other than infants] who are incapable. of 
 being outwardly called by the ministry of the word." To 
 refer the " incapacity " here spoken of to that of idiots 
 and insane persons, is an example of the unnatural exe- 
 gesis of the Standards to which we have alluded. The 
 hypothesis that the Confession teaches that there are elect 
 and non-elect idiots^ and elect and non-elect maniacs^ is 
 remarkable. It is incredible for two reasons. First, 
 idiots and maniacs are not moral agents, and therefore as 
 such are neither damnable nor salvable. They would be 
 required to be made rational and sane, before they could 
 be classed with the rest of mankind. It is utterly im- 
 probable that the Assembly took hito account this very 
 small number of individuals respecting whose destiny so 
 little is known. It would be like taking into account 
 abortions and untimely births. Secondly, these " elect 
 persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by 
 the ministry of the word," are contrasted in the imme- 
 diate context with '* others not elected, who although 
 they may be called by the ministry of the word never 
 truly come to Christ ; " that is to say, they are contrasted 
 with rational and sane adults in evangelized regions. But 
 idiots and maniacs could not be put into such a contrast. 
 Tiio " incapacity " therefore must be that of circum- 
 stances, not of mental faculty. A man in the heart of 
 unevangelized Africa is incapable of hearing the written 
 word, in the sense that a man in ]^ew York is incapable 
 of hearing the roar of London. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 63 
 
 Consequently, tlie Confession, in this section, intends 
 to teaeli that tliere are some nnevangelized men wlio are 
 *' regenerated and saved by Christ throngli the Spirit-' 
 without " the ministry of the wiitten word,-' and who 
 differ in this respect from evangelized men wlio are re- 
 genei-ated in connection with it. There are these two 
 classes of regenerated persons among God's elect. Thoy 
 are both alike in being born, " not of blood, nor of the 
 will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
 They are both alike in respect to faith and repentance, 
 because these are the natural and necessary effects of re- 
 generation. Both alike feel and confess sin ; and both 
 alike hope in the Divine mercy, though the regenerate 
 heathen has not yet had Christ presented to him. As 
 this is the extraordinary work of the Holy Spirit, little 
 is said bearing upon it in Scripture. But something is 
 said. God's promise to Abraham was, that in him should 
 "all the families of the earth be blessed " (Gen. 12:3). 
 St. Paul teaches that '' they are not all Israel which are 
 of Israel" (Rom. 9 : 0) ; and that ''they which are of 
 faith, the same are the children of Abraham " (Gal. 3 : 7). 
 Our Loi-d affirms that " many shall come from the east 
 and west, the north and the south, and shall sit down 
 with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of 
 heaven" (Matt. 8:11). Christ saw both penitence and 
 faith in the nnevangelized centurion, respecting whom he 
 said, '' I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel " 
 (Matt. 8: 5-10). The faith of the ''woman of Canaan," 
 an alien and stranger to the Jewish people and covenant, 
 was tested more severely than that of any person who 
 came to him in the days cf his flesh, and of it the gra- 
 cious Eedeemer exclaimed, " O woman, great is thy faith ! " 
 These two classes of the regenerate have their typical 
 heads in Scripture. Srjs Kurtz, "Of those who are 
 
64 THE PROPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 blessed in the seed of Abraham, Naomi represents the 
 people of God who are to proceed from the ancient peo- 
 ple of the covenant, and Ruth represents those proceed- 
 in o- from tlie heathen world." That the Church is not 
 to expect and rely upon this extraordinary work of the 
 Spirit, it is needless to say. That this work is extensive, 
 and the number of saved nnevangelized adults is great, 
 cannot be affirmed. But that all the adult heathen are 
 lost is not the teaching of the Bible or of the Westmin- 
 ster Standards. 
 
 The declaration in Confession x. 4, and Larger Cate- 
 chism, 60, does not refer at all to the heathen as such, 
 but only to a certain class of persons to be found both 
 in Christendom and heathendom, and probably more 
 numerously in the former than in the latter. The " men 
 not professing tlie Christian religion " are those who 
 reject it, either in spirit, or formally and actually ; tliat 
 is to say, legalists of every age and nation, evangelized 
 or nnevangelized, who expect future happiness by fol- 
 lowing " the light of nature " and reason, and the ethical 
 "religion they do profess," instead of by confessing sin 
 and hoping in the Divine mercj^ The Jewish Pharisee, 
 the Roman Julian and Antoninus, the self-satisfied Buddh- 
 ist sasce followuioc the "lisrht of Asia," the Mohamme- 
 dan saint despising Christianity, the English Hume and 
 Mill, all of every race and clime who pride themselves 
 on personal character and morality, and lack the humility 
 and penitence that welcome the gospel, are the class 
 spoken of in these declarations. They press no more, 
 and probably less, npon the heathen than upon the 
 Christian world ; because the most hostile and intense 
 rejection of the doctrines of grace is to be found in Cliris- 
 tian countries, rather than in Pagan. They do not shut 
 out of the kingdom of heaven any heathen who has the 
 
THE WESTMII^fSTER STANDARDS. 65 
 
 spirit of the publican, but do shut out every heathen and 
 every nominal Christian who is destitute of it. The 
 object of this section of the Confession, which is the 
 same as the eighteenth of the Thirty-nine Articles, is 
 to teach that no human creature, evangelized or un- 
 evangelized, can be saved on any but evangelkal princi- 
 ples ; namely, by unmerited grace, not by personal merit. 
 It IS only another way of proclaiming St. Paul's doc- 
 trine, that '' by the deeds of the law no flesh shall be 
 justified." 
 
 That this is the correct understanding of the West- 
 minster Standards is corroborated by the fact that the 
 Calvinism of the time held that God has his elect amono- 
 the heathen. The Second Helvetic Confession (i. 7)^ 
 teaches it. Zanchius, whose treatise on Predestination is 
 of the strictest type, asserts it. Witsius and others sug- 
 gest that the grace of God in election is wide and far 
 reaching. The elder Calvinists held with the strictest 
 rigor that no man is saved outside of the circle of election 
 and regeneration, but they did not make that circle to be 
 the small, narrow, insignificant circumference which their 
 opponents charge npon them. And there is no reason to 
 believe that the Westminster Assembly differed from the 
 Calvinism of the time. 
 
 And this brings us to the subject of ''elect infants." 
 There is no dispute that the Confession teaches that there 
 are "elect dying infants." Does it also teach that there 
 are "non-elect dying infants?" In other words, does 
 the phrase "elect infants" imply that there are "non- 
 elect infants," as the phrase "elect adults" does that 
 there are "non-elect adults?" This depends upon 
 whethei- the cases are alike in all particulars. The argu- 
 ment is from analogy, and analogical reasoning requires 
 a resemblance and similarity upon which to rest.^ But the 
 
66 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 Confession directs attention to a great and marTced diver- 
 sity between infant and adult regeneration, which sets off 
 the two classes from one another, making some things 
 true of one that are not of the other. The Confession 
 points at and signalizes the striking difference in the 
 manner in which the Holy Ghost ojperates^ in each in- 
 stance. Infants are incapable of the outward call and 
 common grace ; adults are capable of both. Consequent- 
 ly an elect infant dying in infancy is " regenerated by 
 Christ, through the Spirit," without the outward call and 
 common grace ; but an elect adult is " regenerated by 
 Christ through the Sprit," in connection with the ex- 
 ternal call and common grace, and after both have been 
 frustrated by him. Election and non-election in the case 
 of adults is the selection of some and omi-ssion of others 
 who are alike guilty of resisting the ordinary antecedents 
 of regeneration. Election in the case of dj'ing infants 
 is wholly apart from this. There being this great dis- 
 similarity between the two classes, it does not follow 
 that every particular that is true of one must be of the 
 other ; that because election is individual in the instance 
 of adults it must necessarily be so in that of infants ; 
 that because adults are not elected as a class infants can- 
 not be. The state of thino^s in which the reo^eneration of 
 an adult occurs, namely after conviction of sin and more 
 or less opposition to the ti'uth, is entirely diverse from 
 that in which the regeneration of a dying infant occurs ; 
 namely, in unconsciousness and without conviction of sin. 
 The only form of grace that is possible to the dying 
 infant is regenerating grace, and the only call possible 
 is the effectual call. If therefore God manifests any 
 grace at all to the dying infant, it must be special and 
 saving ; and if he call him at all, he must call him effect- 
 ually. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 67 
 
 ^Now, since the authors of the Confession liave them- 
 selves distinctly specified such a peculiar feature in the 
 regeneration of the dying infant, it is plain that they re- 
 garded it as differing in some respects from that of adults, 
 and intended to disconnect it from that of adults and 
 consider it by itself. For why should they take pains, 
 when speaking of elect infants, to call attention to the fact 
 that the " Holy Ghost worketh when, and where, and how 
 he pleaseth," if they did not mean to signalize the ex- 
 traordinariness of the Divine action in infant regenera- 
 tion ? And if infant regeneration is extraordinary in not 
 having been preceded by the usual antecedents of common 
 grace and the outward call, why nuiy it not be extraordi- 
 nary in being universal and not particular? that of a class 
 and not of individuals ? Does not the singularity that 
 distinguishes the infant in regard to regeneration without 
 conviction of sin, suggest that of electing the wdiole class ? 
 But what is far more conclusive, does not the fact that 
 the Assembly does not limit infant election by infant pret- 
 erition, as it limits adult election by adult preterition, 
 actually prove that there is this great diversity in the two 
 cases ? Does not the fact that the Assembly, while ex- 
 plicitly, and with a carefulness that is irritating to many 
 persons, balancing and guarding the election of adults by 
 preterition, does not do so wdth the election of infants, 
 show beyond doubt that they believed their election to be 
 unlimited, and that no dying infants are "passed by" in 
 the bestowment of regenerating grace ? We have already 
 seen that the jpro^yoscd omission of preterition, so as to 
 leave only election in the case of adults, would make their 
 election universal, and save the whole class without excep- 
 tion. The actual omission of it by the Assembly in the 
 case of dying infants has the same effect. It is morally 
 certain that if the Assembly had intended to discriminate 
 
