Contemporary Literature [pp. 729-761]

1874.] CONTEMPORARY LITERATURE. 739
oby the combined testimony of Scriptuire and experience, while from this
stancldpoint alone we comprehend sulficiently why he, who was to be the
second Adami, mnust in an extraordcinary manner appear in human flesh.
The imanner in whih thlis mora,l crrupti on is t-ansmitted froin parents to
children is nowhere pointed o-t in the Gospel, anld is bevond the reach of
ore experienee,'nec pmtramn.ls, ncesstarium esse inquirere.'Conf. Gall.,
art. x.) Tlihe theor.T of the Tradluciais explains a part inleed, thonuh not
ali, but the ai, t itself is no less inconLest-bte, and finds its illustration at
leatst in th-e phenom.enion const, attiy repeated, thlat defects of bodLy or of
ch.aratern continue in LIthe s:ene line for ve,-,trs and centuries. Thus far then
wie UmayV speak, next to an hereditary taint, of an hereditary suffering of
sinful huanity7.
On predestinlation and election, he says, vol. II. pp. 448-9
"When wre spealk of predestination, we express the confession that zevery
beliez,er o is s(av,i is save,I inz accordanzce wifh the will of God, zwho has
c6lla.d zd ed,::c[t him, as distiiz;z,tished fromi/ the unbelieve, to eterilal i/e.
To the question, Does theare exist avany ground for speaking in such a sense
of a fote-ordaining to eternal life? We cannot possibly, after a little re flection, give any answer bat yes.'When w'e have oilce placedl ourselves
at the Christian Theistic standpoint, the reason already will judge a pro position acepta bie, -which is merely the natural consequence of a belief in
a special providence. If tlis Providence has ordered and ordmaned every thin' which rela-tes to the temporal lot and life, it is absolutely incolnceiv able tlt man's eternal lot should be determined withouit God's eternal
counsel being' fulliled therein. We ca securely say that hle who beliexves
in Providlenee, but reects every idea of predestination as folly, is not con sistent with himself. jolj ScriVltnce, at any rate, speaks here in such a
manrner that all doubt becomes impossible to any one who attaches import ance to its utterances. If we consult its letter there is -without doubt a
mention oi aL election even in a completely different sene fromn that which
is here intendead, antdpassages have often been quoted as proofs of the
doctrine of prelstiaton, vlwhich do not bear closer examination.t
But y-et, ev-en after this sifting, there remains not a few utterances of our
Lordc and his Apostles, wx-i'di at any rate it is not possible for uts to understand
in aiiy other sense than that wvhich is attached to them by the supporters of
the doctrine of a fore-ordcaining to eternal life. Take e. g., and weigh such
passages as Matt. xi. 25, 26; xvi. 17; xx. 23; xxiv. 24; Luke x. 20; John
vi. 37. 40; x-ii. 2, 24. All tlhe Apostles and their contemporary witnesses
agree in this wxitlh their Master
Luke, Acts. xiii. 48, Paul, 1 Thess. v. 9,
Jamies, Ep. i. 18, " 2 Thess. ii. 13,
Jud(e, Ep. i., compare ver. 4, " Ephes., i. 4,
Peter, 1 Ep. i. 2; ii. 7, 9, " 2 Tin. i. 9,
" 2 Ep. i. 10, " Rom. viii. 28, 30,
John, P,Revelatioii, iii. 5; xiii 8, Roni. ix.-xi.
Specially do these two last passages merit here close observation; the first
because it offers to us a well-arranged catena salutis' in its inseparable
connexion; tihe second, because it not only declares, i)ut defends against
obstinate cldenial God's abs,olute sovereignty in granting and witlhholding
his highest beaefits."
He shows the atonement to be truly sacrificial and expiatory, pp. 591-5.
Without quite saying "that Christ was Punishedin our stead, since it is not
the punishmenet itself which nmakes amnends for sin, but the sacrifice of
* John vi. 70. t See Fischer, Matt. xx. 16; xxii. 14; Acts, xv. 18.