Christian Classics
‹ Systematic Theology - Volume II
Contents
TitlePrefatoryPart II. Anthropology1. Scriptural Doctrine.2. Anti-Scriptural Theories.3. Antiquity of Man.1. Scripture Doctrine2. Trichotomy.3. Realism.4. Another form of the Realistic Theory.1. Theory of Preëxistence.2. Traducianism.3. Creationism.4. Concluding Remarks.Chapter IV. Unity of the Human Race.1. Meaning of the Word, or the Idea of Species.2. Evidence of Identity of Species.3. Application of these Criteria to Man.4. Philological and Moral Evidence1. The Scriptural Doctrine.2. Man Created in the Image of God.3. Original Righteousness.4. Dominion over the Creatures.5. The Doctrine of the Romish Church.6. Pelagian and Rationalistic Doctrine.Chapter VI. Covenant of Works.1. God entered into Covenant with Adam.2. The Promise.3. Condition of the Covenant.4. The Penalty.5. The Parties to the Covenant of Works.6. Perpetuity of the Covenant of WorksChapter VII. The Fall.1. The Nature of the Question to be Considered.2. Philosophical Theories of the Nature of Sin.3. The Doctrine of the Early Church.4. Pelagian Theory.5. Augustinian Doctrine.6. Doctrine of the Church of Rome.7. Protestant Doctrine of Sin.8. The Effects of Adam’s Sin upon his Posterity.9. Immediate Imputation.10. Mediate Imputation.11. Preëxistence.12. Realistic Theory.13. Original Sin. · Part 113. Original Sin. · Part 213. Original Sin. · Part 314. The Seat of Original Sin.15. Inability.Chapter IX. Free Agency.1. Different Theories of the Will.2. Definition of Terms.3. Certainty Consistent with Liberty.1. God has such a Plan.2. Supralapsarianism.3. Infralapsarianism.4. Hypothetical Redemption.5. The Lutheran Doctrine as to the Plan of Salvation.6. The Remonstrant Doctrine.7. Wesleyan Arminianism.8. The Augustinian Scheme.9. Objections to the Augustinian Scheme.1. The Plan of Salvation is a Covenant.2. Different Views of the Nature of this Covenant.3. Parties to the Covenant.4. Covenant of Redemption.5. The Covenant of Grace.6. The Identity of the Covenant of Grace under all Dispensations.7. Different Dispensations.1. Preliminary Remarks.2. The Scriptural Facts concerning the Person of Christ.3. The Hypostatical Union.4. Consequences of the Hypostatical Union.5. Erroneous and Heretical Doctrines on the Person of Christ.6. Doctrine of the Reformed Churches.7. Lutheran Doctrine.8. Later Forms of the Doctrine.9. Modern Forms of the Doctrine.1. Christ the only Mediator.2. Qualifications for the Work.3. The Threefold Office of Christ.1. Nature of the Prophetic Office.2. How Christ executes the Office of a Prophet.1. Christ is truly, not figuratively, a Priest.2. Christ our only Priest.3. Definition of Terms1. Statement of the Doctrine.2. The Intrinsic Worth of Christ’s Satisfaction.3. Doctrine of the Scotists and Remonstrants.4. Satisfaction rendered to Justice.5. The Work of Christ Satisfies the Demands of the Law.6. Proof of the Doctrine. · Part 16. Proof of the Doctrine. · Part 26. Proof of the Doctrine. · Part 37. Objections.1. State of the Question.2. Proof of the Augustinian Doctrine.Chapter IX. Theories of the Atonement.1. The Orthodox View.2. Doctrine of some of the Fathers.3. The Moral Theory.4. The Governmental Theory.5. The Mystical Theory.6. Concluding Remarks.1. Christ our Intercessor.2. Its Nature.3. Its Objects.4. Intercession of Saints.1. The Church God’s Kingdom.2. Christ is truly a King.3. Nature of Christ’s Kingdom.4. The Kingdom of Glory.1. Includes his Incarnation.2. He was made under the Law.3. His Sufferings and Death.4. He endured the Wrath of God.5. His Death and Burial.1. Resurrection of Christ.2. Ascension of Christ.3. Sitting at the Right Hand of God.4. Christ’s coming to judge the World.1. Scriptural Usage of the Word.3. Common Grace.4. Efficacious Grace.5. Proof of the Doctrine.6. Objections.7. History of the Doctrine of Grace.

Charles Hodge · 58 of 128

4. Hypothetical Redemption.

§ 4. Hypothetical .

According to the common doctrine of Augustinians, as expressed an the Westminster Catechism, “God, having . . . . elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a of , to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer.” In opposition to this view some of the Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century introduced the scheme which is known in the history of theology as the doctrine of hypothetical . The principal advocate of this doctrine was Amyraut (died 1664), Professor in the French Protestant Seminary at Saumur. He taught, (1.) That the motive impelling God to men was benevolence, or love to men in general. (2.) From this motive He sent His Son to make the salvation of all men possible. (3.) God, in virtue of a decretum universale hypotheticum, offers salvation to all men if they believe in Christ. (4.) All men have a natural ability to and believe. (5.) But as this natural ability was counteracted by a moral inability, God determined to give his efficacious to a certain number of the human race, and thus to secure their salvation.