63 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 between elect and non-elect infants, as tliev do between 
 elect and non-elect adults, they would have taken pains to 
 do so, and would have inserted a corresponding clause 
 concerning infant preterition to indicate it. Whoever 
 contends that they believed that preterition applies to in- 
 fants, is bound to explain their silence upon this point. 
 Had infant election been explicitly limited by infant pret- 
 erition in the Confession, it would have been impossible 
 for any candid expounder of it to hold that it permits sub- 
 scribers to it to believe in the salvation of all dying in- 
 fants. But Calvinistic divines for the last century or 
 more have put this interpretation upon this section of the 
 Confession, namely, that infant election is not individual 
 but classical, and we think they are justified in so doing 
 by the remarkable omission in this case.^ 
 
 On the face of it, the thing looks probable. The case 
 of the adult, in which there is both the outward call and 
 the effectual, both common grace and regenerating, may 
 be governed by the principle of individuality ; while that 
 of the infant, in which there -is only the effectual call and 
 regenerating grace, may be governed by the principle of 
 community. Of those who have had the outward call 
 and have rejected it, some may be taken and others left ; 
 while of those who have not had the outward call and 
 liave not rejected it, all may be taken. It is election in 
 both instances ; tliat is, the decision of God according to 
 the counsel of his own will. In one case, God sovereignly 
 decides to elect some ; in the other, to elect all. And it 
 
 ' Respecting the necessity of construing the Confession as teaching 
 that there are non-elect infants, Dr. Schaff remarks as follows : *' The 
 Confession nowhere speaks of reprobate infants, and the existence of 
 such is not necessarily implied by way of distinction, although it 'prob- 
 ably was in the minds of the framers, as their private opinion, which 
 they wisely withheld from the Confession " (Creeds of Christendom, i. 
 795). 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 69 
 
 is unmerited mercy, in both instances ; because God is not 
 bound and obliged by justice to pardon and eradicate the 
 sin of an infant any more than that of an adult. And 
 tliere is nothing in the fact that an infant has not resisted 
 common grace, that entitles it to the exercise of special 
 grace. In the transaction, God is moved wholly by his 
 spontaneous and infinite mercy. He does an act to which 
 he is not compelled by the sense of duty or of justice, 
 either to himself or to sinners, but which he loves to do, 
 and longs to do, because of his infinite pity and compas- 
 sion.^ 
 
 That many of the elder Calvin ists believed that there 
 are some non-elect infants is undeniable ; and that in the 
 long and heated discussions of the seventeenth century 
 between Calvinists and Arminians, and between Calvinists 
 themselves, many hard sayings were uttered by individual 
 theologians which may be construed to prove that man 
 is necessitated to sin, that God is the author of sin, and 
 that the majority of mankind are lost, is equally undeni- 
 able. But the Westminster Confession must be held re- 
 sponsible for only what is declared on its pages. The 
 question is not, whether few or many of the members of 
 the Assembly held that some dying infants are lost, but 
 whether the Confession so asserts ; is not, whether any 
 Calvinists of that day, in endeavoring to show hoio God 
 decrees sin, may not have come perilously near represent- 
 ing him as doing it by direct efficiency, but whether the 
 Reformed and Westminster creeds do this. 
 
 ' The assumption that God is obliged by justice to offer salvation to 
 all mankind, and to redeem them all, precludes all gratitude and praise 
 for redemption, on their part. Why should they give thanks for a favor 
 that is due to them, and which it is the duty of God to bestow ? Chris- 
 tians adore " the riches of God's grace " because it is utterly unclaim- 
 able on their part, and unobligated on his. 
 
70 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 Tlie rigor of the theology of the elder Calvinists has 
 been exaggerated. They took a wide and large view of 
 i\\Q j)Ossible extent of election. Owen is as strict as most 
 of them. But in argning against the Arminians, in sup- 
 port of the guilt and condemnability of original sin, he 
 says : " Observe that in this inquiry of the desert of orig- 
 inal sin, the question is not. What shall he the certain lot 
 of those vjho depart this life tinder the guilt of this sin 
 only f but what this hereditary and native corruption 
 doth deserve^ in all those in whom it is ? For as St. Paul 
 saith, 'We judge not them that are without' (especially 
 infants)^ 1 Cor. 5 : 13. But for the demerit of it in the 
 justice of God, our Saviour expressly affirmeth that ' un- 
 less a man be born again, he cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God.' Again, we are assured that no unclean 
 thing shall enter into heaven (Rev. 21). Children are 
 polluted with hell-deserving uncleanness, and therefore 
 unless it be purged with the blood of Christ, they have 
 no interest in everlasting happiness. By this means sin 
 is come upon all to condemnation, and yet we do not 
 peremptorily censure to hell all infants dejparting out of 
 this world loithout thelaver of regeneration [i.e., baptism], 
 the ordinary means of waiving the punishment due to 
 this pollution. That is the question do facto, which we 
 before rejected : yea, and two ways there are whereby 
 God savetli such infants, snatching them like brands from 
 the fire. First, by interesting them into the covenant, if 
 their immediate or remote parents have been believers. 
 He is a God of them, and of their seed, extending his 
 mercy unto a thousand generations of them that fear him. 
 Secondly, by his grace of election, which is ^nost free 
 and not tied to any conditions ; by which I make no 
 doubt but God taketh many unto him in Christ whose 
 parents never knew, or had heen desj^isers of the gospel. 
 
THE WESTMIXSTER STANDARDS. 71 
 
 And this is the doctrine of our Church, agreeable to the 
 Scriptures affirming the desert of original sin to be God's 
 M'ralh and damnation" (Owen: Arminianism, Ch. vii.). 
 This is the salvation of infants by botli covenanted and un- 
 covenanted mercy, and Owen maintains that it is a tenet 
 of Calvinism. That he does not assert the classical elec- 
 tion of infants is true ; but he asserts the individual elec- 
 tion of some infants outside of tlie Church. 
 
 Such, then, is the Westminster doctrine of the Divine 
 Decree. It is the common Augustino-Calvinistic doc- 
 trine. iS^o part of it can be spared, and retain the integ- 
 rity of the system. Whatever may have been the inten- 
 tion of the few first proposers of revision ; or whatever 
 may be the intention of the many various advocates of it 
 who have joined them ; the grave question before all 
 parties now is, Whether the Presbyterian Cliurch shall 
 adhere to the historical Calvinism with which all its past 
 usefulness and honor are inseparably associated, or whether 
 it shall renounce it as an antiquated system which did 
 good service in its day, but can do so no longer. The 
 votes of the presbyteries within the coming six months 
 will answer this question. 
 
72 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 YL 
 
 WHAT IS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD IN ELECTION ? ^ 
 
 It is generally conceded by those who advocate a revi- 
 sion of the Confession, that " the sovereignty of God in 
 election " must be retained as a fundamental truth. Sev- 
 eral presbyteries have voted for revision, with the explicit 
 declaration that this part of the third chapter must stand ; 
 and they have at the same time voted to strike out the 
 doctrine oi jpreteritioji. Among them is the large and in- 
 fluential presbytery of New York. With the highest re- 
 spect for our brethren and copresbyters, and with sincere 
 regret to be obliged to differ from the majority, we pro- 
 ceed to raise and answer the question, Whether the doc- 
 trine of " the sovereignty of God in election " can be held 
 unimpaired and in its integrity, if the tenet of preterition 
 is omitted from " the system of doctrine contained in the 
 Scriptures." 
 
 The presbyterj^ have declared to the General Assembly : 
 
 1, That " they deprecate most earnestly all such changes 
 as would impair the essential articles of our faith ; " and 
 
 2, That " they desire the third chapter of the Confession, 
 after the first section, to be so recast as to include these 
 things only : Tlie sovereignty of God in election ; the gen- 
 eral love of God for all mankind ; the salvation in Christ 
 Jesus provided for all, and to be preached to every creat- 
 Tire." In this recasting, they specify several sections of 
 chapter third whicli they would strike out, and among 
 
 1 New York Observer, Marcli 6, 1890. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 73 
 
 them is the section which declares that God '' passes by " 
 some of mankind, and '* ordains them to dishonor and 
 wrath for their sin." According to this deliverance, the 
 presbytery of New York supposes that it can hold the 
 doctrine of " the sovereignty of God in election " unim- 
 paired and in all its essential features, while denying and 
 rejecting the doctrine of preterition. An examination of 
 the nature and definition of " sovereignty," we think, will 
 show that this is impossible. 
 
