Dr. George Duffield on the Doctrines of New-School Presbyterians [pp. 655-675]

672 rr. ~eorge Duffleld on tTte [OCTOBER
atonement of Christ may be much more satisfactorily explained
by regarding it in the light of that sort of justice appropriate
to, and required in, a public governor. This is called public
justice, having relation to the public interests, the general
good.... All sanitary regulations and abatement of nuisances
and measures for general improvement must be traced for their
sanction, to the obligations of public justice. Its exercise has
no direct reference to law, and its obligations are those of high,
~nnobling morality, enforced by the demands of benevolence,
and the dictates of virtue." P. 626. This is clearly the governmental theory of atonement. It denies that Christ's sufferings
are properly penal and in this sense vicarious. It makes them
an expedient of mere sovereign benevolence, like the abatement
of a nuisance, or tea~ing down private buildings to stop a fire.
They have no direct relation to law or distributive justice, i. e.,
justice proper. They are designed indefinitely for all or any.
Not only so, but Dr. Duffield falsely represents the Old-school
view as making its adherents, "embarrassed in preaching the
free and universal offers of salvation by God to sinners of mankind without exception." Just as much as, and no more than,
the doctrine of election. Are our New-school brethren "embarrassed" in making a universal offer by this? Or do they
hold it in some qualified sense only? Let us see.
VII.PREDESTINATION AND ELECTION.
Says Dr. Duffield: The New-school Presbyterian "prefers
neither to assert nor deny," "that as friction is incident to
matter, so is sin to a moral system, and that therefore while
God would not absolutely prevent it altogether, he seeks, like
a skilful machinist, to limit and restrain it, and overrule it for
the greatest good If the Old-school Presbyterian affirms
that God's foreknowledge is founded on his purpose, the Newschool Presbyterian replies that the absolutely certain futurition of any event is not essential to its being apprehended by
Omniscience." P. 631. Surely this is equivalent to the famous
dictum of Dr. Taylor, that "no one can prove that God could
prevent all sin in a moral system." It implies also that events
can be known from eternity, as about to come to pass in the
future, of which in eternity there was no certainty of their
coming to pass. That can be known then as certain which is