This scheme is sometimes designated as “universalismus hypotheticus.” It was designed to take a middle ground between Augustinianism and . It is liable to the objections which press on both systems. It does not remove the peculiar difficulties of Augustinianism, as it asserts the of God in . Besides, it leaves the case of the out of view. They, having no knowledge of Christ, could not avail themselves of this decretum hypotheticum, and therefore must be considered as passed over by a decretum absolutum. It was against this doctrine of Amyraut and other departures from the standards of the Reformed Church that, in 1675, the “Formula Consensus Helvetica” was adopted by the churches of Switzerland. This theory of the French theologians soon passed away as far as the Reformed churches in Europe were concerned. Its advocates either returned to the old doctrine, or passed on to the more advanced system of the . In this country it has been revived and extensively adopted.

At first view it might seem a small matter whether we say that precedes or that precedes . In fact, however, it is a question of great importance. The relation of the truths of the Bible is determined by their nature. If you change their relation you must change their nature. If you regard the sun as a planet instead of as the centre of our system you must believe it to be something very different in its constitution from what it actually is. So in a scheme of thought, if you make the final cause a means, or a means the final cause, nothing but confusion can be the result. As the relation of to depends on the nature of the full consideration of this question must be reserved until the work of Christ has been considered. For the present it is sufficient to say that the scheme proposed by the French theologians is liable to the following objections.

Arguments against this Scheme.

1. It supposes mutability in the divine purposes; or that the purpose of God may fail of accomplishment. According to this scheme, God, out of benevolence or philanthropy, purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son for their . But seeing that such purpose could not be carried out, He determined by his efficacious to secure the salvation of a certain portion of the human race. This difficulty the scheme involves, however it may be stated. It cannot however be supposed that God intends what is never accomplished; that He purposes what He does not intend to effect; that He adopts means for an end which is never to be attained. This cannot be affirmed of any rational being who has the wisdom and power to secure the execution of his purposes. Much less can it be said of Him whose power and wisdom are infinite. If all men are not saved, God never purposed their salvation, and never devised and put into operation means designed to accomplish that end. We must assume that the result is the interpretation of the purposes of God. If He foreordains whatsoever comes to pass, then events correspond to his purposes; and it is against reason and Scripture to suppose that there is any contradiction or want of correspondence between what He intended and what actually occurs. The theory, therefore, which assumes that God purposed the salvation of all men, and sent his Son to die as a means to accomplish that end, and then seeing, or foreseeing that such end could not or would not be attained, elected a part of the race to be the subjects of efficacious , cannot be admitted as Scriptural.

2. The Bible clearly teaches that the work of Christ is certainly efficacious. It renders certain the attainment of the end it was designed to accomplish. It was intended to save his people, and not merely to make the salvation of all men possible. It was a real satisfaction to justice, and therefore necessarily frees from condemnation. It was a ransom paid and accepted, and therefore certainly redeems. If, therefore, equally designed for all men, it must secure the salvation of all. If designed specially for the , it renders their salvation certain, and therefore precedes . God, as the Westminster Catechism teaches, having elected some to eternal life, sent his Son to them.

3. The Scriptures further teach that the gift of Christ secures the gift of all other saving blessings. “He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?” (Rom. vii 32.) Hence they are certainly saved for whom God delivered up his Son. The only are saved, and therefore He was delivered up specially for them, and consequently must precede . The relation, therefore, of to is as clearly determined by the nature of as the relation of the sun to the planets is determined by the nature of the sun.

4. The Bible in numerous passages directly asserts that Christ came to his people; to save them from their sins; and to bring them to God. He gave Himself for his Church; He laid down his life for his sheep. As the end precedes the means, if God sent his Son to save his people, if Christ gave Himself for his Church, then his people were selected and present to the divine mind, in the order of thought, prior to the gift of Christ.

5. If, as Paul teaches (Rom. viii. 29, 30), foreknowledge precedes , and if the mission of Christ is the means of accomplishing the end of , then of necessity to eternal life precedes the gift of Christ. Having, as we are taught in Eph. i. 4, 5, us to the of sons, God chose us before the foundation of the world, and sent his Son to be the for our sins. This is the order of the divine purposes, or the mutual relation of the truths of as presented in the Scriptures.

6. The motive (so to speak) of God in sending his Son is not, as this theory assumes, general benevolence or that love of which all men are equally the objects, but that peculiar, mysterious, infinite love in which God, in giving his Son, gives Himself and all conceivable and possible good. All these points, however, as before remarked, ask for further consideration when we come to treat of the nature and design of Christ’s work.