 Sovereignty is a comprehensive term. It contains sev- 
 eral elements. First it denotes supremacy. A sovereign 
 ruler is supreme in his dominions. All other rulers are 
 under him. Secondly, sovereignty denotes independence. 
 Says Woolsey, " In the intercourse of nations certain 
 states have a position of entire independence of others. 
 They have the power of self-government, that is, of inde- 
 pendence of all other states as far as their own territory 
 and citizens are concerned. This power of independent 
 action in external and internal relations constitutes com- 
 plete sovereignty " (Political Science, i. 204:). Thirdly, 
 sovereignty denotes optional poioei' • that is, the power to 
 act or not in a given instance. It is more particularly 
 with reference to this latter characteristic of free alterna- 
 tive decision, that " the sovereignty of God in election " is 
 spoken of. In his election of a sinner to salvation, God 
 as supreme, independent, and sovereign, acts with entire 
 liberty of decision, and not as obliged and shut up to one 
 course of action. 
 
 This is the common understanding and definition of 
 sovereignty as applied to decisions and acts. Says Black- 
 stone : " By the sovereign power is meant the power of 
 making laws ; for wherever that power resides all other 
 powers must conform to, and be directed by it, whatever 
 appearance the outward form and administration of the 
 
74 THE PROPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 government may put on. For it is at any time in tlie 
 option of the legislature to alter that form and adminis- 
 tration by a new edict or rule, and put the execution of 
 the law into whatever hands it pleases, by constituting 
 one, or a few, or many executive magistrates" (Introduc- 
 tion, 2). Blackstone gives the same definition of sover- 
 eio-nty, when it is vested in a king (Book II., ch. vii.). 
 The king has no superior to oblige or compel him to one 
 course of action. He has independent and optional 
 power. This is the reason why a monarchy is inferior to 
 a republic, as an ideal of government, and the secret of 
 the steady tendency to the latter form of government, in 
 the earth. Sovereign, supreme, independent, and o^p- 
 tional power is too great a power to be lodged in the 
 hands of one man. Its safest deposit is in the hands of 
 all the people. 
 
 The pardoning power is a sovereign power, and this 
 implies choice between two alternatives. If the gover- 
 nor of Xew York has the power to grant a pardon to a 
 criminal, but not the power to refuse it, he is not 
 sovereign in the matter. If of two criminals, he cannot 
 pardon one and leave the other under the sentence of the 
 court, he is not sovereign in the matter. When it is said 
 that in a democracy the sovereign power is vested in the 
 people, the meaning is that the people have the right 
 to make such a constitution and laws as they please. No 
 one would contend that the people of New York have 
 sovereign power in the case, if they are obliged to put 
 imprisonment for debt, or any other particular statute, 
 into their code. A "sovereignty " that has no alternative 
 is none at all. 
 
 God is a sovereign, and the highest of all. He may 
 create a universe or not, as he pleases. Were he obliged 
 or compelled to create, he would not be sovereign in 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 75 
 
 creating. He may arrange and order liis universe as he 
 pleases. If he were confined to bnt one order, he would 
 not be sovereign in his providence. But not to waste 
 time on these self-evident generalities, we come to the 
 case in hand: the "sovereignty of God in election:' 
 The question is, Whether God is " sovereign " in electing, 
 regenerating, and saving a sinner, if lie has no oj^tion in 
 the matter ? if he cannot " pass by " the sinner, and 
 leave him unregenerate, unpardoned, and unsaved? 
 One would think that such a question as this could have 
 but one answer in the negative, had not a majority of the 
 presbytery of New York answered it in the affirmative. 
 The Westminster Confession declares that " the sover- 
 eignty of God in election " means, that he may elect or 
 pass by the sinner as he pleases. The Revised Con- 
 fession declares that it means, that he may elect him but 
 not pass him by. The Old Confession declares that sover- 
 eignty means, that God may bestow regenei-ating grace 
 upon a sinner who is resisting common grace, or may not 
 bestow it. The Xew Confession declares that it means, 
 that he may bestow regenerating grace upon him, but 
 may not refuse to bestow it. The Old Confession de- 
 clares that sovereignty means, that God may pardon the 
 sinner or not, as he pleases. The Kew Confession de- 
 clares that it means, that he may pardon him but not 
 deny him a pardon. 
 
 Now we ask. What sovereignty has God in tlie salva- 
 tion of the sinner, if he has no alternative in regard to 
 election, regeneration, and pardon ? if eternal justice re- 
 quires that he elect, and forbids that he pass by ? if 
 eternal justice requires that he regenerate, and forbids 
 him to leave in unregeneracy ? if eternal justice requires 
 that he pardon, and forbids him to refuse to pardon ? 
 To strike out pretention from the Confession, is to de- 
 
76 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 clare that it is an iinscriptural doctrine, and to brand it 
 as error. And to assert " the sovereignty of God in 
 election " after having done this, is to assert that an act 
 tliat has no alternative is a sovereign act. 
 
 But God himself has decided the question. He asserts 
 his sovereign right to optional decision in the matter of 
 human salvation. In that wonderful description of his 
 being and attributes which he gave to Moses, among 
 other declarations he says, '' I will be gracious to whom I 
 •will be gracious, and will shew mercy to whom I will shew 
 mercy" (Ex. 33: 19). In this solemn pronunciamento 
 with which he prefaced the whole work of human salva- 
 tion, he distinctly declares that he is imder no obligation 
 to redeem sinful men, but that whatever he does in the 
 premises is of his own unobliged, free, and sovereign 
 mercy and decision. Still more explicitly" in what is 
 perhaps the most terrible passage in all Scripture, God 
 asserts that he will pass by and leave in their sin some 
 who have refused his common call, and frustrated his 
 common grace. " Because I have called, and ye refused ; 
 I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded ; but 
 ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of 
 my reproof ; I also will laugh at your calamity ; I will 
 mock when your fear cometh. Then shall they call upon 
 me, but I will not answer ; they shall seek me early, but 
 they shall not find me " (Prov. 1 ; 24-26, 27). God incar- 
 nate teaches the same truth, that " one shall be taken and 
 the other left" (Luke 17: 34-36). And St. Paul recites 
 the words of God to Moses, " I will have mercy on whom 
 I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I 
 will have compassion," as a conclusive demonstration of 
 the Divine sovereignty in salvation. 
 
 The only instance of the retention of election, and re- 
 jection of preterition, in a creed, is that of the Cumber- 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 77 
 
 land Presbjtei'ians. Our Arniinian brethren are con- 
 sistent and logical, like the Westminster Standards, in 
 teaching both election and preterition ; only they assert 
 that both are conditional. Men are elected because of 
 faith, and are passed by because of unbelief. There has 
 never been any proposition to revise preterition out of an 
 Arminian creed. Arniinius, Episcopius, Liniborch, Wes- 
 ley, and AVatson understand that election necessarily im- 
 plies the antithetic non-election.' A proposition to revise 
 the Confession so that it would teach conditional election 
 and preterition, would be self -consistent but anti-Calvin- 
 istic ; but the proposition to revise it so as to declare that 
 God elects but does not pass by sinners, is neither con- 
 sistency nor Calvinism. If adopted, the Xorthern Presby- 
 terian Church will have an illogical and nnitilated creed, 
 and will resemble a wounded eagle attempting to fly with 
 but one wing. 
 
 ' According to Brandt, tlie Remonstrants defined predestination as 
 follows: "God liath decreed from all eternity to elect those to ever- 
 lasting life, who through his grace believe in Jesus Christ and persevere 
 in faith and obedience ; and on the contrary hath resolved to reject the 
 unconverted and unbelieving to everlasting damnation " (Reformation 
 in the Low Countries, Book xxi.). 
 
78 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 YII. 
 
 THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS AND THE "LARGER HOPE." i 
 
 The doctrines of Calvinism formulated in the Westmin- 
 ster Standards are represented b}^ many persons as destin- 
 ing the vast majority of the human race to an eternity of 
 sin and misery. They are pessimistic, it is said ; envelop- 
 ing this brief liuman life in gloom and darkness. The 
 elect are very few ; and the non-elect are very many. 
 Practically, the human species is lost f orever^- like the devil 
 and his angels. Over this theological system they would 
 write the Dantean inscription on the portal of Hell, " All 
 hope abandon, ye who enter here." We shall endeavor 
 to show that this estimate is utterly erroneous, and that 
 ^' the system of doctrine contained in the Scriptures," and 
 presented in the Confession, teaches that an immense ma- 
 jority of the human family will be saved by the redemp- 
 tion of the dying and risen Son of God and Lord of Glory, 
 and that the " larger hope " has ample scope and verge 
 enough within its limits. 
 
 Calvinism emphasizes the doctrine of regeneration : the 
 doctrine, namely, that God by an instantaneous act im- 
 parts the principle of spiritual life to the sinful soul with- 
 out its co-operation or assistance, so that the new birth is 
 not dependent upon, or conditioned by, man's agency. 
 Men who are " born again " are " born not of blood, nor 
 of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of 
 
 ' In part, from the Methodist Quarterly Review, May, 1889. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 79 
 
 God " (John 1 : 13). This doctrine runs all throngh the 
 Westminster Standards. It is closely connected with the 
 tenet of election, for this regulates the bestownient of 
 regenerating grace. Effectual calling includes it, for a 
 prominent factor in this is that work of God whereby he 
 *' takes away the heart of stone, and gives the lieart of 
 flesh " (Conf. x. 1). In thus magnifying regeneration, 
 the Confession accords with Hevelation. For on look- 
 ing into the Scriptures, we find that the salvation of the 
 human soul is made to depend absolutely upon the new 
 birth. Christ said to Kicodemus, " Except a man be born 
 again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This implies 
 that eveiy man who is born again will see the kingdom of 
 God. Regeneration, consequently, decides human des- 
 tiny. Whoever knows how many of the human family 
 shall have been quickened from spiritual death to spirit- 
 nal life, by the mercy of God the Holy Spirit, knows how 
 many of them shall be saved. Re2:eneration determines 
 liuman salvation, because it produces everything requisite 
 to it. The great act of faith in the blood of Christ, by 
 which the sinner is justified, is described as dependent 
 npon it. " Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, 
 is born of God" (1 John 5 : 1). "Xo man can come to 
 me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him " 
 (John 6 : M). '* Ye believed, even as the Lord gave to 
 every man " (1 Cor. 3 : 5). '' As many as were ordained 
 to eternal life, believed " (Acts 13 : 48). " Unto you it is 
 given in the behalf of Christ, to believe on him " (Phil. 
 1 : 29). " By grace are ye saved through faith ; and 
 that not of yourselves : it is the gift of God " (Eph. 2 : 8). 
 '' Christ is the author and finisher of faith" (Ileb. 12 : 2). 
 Faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification all result 
 naturally and infallibly from that work of the Holy Spirit, 
 whereby he " quickens " the sonl " dead in trespasses and 
 
80 THE PROPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 sins " (Epli. 2:1), and by " enlightening the mind, and 
 renewing the will, persuades and enables man to embrace 
 Jesus Christ, freely offered to him in the gospel " (Shorter 
 Catechism, 31). Regeneration is thus the root from 
 which the whole process of salvation springs. The regen- 
 erate child, youth, or man, immediately believes, repents, 
 and begins the struggle with remaining sin. The regen- 
 erate infant believes, repents, and begins the struggle with 
 remaining sin the moment his faculties admit of such 
 activities. He has latent or potential faith, repentance, 
 and sanctilScation. 
 
 How extensive then is regeneration, is the great ques- 
 tion. In Scripture and in the Confession it is represented 
 to be as extensive as election, and no more so. " Whom 
 he did predestinate, them he also called ;_ and whom he 
 called, them he also justified ; and whom he justified, 
 them he also glorified " (Rom. 8 : 30). " All those whom 
 God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, he is 
 pleased, in his appointed and accepted time, effectually to 
 call, by his w^ord and Spirit, out of the state of sin and 
 death, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ " (Conf. x. 
 1). In attempting, therefore, to answer approximately 
 that question which- our Lord declined to answ^er definitely, 
 namely, " Are there few that be saved ? " it is necessary, 
 first, to determine \X\q period within which the regenerat- 
 ing operation of the Holy Spirit occurs ; and, secondly, 
 the range of his operation. 
 
 Respecting the first point, revelation teaches that the 
 new birth is confined to earth and time. There is not a 
 passage in Scripture which, either directly or by implica- 
 tion, asserts that the Holy Ghost will exert liis regenerat- 
 ing power in the soul of man in any part of that endless 
 duration which succeeds this life. Tlie affirmation, '' My 
 Spirit shall not always strive with man " (Gen. 6 : 3), 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 81 
 
 proves that the dispensation of the Spirit will not he ever- 
 lasting j' and the accompanying declaration, "Yet liis 
 days shall be a hundred and twenty years,'' implies that 
 it will be coterminous with man's mortal life. Accord- 
 ingly, in the Old Testament, the death of the body is rep- 
 resented as the decisive epoch in man's existence, and this 
 earthly life the period during which his endless destiny is 
 determined. " The wicked is driven away in liis wick- 
 edness [at death] ; but the righteous hath hope in his 
 death " (Prov. 14 : 32). " When a wicked man dieth, his 
 expectation shall perish" (Prov. 11 : Y). "If thou warn 
 the wicked of liis way to turn from it ; if he do not turn 
 from his way, he shall die in his iniquity " (Ezek. 33 : 9). 
 " To him that is joined to all the living, there is hope : for 
 the living know that they shall die ; but the dead know 
 not anything, neither have they any more a reward " 
 (Eccl. 9 : 4-6). " In death there is no remembrance of 
 thee ; in the grxive, who shall give thee thanks ? " (Ps. 6 : 
 5). " Wilt thou show wonders to the dead? Shall the 
 dead arise and praise thee? Shall thy loving-kindness be 
 declared in the grave?'' (Ps. 88:10, 11). In the Kew 
 Testament, the Saviour of man also makes death to be the 
 critical point in man's history. He says to the Pharisees, 
 " If ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins " 
 (John 8 : 21, 24). This solemn warning, which he twice 
 repeats, loses all its force, if to die in sin is not to be hope- 
 lessly lost. Christ teaches the same truth in the parable 
 of Dives. The rich man asks that his brethren may be 
 exhorted to faith and repentance before they die, because 
 if impenitent at death as he w^as, they will go to " hell " 
 as he did, and be " in torments" as he was. And he 
 teaches the same truth in his frequent warning, " AVatch, 
 therefore, for ye know not at what hour your Lord Com- 
 eth " (Matt. 24 : 42). The Apostolical Epistles declare 
 G 
 
82 THE PEOPOSED EEVISION OF 
 
 the momentous nature of death, in their frequent asser- 
 tion of "an accepted time," and of "the day of salva- 
 tion " (2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 3 : 7-19 ; 4:7). The closing up 
 of the Word of God by St. John, affirms a finality that 
 evidently refers to what man has been and done here on 
 earth. "He that is unjust, let him be unjust still; and 
 he which is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he that is 
 righteous, let him be righteous still ; and he that is holy, 
 let him be holy still " (Kev. 22 : 11, 12). 
 
 Still further proof that death is the deciding point in 
 man's existence, is found in those effects of regeneration 
 which have been spoken of. Faith, repentance, hope, 
 and struggle with remaining sin are never represented in 
 Scripture as occurring in the future life. After death the 
 regenerate walks by sight, not by faith ; has fruition in- 
 stead of hope ; and is completely sanctified. Faith, re- 
 pentance, hope, and progressive sanctification are de- 
 scribed as going on up to a certain point denominated 
 "the 6?2^," when they give place to sinless perfection. 
 " He that endureth to the end shall be saved : " the end 
 of this state of existence, not of the intermediate state. 
 " We desire that every one of you do show the same 
 diligence to the full assurance of hope unto the end." 
 " Christ shall confirm you unto the end." " "Whose house 
 are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of 
 the hope vmto the end." In all such passages, the end of 
 this mortal life is meant. And to them must be added 
 the important eschatological paragraph, 1 Cor. 15 : 24-28, 
 which teaches that there is an " end " to Christ's work of 
 mediation and salvation, when " there remaineth no more 
 sacrifice for sins " (Heb. 10 : 26). 
 
 The large amount of matter in Scripture which teaches 
 that the operation of the Spirit in the new birth and its 
 effects belongs only to this life, cannot be invalidated by 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. S3 
 
 the lonely text concerning Christ's " preaching to the 
 spirits in prison:" a passage which the majority of exc- 
 getes, taking in all ages of the Chnrch, refer to the preach- 
 ing of Koah and other " ambassadors of Christ ; " bnt 
 which, even if referred to a personal descent of Christ into 
 an nnder world, wonld be inadequate to establish such a 
 revolutionizing doctrine as the prolongation of Christ's 
 mediatorial work into the future state, the preaching of 
 the gospel in sheol, and the outpouring of the Holy Ghost 
 there. For the dogma of a future redemption for all 
 the unevangelized part of mankind is radically revolution- 
 izing. It is another gospel, and if adopted would result 
 in another Christendom. For nearly twenty centuries, the 
 Church has gone upon the belief that there is no salvation 
 after death. All of its conquests over evil have come from 
 preaching the solemn truth that " now is the day of salva- 
 tion." It has believed itself to be commanded to proclaim 
 that " after death is i\\Q ji(,dg7nent " of sin, not its forgive- 
 ness. But if the Church has been mistaken, and there is 
 a " probation" in the future life for all the unevangelized 
 of all the centuries, and it is announced, as all the truth 
 of God ought to be, then the eternal world will present a 
 totally different aspect from what it has. Heretofore the 
 great Hereafter has been a gulf of darkness for every im- 
 penitent man, heathen or nominal Christian, as he peered 
 into it. Now it will be a darkness through which gleams 
 of light and hope are flashing like an aurora. The line 
 between time and eternity, so sharply drawn by the past 
 Christianity and Christendom, must be erased. A differ- 
 ent preaching must be adopted. Hope must be held out 
 instead of the old hopelessness. Death must no longer be 
 represented as a finality, but as an entrance for all une- 
 vangelized mankind upon another period of regeneration 
 and salvation. Men must be told that the Semiramises 
 
84 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 and Cleopatras, the Tiberinses and N^eros, may possibly 
 have accepted tlie gospel in hades. Children in the Sab- 
 bath-schools must be taught that the vicious and hardened 
 populations of the ancient world, of Sodom and Gomor- 
 rah, of Babylon and Nineveh, of Antioch and Rome, 
 passed into a world of hope and redemption, not of justice 
 and judgment. 
 
 Such a doctrine takes away all the seriousness of this 
 existence. The " threescore years and ten " are no longer 
 momentous in their consequences. If the future world is 
 a series of cycles, within any one of which the transition 
 from sin to holiness, from death to life, may occur, all the 
 solemnity is removed from earth and time. The " now " 
 is not " the accepted time, and the day of salvation." 
 One " time " is of no more consequence than another, if 
 through all endless time the redemption of sinners is go- 
 ing on. And what is still more important, the moral and 
 practical effects of this theory will be most disastrous. 
 For it is virtually a license to si7i. Should God announce 
 that he will regenerate and pardon men in the next world, 
 it would be equivalent to saying to them that they may 
 continue to sin in this world. And, of course, if the 
 Church should believe that all the unevangelized portion 
 of mankind may be saved in the intermediate state, it will 
 make little effort to save them here and now. 
 
 With these representations of Scripture, respecting the 
 period of time within which the regeneration and salva- 
 tion of the soul occur, the Westminster Standards agree. 
 " The souls of believers are at their deathTci2idiQ perfect in 
 holiness, and do immediately pass into glory " (S. C. 37). 
 *'The souls of the wicked are at their death cast into 
 hell" (L. C. 86). The Confessional doctrine is, that death 
 is a finality for both the saint and sinner. There is no 
 extirpation of sin after " the spirit returns to God who 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 86 
 
 gave it." At death, the unregeiierate man is left in sin. 
 At death, the regenerate but imperfectly sanctilied man 
 is made perfect in holiness. The gradual process of pro- 
 gress! v^e sanctification from the remainders of original 
 corruption, is confined to this life. So the Scriptures 
 teach. "Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from 
 henceforth [i.e., from the time of theii* death] : Yea, 
 saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors" 
 (Rev. 14: 13). "There remaineth ^ rest to the people 
 of God. Let us therefore labor to enter into that r6'6-^ 
 (lieb. 4: 9, 11). This "rest" is total cessation from the 
 temptation, the race, and the fight with sin which charac- 
 terize the present imperfect state. " To be absent from 
 the body, is to be present with the Lord " (2 Cor. 5:8); 
 and to be present with the Lord is to " see him as he is; " 
 and to see him as he is, is to " be like him," sinless and 
 perfect (1 John 3 : 2). 
 
 The doctrine that gradual sanctification from sin con- 
 tinues to go on after death, implies, not rest, but strug- 
 gle, strain, toil, and conflict with remaining corruption. 
 This would be a continuation in the next life of that se- 
 vere experience in this life in which the believer "groans 
 being burdened ; " in v/hich he is often worsted in the 
 contest, though victorious in the main ; in which he cries, 
 "O wretched man, who shall deliver me." To suppose 
 such a wearisome condition of the believer's soul during 
 the long period between death and the resurrection, can- 
 not be harmonized with the descriptions of the restful, 
 joyful consciousness of believers when they are " with the 
 Lord," and with the words of Christ, " This day shalt 
 thou be with me in paradise." 
 
 The notion that indwelling sin is to be purged away 
 gradually after death, instead of instantaneously at death, 
 is the substance of the doctrine of purgatory. The Romish 
 
86 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 purgatory is the progressive sanctification of a member 
 of the Romish Chm-ch carried over into the intermediate 
 state. If this tlieorj is introduced into the Protestant 
 Cliurch, it will not stop here. For if regenerate but 
 imperfectly sanctified men are to go on, between death 
 and the resurrection, struggling wdth corruption, and get- 
 ting rid of remaining sin, as they do here upon earth, it 
 will be an easy and natural step to the kindred theory 
 that the transition from sin to holiness may be made by 
 tiwregenerate men also daring this same period. Those 
 who adopt this latter error, object to the Confessional 
 tenet of complete sanctification at death by the immediate 
 operation of the Holy Spirit that it ismagical, mechanical, 
 and unpsychological. It is incompatible, they assert, with 
 the spiritual nature of the soul and its free agency. But 
 it is no more so than the co-ordinate and cognate .doctrine 
 of the immediate operation of the Holy Spirit in regener- 
 ation. Tiie Holy Spirit instantaneously implants the new 
 principle of divine life in the soul, wdien he " creates it 
 anew in Christ Jesus," and " quickens it from its death in 
 trespasses and sins." This lays the foundation, as we 
 have observed for the wdiole process of salvation. From 
 this instantaneous regeneration, there result conversion in 
 its two acts of faith and repentance, justification, and pro- 
 gressive sanctification up to the moment of death, when 
 the same Divine Agent by the exercise of the same 
 almighty energy by which he instantaneously began the 
 work of salvation, instantaneously completes it.' i^ow, 
 if the Holy Ghost works magicall}^, mechanically, and 
 contrary to the nature of the human soul in one case, he 
 does in the other. If the completion of the work in the 
 soul by an immediate act is liable to this charge, the be- 
 
 ' For a fuller discussion of the subject, see tlie Author's Sermons to 
 the Spiritual Mau, pp. 317-325. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 87 
 
 ginning of it is also. Any one wlio liolds the doctrine of 
 instantaneous regeneration, is estopped from urging such 
 an objection as this to the doctrine of complete sanctifica- 
 tion at death. In all the operations of the third Person of 
 the Trinity, be they instantaneous or be they gradual, he 
 contradicts none of the laws and properties of "the human 
 mind, but works in the human will " to will," according 
 to its nature and constitution. There is nothing magical, 
 mechanical, or unpsychological in any of them. 
 
 Another objection urged by the advocates of a future 
 sanctificatlon from sin is, that complete sanctification at 
 death puts all souls, infant and adult, on a dead level, 
 destroying the distinction of grade between them. If at 
 death all regenerate souls are made perfectly sinless and 
 holy, it is said that they must be all alike in the 
 scope and reach of their faculties. This does not follow. 
 Complete sanctification at death frees the soul of a reo-en- 
 erate infant from all remainders of the corruption in- 
 herited from Adam, but does not convert it into an adult 
 soul, any more than the complete sanctification of an or- 
 dinary regenerate adult makes him equal in mental power 
 to St. Paul or St. Augustine. Complete sanctification at 
 death frees the infant's soul, the child's soul, the youth's 
 soul, the man's soul, from indwelling sin, but leaves each 
 soul in the same class in which it finds it, and starts it on 
 an endless expansion of its faculties and its holiness, and 
 not upon a long, wearing struggle with remaining corrup- 
 tion. In this way, '' one star differetli from another stai- 
 in glory," while all are equally and alike the pure and 
 gleaming stars of heaven, not the " wandering stars " of 
 sin and hell. 
 
 Such, then, is the period of time to which the regener- 
 ating work of the Holy Spirit is confined. It is the life 
 that now is, not tlie life that is to come; the present 
 
88 THE PROPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 limited aeon, not the future unlimited aeon. We proceed 
 now to consider the second question, How wide and exten- 
 sive is his agency during this period ? How many of the 
 human family, have we reason from Scripture to hope 
 and believe, he will regenei'ate here upon earth ? 
 
 Before proceeding to answer this question, a prelimin- 
 ary remark is to be made. It is utterly improbable that 
 such a stupendous miracle as the incarnation, humilia- 
 tion, passion, and crucifixion of one of the Persons of the 
 Godhead, should yield a small and insignificant result ; 
 that this amazing mystery of mysteries, '' which the angels 
 desire to look into," and which involves such an immense 
 personal sacrifice on the part of the Supreme Being, 
 should have a lame and impotent conclusion. On a priori 
 grounds, therefore, we have reason to conclude that the 
 Gospel of the Cross will be successful, and the Christian 
 religion a triumph on the earth and among the race of 
 creatures for whom it was intended. But this can hardly 
 be the case, if only a small fi'action of the human family 
 are saved. The presumption, consequently, is that the 
 great majority of mankind, not the small minority of it, 
 will be the subjects of redeeming grace. What, then, is 
 the teaching of Revelation upon this subject ? 
 
 1. In the first place, we have ground for believing that 
 all of mankind who die in infancy will be regenerated by 
 the Holy Spirit. The proof of this is not so abundant as 
 for some other doctrines, but it is sufficient for faith, (a) 
 Scripture certainly teaches that the children of the regen- 
 erate are " bound up in the bundle of life " with their 
 parents. '' The promise [of the Holy Spirit] is unto you 
 and your children " (Acts 2 : 38, 39). " If the root be 
 holy, so are the branches " (Rom. 11 : 16). " The unbe- 
 lieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbe- 
 lieving wife is sanctified by the husband ; else were your 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 89 
 
 children unclean, but now they are holy " (1 Cor. 7 : 14). 
 This is salvation by covenanted mercy, concerning which 
 there is little dispute, (b) The salvation of infants out- 
 side of the covenant, is plainly supported by the language 
 of Christ respecting " little children '' as a special class. 
 " They brought unto him infants {0p€<l)7j\ that he would 
 touch them. . . . And he said, Suffer little children 
 {iraihla) to come unto me, for of such is {tmv tocovtcov 
 iariv) the kingdom of God " [i.e., the kingdom of God is 
 composed of such] (Luke IS : 15, 16). The Eedeemer 
 says this of infants as infants, and lecause they are in- 
 fants, and consequently, of all infants. When he says, 
 '' Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is [of them 
 is, avTiov iarlv] the kingdom of heaven " (Matt. 5 : 3), 
 he means that this kingdom belongs to them as poor in 
 spirit, and hecause they are poor in spirit, and consequently 
 belongs to all the poor in spirit. And similarly when he 
 says, " Suffer little children to come unto me, for of 
 such is the kingdom of God," he means that this kingdom 
 is composed of such considered as little children, and le- 
 cause they are little children, and therefore is composed 
 of all the little children.' ;No such declaration is made 
 concerning the other classes of mankind. Infancy is the 
 only age that is singled out, by which to prove a member- 
 ship in the kingdom of God from the very age itself. 
 Again, our Lord's declarations that " the angels of the lit- 
 tle ones do always behold the face of my Father which is 
 in heaven " (Matt. 18 : 10) ; and that it is " not the will 
 of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little 
 ones should perish " (Matt. IS : 14) ; betoken a special 
 interest in this part of the human family. And in the 
 
 ' It would be a forced interpretation to make this passage mean, 
 "Suffer little children to come unto me, for of %ome of such is the 
 kingdom of God," This would require Ik ruy toiovtuv ia-rlf. 
 
90 THE PEOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 prophecy of Jonah, God mentions tlie existence of " six 
 score thousand persons that cannot discern between their 
 rio'ht hand and their left hand," as the reason for sparing 
 Nineveh. With these teachings of E-evelation concerning 
 the salvation of infants, the Confession agrees. By posi- 
 tive assertion, it declares, that there are " elect infants dy- 
 ing in infancy ; '' and by total silence concerning " non- 
 eiect infants dying in infancy " it implies that there are 
 none. 
 
 The Protestant Church understands the Bible to de- 
 clare that all who die in infancy die regenerate. Probably 
 all evangelical denominations, without committing them- 
 selves to the statements of the Westminster Confession 
 concerning " election," would be willing to say that all 
 dying infants '" are regenerated and saved by Christ 
 through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and 
 how he pleaseth " (Conf. x. 3). But this is the regenera- 
 tion and salvation of one-half of the human family. This 
 of itself pours over human existence a mild and cheering 
 light. " Whom the gods love, die young," said the 
 heathen, without any knowledge of God's compassion for 
 man in his " dear Son." Much more, then, may the 
 Christian under the irradiation of the gospel expect that 
 the infinite mercy of God, by '' the washing of regenera- 
 tion and renewing of the Holy Ghost," will bring all the 
 "little children" into holiness and heaven. The gloom 
 of YirgiFs description, 
 
 "Coiithiuo .auditre voces, vagitns et ingens 
 Infa«t;ianag.i.T« auimse flentes in limine primo," 
 
 Is ('05;vanged into the brightness of that of the prophet, 
 " The., ^r^ets of the city shall be full of boys and girls 
 playing, i^rtsU<3 streets thereof" (Zech. 8: 10); and of the 
 
Tin: wp:st3[ixstku standauds. 91 
 
 Kedeemer's citation from the Psalms, "Out of the mouth 
 of babes and sucklings thou liast perfected praise '' (Matt. 
 21 : 16). 
 
 2. In the second place, the Scriptures and the Confes- 
 sion teach the i-egenei'ation of a vast multitude, fi'om Adam 
 down, who come under the operation of the Holy Spirit 
 in connection with tlie special revelation and the external 
 means of grace, in the antediluvian, patriarchal, Jewish, 
 and Christian Churches. 
 
 3. In the third place, the Scriptures and the Confession 
 teach that the Divine Spirit exerts his regenerating grace, 
 to some extent, within adult heathendom, making use of 
 conscience, or " the law written on the heart," as the 
 means of convicting of sin preparatory to imparting the 
 new divine life ; and that in the last day a part of God's 
 elect " shall come from the east and from the west, and 
 from the north and fi'om the sonth, and shall sit down in 
 the kingdom of God " (Luke 13 : 29). These are all re- 
 generated in this life. And since regeneration in the in- 
 stance of the adult immediately produces faith and repent- 
 ance, a regenerate heathen is both a believer and a peni- 
 tent. He feels sorrow for sin, and the need of mercy. 
 This felt need of mercy and desire for it is potentially 
 and virtually faith in the Redeemer. For although the 
 Kedeemer has not been presented to him historically and 
 personally as the object of faith, jct the Divine Spirit by 
 the new birth has wrought in him the sincere and longing 
 dispositio)i to believe in him. With the penitent and 
 believing man in the gospel, he says, " "Who is he, Lord, 
 that I might believe on him ? " (John 9 : 36). Such a 
 man is "regenerated and saved by Christ through the 
 Spirit," and belongs to that class of " elect persons who 
 are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of 
 the word " (Conf. x. 3). 
 
92 THE PKOPOSED REVISION OF 
 
 4. In the fourth place, in addition to all this work of 
 the Holy Spirit in the past and present in applying in 
 these three wa3^s the redemption tliat is in Christ Jesus, 
 there is that mightiest and most wonderful manifestation 
 of his power which is still in reserve for the future of 
 Christendom. The Scriptures promise an outpouring in 
 the "last days," that will far exceed in sweeping and irre- 
 sistible energy anything in the past history of the Church. 
 "I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh," says God 
 (Joel 2 : 28). " It shall come to pass in the last days, 
 that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established 
 in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above 
 the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it " (Isa. 2:2; 
 Micah 4:1). A far more profound and all-reaching in- 
 terest in the concerns of the soul and its eternal destiny 
 than has ever been witnessed on earth, will mark the mil- 
 lennium. The then near and impending advent of the 
 Son of man, " when he shall come in his glory, and all 
 the holy angels with him, and before him shall be gath- 
 ered all nations " (Matt. 25 : 31, 32), will weigh heavily 
 upon mankind. The end of the world and the approach- 
 ing judgment will be facts of infinite meaning. This hu- 
 man life, now so frivolous, will become serious and awful. 
 
 **The clouds that gather round the setting sun 
 Do take a sober coloring from the eye 
 That doth keep watch o'er man's mortality.'''' 
 
 Yast masses of sinful men will be bowed down in poig- 
 nant conviction, and nations will be born in a day. The 
 Redeemer, " travelling in the greatness of his strength," 
 will take unto him his mighty power, and turn the human 
 heart as the rivers of water. Such is the promise and the 
 prophecy of Almighty God. 
 
 Now this is a great salvation. " Where sin abounded. 
 
THE WESTMI^sSTEK STANDARDS. 93 
 
 grace has superaboiinded " (Iloin. 5 : 20). The immense 
 majority of the race that fell in Adam will be saved in 
 Christ, " by the washing of regeneration." Though some 
 men and angels will f i-eely persist in depravity, and be left 
 in their persistence, yet this minor and mournful note of 
 discord will only enhance the choral harmony of the uni- 
 verse. The wrath of man shall praise God (Ps. 70 : 10). 
 The duty of the Church is to preach to every creature the 
 laio by which men are convicted of sin, and tlie gosjpel by 
 which it is pardoned and eradicated, praying unceasingly 
 for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to make both law 
 and gospel effectual to salvation. Instead of starting a 
 false and delusive hope for the future redemption of a 
 part of the human family, by daring to reconstruct God's 
 plan of redemption and extending the dispensation of his 
 Spirit into the next life, the Church should strengthen the 
 old and true hope by doing with its might what its hands 
 find to do, and crying with the evangelical prophet, 
 " Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord " 
 (Isa. 61 : 9). 
 
"The most learned and searching uork in its line Hint Una 
 appeared in this country ivithin the present generation.*^ 
 
 — CHICAGO TRIBUNE, 
 
 DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. 
 
 By WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D., 
 
 Professor of Systeviatic Theology in L'>:ion Theological Seminary. 
 
 Second Edition, Two Volumes, 8vo, with Portrait, Price 97.00. 
 
 •' Dr. Shedd's theology is full of the word of God in its ver>' essence, it is pervaded by 
 the great thoughts of the master-minds of all the ages, and it is presented to us in a style 
 remarkable for its purity and clearness. The student who masters these vohnnes will'be 
 well armed for controversy and well equipped for teaching.'' — New "Sork Observer. 
 
 "These volumes are, in more senses than one, weighty. They are full of matter. Dr. 
 Shedd is master of a singularly clear, strong, and expressive style, and wastes no words. 
 Ample as are his discussions, there is nothing superfluous. His full, yet choice diction, 
 admirably sets forth his profound and well ordered thought.'* — Watchman^ Boston. 
 
 "The two volumes are the result of eighteen years of speci 1 study, and of forty 
 years labor in theological research. 'J'he treatment is such as might be expected of Dr. 
 Shedd: scholarly, profound, devout, thorough." — Neiv York Examiner. 
 
 "As a whole, the work is the clearest and most exhaustive statement of dogmatic 
 theology that has yet been made, and for that reason it is likely to attract as much atten- 
 tion from scientists as from theologians." — Philadelphia Times. 
 
 " The style never labors nor becomes obscure. The reader is never in doubt as to 
 the meaning of the author. The work easily takes precedence among the various pres- 
 entations of Puritan Calvinism, and will have a permanent value as an explanation ot 
 that influential system of religious philosophy." — Andover Review. 
 
 " Dr. Shedd's great power is in the clearness and fulness and exactness of his doc- 
 trinal statements, and in their illustration. He is a master of sentences. No one can 
 doubt his meaning. These volumes are therefore eminently readable and many an 
 earnest student will find strength and inspiration in reading them thoroughly from end 
 to end." — Chicago Standard. 
 
 "Into these ample volumes, as into a reservoir, have flowed all the streams of Dr. 
 Shedd's lifelong studies — literary, ethical, philosophical, exegetical, scientific, and theo- 
 logical. It is delightful to think of the usefulness for generations of these volumes to 
 ministers and students. To Dr. Shedd we extend our hearty thanks for this great 
 work." — New York Evangelist. 
 
 "There are two features of the work that specially aid in making it a fine text-book. 
 In the first place, it is didactic rather than polemic. He states, expounds, and defends 
 what he believes to be the true view and spends little time in expounding and opposing 
 heresies. In the second place, the discussions are compact. The style is absolutely 
 clear, and no subject that he undertakes to unfold is at all slighted, but there is no w^ste 
 of words. We congratulate Dr. Shedd on the completion of this great work. We 
 congratulate the readers of theology on their possession of u." — Rev. John DeWitt, in 
 The Prcsl>yteria7i Revi^-zu. 
 
 "The students of Dr. Charles Hodge will find it very profitable to put this work 
 beside his. On some of the i)articulars of the Calvinistic or Augustmian, or Pauline 
 system, the two differ. The contrast in the plan and working out and style of the two 
 works is great, Kut they are the complements, each of the other. It will be an intel- 
 lectual tonic to read the two together. We wish that every minister had them both." 
 
 — Presbyterian Journal. 
 
 "This vigorous, mature, and stately work is likely to become one of the standard 
 authorities of scholarly orthodoxy. Its chief peculiarities are its solidity, scriptiiral- 
 ness, and massive logical force. Professor Shedd is himself a master in thf'ol.-.gy. and 
 he has reverence fsr masters in his own department.' — Ottr Day. . 
 
Dr. Shedd's Works. 
 
 " These volumes will take rank as they will naturally be compared with, the ency- 
 clopjedic treatise of Dr. Charles Hodge, and they will stand well this severe test. Less 
 full and exhaustive in the citation of aulhorities and the discussion of opposing views, its 
 positive and constructive features are equally strong. In one feature Dr. Shedd's 
 treatment of theological questions will be more satisfactory to many minds than Dr. 
 Hodge's, and that is, the wider scope and office he accords to the reason, in the formula- 
 tion and defence of doctrines. He writes from the postulate that while the reason may 
 not independently discover the dogmas of revealed religion, and a revelation is necessary, 
 yet a true dogma, when revealed, will be so accordant with reason, that its aid may and 
 must be mvoked for its understanding and confirmation." — Christian Intelligencer, 
 
 DR. SHEDD'S OTHER WORKS. 
 
 A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN 
 
 DOCTRINE. Two vols., crown 8vo. 
 Seventh edition, cloth, $5.00. 
 
 HOMILETICS AND PASTORAL 
 
 THEOLOGY. One vol., crown 8vo. 
 Seventh edition, cloth, $2.50. 
 
 A CONCISE ANALYTICAL COM- 
 MENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPIS- 
 TLE TO THE ROMANS. One vol., 
 crown 8vo, cloth, $2.50. 
 
 SERMONS TO THE SPIRITUAL 
 
 MAN. One vol., crown 8vo., cloth, 
 ^2.50. 
 
 SERMONS TO THE NATURAL 
 
 MAN. One vol., crown 8vo. Third 
 edition, cloth, $2.50. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. One vol., 
 8vo. Enlarged and carefully revised 
 edition, cloth, <$2.5o. 
 
 LITERARY ESSAYS. A series that 
 relate principally to /Esthetics and Lit- 
 erature. With portrait. One vol., 
 crown, Svo, cloth, $2.50. 
 
 THE DOCTRINE OF ENDLESS 
 
 PUNISHMENT. One vol., crown 
 
 8vo., $1.50. 
 
 SERMONS TO THE SPIRITUAL MAN. 
 
 " The thought which they express is not only profound and well wrought out, 
 but it has a certain grip on the mind which insures more than a temporary influence 
 however strong that may be." — Congregationalist, Boston. 
 
 "All are nobly written. All contain passages which could have been produced 
 by no one but a master of style. Most of them are truly eloquent, and their eloquence 
 is of the highest type." — Presbyterian, Pa. 
 
 "The last two discourses, entitled " Every Christian a Debtor to the Pagan," 
 and " The Certain Success of Evangelistic Labor," place the duty of the world's 
 Christianization upon its broad Scriptural foundations, and set forth the reasons for 
 its progressive and ultimate triumphs with inspiring eloquence." — Christian Intelli= 
 ^encer. New York. 
 
 " To all minds awake and in earnest touching spiritual things, we can unre- 
 servedly commend this volume. It will be sure to aid in the struggle against sin, and 
 in victory over it." — New York Evangelist. 
 
 "The sermons are peculiarly adapted for reading, and they are among the most 
 spiritual and thoughtful discourses that have been published in recent years."— 
 Wesleyan Christian Advocate. 
 
Dr. Shcdd's U^orks. 
 
 "Dr. Shedd's sermons command respect from the intcllertual ability of iheif 
 luthor. They are interesting exhibitions of the way in which a modern Calvinist, 
 Ivho liolds with great tenacity to the Augiistinian theology, views divine progress in 
 its relation to human character and destiny. J'he new departure has not yet invaded 
 Dr. Shedd's mind to any extent. Consequently, to a progressive Christian thinker, 
 \he premises of most of his discourses are unacceptable." — Christian Register, 
 Boston. 
 
 "They are distinguished by a clear and luminous style, and the boldness and 
 t^igor which comes from profound conviction. No better volume of sermons, none 
 more thoughtful, spiritual, or satisfying, has come from the press for a long time."— < 
 Christian at Work, AVw ^''ork. 
 
 " We commend these sermons to our readers ; for though, as a Presbyterian divine, 
 we could not endorse all his views, yet, upon the great essential doctrines and duties 
 of Christianity, we are much at one with him." — Churchinan, New York, 
 
 A HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. 
 
 " Dr. Shedd has furnished an important contribution to the study of church his- 
 tory. To have made a readable book — a book which must interest the general scholar 
 as well as the professed theologian— on a topic so difficult and so remote from the 
 ordinary interests and literary currents of the time, is itself a rare and very great 
 merit, demanding graceful recognition from all the scholars of the land."— AVr/A 
 American Reviezv. 
 
 "It is many years since a more valuable contribution has been made, in this 
 country or England, to theological literature ; one the study of which will yield riper 
 fruits of Christian knowledge. These volumes are marked by a thoroughness of 
 knowledge and clearness of statement, as well as by a certain -ntnl element which 
 pervades them, and which shows the love of the author for his great theme, and that 
 he takes his position, not without but within his subject, and so relates the transfor- 
 mations and developments of religious thought as if he had himself passed through 
 them." — Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 
 " \ye hold that this is the most important contribution that has been made to our 
 theological literature during the present age." — Presbyterian Standard. 
 
 " In our judgment, no production of greater moment has been given to the public 
 for a long time." — Princeton Revicrv, 
 
 '"A body of theological history which is in form sis perfect as it is in substance 
 excellent." — N. Y. Evening Post. 
 
 " It well deserves an honorable and permanent place in the standard literature of 
 theology." — Nezv Englander, 
 
 "A rich addition to our theological literature." — American Theological Reviezi: 
 
 "Dr. Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine, on its first appearance, was unani- 
 mously recognized as filling with remarkable success a blank that had existed in our 
 English literature on this important subject, and it still holds the foremost place in 
 W^orks of this class." — Edinburgh Daily Review. 
 
 HOMILETICS AND PASTORAL THEOLOGY. 
 
 "The work will be found to be an admirable guide and stimulus in whatever per< 
 tains to this department of theology. The student finds himself in the hands of a 
 master able to quicken and enlarge his scope and spirit. The homiletical precepts 
 are well illustrated by the author's own style, which is muscular, while quivering 
 with nervous life. Nowadays one rarely reads such good English writing— elevated 
 and clear, sinewy and flexible, transparent for the thought. Each topic is handled 
 in a true progressive method. Our young ministers may well make a study of this 
 book." — A >ncrican Theol. Reviev.'. 
 
Br. ShcdcVs Works. 
 
 "We have read this book with almost unqualified approval. We cannot but regari! 
 n as, on the whole, the very best production of the kind with which we are acquainted 
 The topics discussed are of the fiist importance to every minister of Christ engaged is 
 •ctive service, and their discussion is conducted by earnestness as well as ability, and in 
 a style which for clear, vigorous, and unexceptionable English, is itself a model." — N. V 
 Evangelist. 
 
 "The ablest book on the subject which the generation has produced." — Christian 
 Intelligencer. 
 
 "Dr. Shedd's Homiletics and Pastoral Theology has everywhere been welcomed 
 as a sagacious and valuable contribution to the equipment of our rising preachers '' 
 Edinburgh Daily Rtview. 
 
 SERMONS TO THE NATURAL MAN. 
 
 "These Sermons are an excellent course upon the theology of the law. Dr. Shedd 
 tS one of the best known in this country of American theologians, and those who ara 
 acquainted vnth his writings do not requn-e to be told that he carries out his ideas with 
 perspicuity, force, and conclusive completeness." — Edinburgh Daily Review. 
 
 "The reader, whether he assent to the deductions of the author or not, must admit 
 that they are enforced with logical conciseness, a rare wealth of learning, and an uncom- 
 mon ability of argumentation." — N. Y. Evcni7ig Post. 
 
 " Wc commend this volume to all who love the 'strong meat' of christian truth, 
 «ixd who rejoice in the adaptation of the power of the gospel to the deepest needs of the 
 ' natural man.' " — Naf I Baptist, Phila. ^ - 
 
 "The author has given us a collection of clear, log-Ical, earnest discourses, well 
 adapted to the spirit of the times. V\^e specially commend the work to preachers of the 
 gospel." — Methodist Protestant, Baltimore. 
 
 "These sermons are clear in thought, the at>'le is hicid and siinp.e, and free from 
 llic much-worn phrases of the pulpit. The arguments of the author are well arranged and 
 put with great force." — Christian Union. 
 
 THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. 
 
 »'These Essay* bear traces on every page, not only of a mind discipiined to clffc 
 thinking, and at home in the abstractions of philosophy and theology, but versed in thfl 
 noblest^ works of literature, and equally able to appreciate the creations oi art and imagi 
 nation. The terseness and vigor of the style are well mated to the character of the 
 \ho\x^t.''—Nt'iv Euglafider. . , , , • • r ^- * 
 
 "These Essays are all marked by profound thought and perspicuity ot sentiment 
 The author has achieved a high reputation for the union of philosophic insight with genu- 
 ine scholarship; of depth and clearness of thought with force and elegance of style j 
 and for profound views of sin and grace, cherished not merely on theoreti-al, but still 
 Ciore on moral and experimental grounds."— Prz«r^/tf« i^^t'zVw. , . , 
 
 "The Essay upon Evolution, is an extraordinary specimen of the metaphysical 
 treatise, and the charm of its rhetoric is not less noticeable Prof. Shedd never puts his 
 creed under a bushel : but there are few students of any sect or class that will not denvo 
 rK».t&ss\stz.nc&iTom\{\s\2ihors,.''—Universalist Quarterly. 
 
 " The tendency of this volume is to encourage doctrinal iwvestigation and doctrinal 
 preaching • to stimulate clergymen to improve their methods of study, and to quicken 
 dieir love of inquiry into the profoundest truths of r&\\2\on."—Biblwtheca Sacra. 
 
 "These Essays abound in strong thought, firmly and clearly expressed, and in thu 
 the reader of a different school of theology will take a pleasure, while he may dissent 
 from the theory propounded."— 7I/(?//w^2J/ Quarterly. , ^ , 
 
 "A book equally remarkable for profound thought and for dogmatic seventy 
 Perhaps no stronger work has gone forth of kte from any American theologian, nor an j 
 work wliich at the same time runs so wholly in the face of the present drift of religioui 
 lentiment and scientific study."— iW7t; Vork Times. . , r „ , ,, . 
 
 = ' The Genevan reformer has probably no abler or more devoted follower, at the 
 present day than the author of these essays. In the circle of his readers he will find 
 tnany who regard the study of his writings as an admirable exercise, for tne vigyr ol 
 theij statements, the closeness of their logic, and the athleuc grasp of their conc.usiotis. 
 »ltho»gh their own convictions are not represented m his system of theology. —JV*w> 
 
 ♦'Dr. Shedd's weighty and forceful rhetoric has been the admiration and de«F«ii 
 •>{ most of his readers. To weight and force, we must add one other qualitjr which dis- 
 tinguishes it. namely, /er7>or. Every theological student and every minister shouW 
 aossess, and should not only read, bw ttudy this volume."- The Presbyterian 
 
Dr. Shedd's WorJcs. 
 
 COMMENTARY ON ROMANS. 
 
 " No better discipline could be suggested to a young minister than a patient and faith- 
 ful study of a volume like this . . . . not only because it is the freshest, but 
 because it is so purely intellectual and spiritual, wasting no time upon side issues, but 
 [grappling manfully with the highest and most recondite themes."— C//r/f//Vi« /wrf/// 
 
 " We know of no commentary by any living author on this epistle that, in our esti 
 mation, deserves to be esteemed above it." — Hart/ord Religious Herald. 
 
 "To the thorough learning of an accomplished scholar, it adds a style of special 
 grace, luminous without superficiality, and, sparkling without levity."'— /.«/'//<';rt« iMis- 
 sionn ry. 
 
 '•We consider this volume to be indispensable to a theological library."— AW// ;//<w^i 
 Central Prt'sbyterian. 
 
 "We have been instructed, interested, and edified as we have turned over his 
 pages, and while not agreeing with him in all particulars, we have always been com- 
 pelif-.d by him to revise our views, and give a reason for our preference."— CV/r/j//rt« at 
 VFork. 
 
 "The commentary is brief ; there is no verbiage, no amplification, no preaching; it 
 is as clear as crystal." — Illustrated Christian Weekly. 
 
 "We like thoroughly the keenly critical scholarship of Dr. Shedd's book and the 
 vigor of his style. .... We commend the work as an excellent stimulus, and a 
 great help in doctrinal study." — Congregationalist. 
 
 " Like the previous writings of Profes.sor Shedd, this learned and scholarly volume 
 is remarkable for the acute insight with which it applies profound philosophical principles 
 to the elucidation of religious doctrine." — ^V". Y. Tribune. 
 
 LITERARY ESS AYS. 
 
 " His productions are never of an ephemeral character; though often separated by 
 a wide interval of years, they possess the unity which grows out of thoroughness o( 
 examination and e:irnestness of conviction ; powerlul in argument, lucid in e.vposition. 
 and effective in sty-le, they challenge the interest of many readers who arc unable to 
 assent to their corclusions.'' — N. Y. Tribune. 
 
 " Here is somethin? deserving a permanent place in the realm of reading 
 
 We wish to notice especially, commending it at the same time to the careful study of 
 everyone, the essay on 'The Influence and Method of English Studies.' .... We 
 can, without hesitation, say, that it is one of the most profound, and thoughtful, and 
 scholarly producti jns on this subject that we have ever read." — The Churchman. 
 
 "The essays, one and all, are worthy of the Professor's pen. They reveal extensive 
 reading, culture of a high order, and sympathy with all that is true and beautiful and 
 good in nature, in life, and in art." — N. Y. Srotsrnan. 
 
 "They bear the marks of the author's scholarship, dignity, and polish of style, and 
 profound and severe convictions of truth and righteousness as the basis of culture as 
 well as character." — Chicago Interior. 
 
 "The severe and chastened beauty ofhis style is a fit vehicle for the lofty truths among 
 which his mind ranges, and which he here announces and defends." — Presbyterian, 
 
 "Dr. .Shedd deals with themes not of pa'-sing but of enduring iniportance, and his 
 productions on these subjects, being tho^e of a wide reader and profound thinker, will 
 always be valuable." — Christia?i at Work. 
 
 *^* For sale by all booksellers, or sent, post-paid, upon receipt of 
 irice, by 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers. 
 
 743 AND 745 Broadway, New York. 
 
Date Due 
 
 DEC 15 
 
 1993 
 
 L11Q2J 
 
 k^-^Z 
 
 7. 
 
 
 AG 12^AB 
 
 NOV 1 1 
 
 UM^x^ 
 
 tiiV-_Sf. 
 
 ^^ 
 
 59 
 
 *> 
 
 axia^^sa 
 
-Speer L.brarv 
 
 If^STa bl034_80V\ 
 
 ^SA^Hx rHER ? 
 
 A THEOLOGICAL QUESTION FOR THE TIMES. 
 
 By CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS, D.D., 
 
 Professor in the Union Theological Saninary^ New York City, 
 
 1 VOLUME, CEOWN 8vo. PEICE, $1.75. 
 
 contents. 
 Drifting — Orthodoxy —Mistaken Attitudes— Change of 
 Base — Excesses — Failures — Departures— Perplexities 
 —Progress in Theology— Christian Union. 
 
 Dr. Briggs' book is bold, radical, almost startling. It is the product 
 of more than twenty years of study in the history of Puritan theology 
 and especially of the authors of the Westminster Standards. The work 
 is written and published in view of the agitation in the Presbyterian 
 Church regarding the revision of the Confession of Faith, and presents 
 facts and arguments which every one interested in this question must 
 heed. The work, however, has a far wider scope. The author's main 
 contention is that all Christian denominations have drifted from their 
 moorings. "The process of dissolution," he says, "has gone on long 
 enough. The time has come for the reconstruction of theology, of 
 polity, of worship, and of Christian life and work. The drift in the 
 Church ought to stop. The barriers between the Protestant denomina- 
 tions should be removed and an organic union formed. An Alliance 
 should be made between Protestantism and Romanism and all other 
 branches of Christendom." 
 
 " The book comes to us fulfilling all anticipations. Interesting as a 
 novel, almost elegant in its language, clear in its expression, marvel- 
 lous in showing research, the book will pay largely for its reading." — 
 The Christian Inquirer. 
 
 "A work that should be read by all who are interested in religious 
 discussions. Dr. Briggs' researches have been pursued in a catholic 
 spirit, and the result of his labors should have a place in every theolog- 
 ical library." — Boston Saturday Evening Gazette. 
 
 "It is a remarkable work and is sure to receive attention." — The 
 
 Nation. 
 
 SUPPLIED TO CLERGYMEN AT SPECIAL NET RATES. 
 
 CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, Publishers, 
 
 743-745 Broadvray, New York.