← Back to the beginning of Notes
30. p. 431.
31. A. S. Martin, art. “Election,” in Hastings’ “Encyc. of Religion and Ethics.” V. 1912. p. 261a.
32. “The Authority of Christ.” 1906, p. 140.
33. p. 143.
34. p. 349.
35. Similarly, Lewis F. Stearns, “Present Day Theology,” 1890, p. 416, declares roundly: “The only power that can tear a soul away from Christ is that soul’s own free will.” This is as strong an assertion as possible that the soul’s own free will can tear the soul away from Christ. And from that we must infer, if we may trust Rom. viii, 39, that free will is not a created thing, and indeed, to speak the truth, (Rom. viii, 38) that it has no existence, whether actual or prospective. If our free will is stronger than Christ’s hold upon us it is omnipotent, for he is omnipotent, and no one could be saved.
36. p. 300.
37. p. 370.
38. A. S. Martin, as cited p. 261: “The belief of the bulk of the Christian Church in all ages, that man’s destiny is in his own hands.”
39. Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft (Gesammelte Schriften, 1907, vi, p. 45).
40. Do.
41. E. Schäder, Über das Wesen des Christentums und seine modernen Darstellungen, 1904, quoted by A. Schlatter, Beiträge z. Förderung d. christ. Theologie, 1904, p. 39.
42. William Temple, in “Foundations,” 1913, p. 237.
43. Do. p. 256.
44. “Morning by Morning,” p. 14.
45. George Tyrrell, who had had his own experiences, exclaims: “Peace is more necessary even that Sacraments, which men can give and take away at pleasure, and use as a whip.” (“Life,” by Miss Petre, ii, p. 305). No words could better show Tyrrell’s emancipation.
46. “An answer to my Lord of Winchester’s Book,” 1547, in “Early Writings of Bishop Hooper,” Parker Society, p. 129.
47. “That the Almighty has given it a charter, like an insurance company, of a monopoly of salvation in this portion of the Universe, and agreed to keep his hands off”—as Mr. Winston Churchill not unaptly puts it (“The Inside of the Cup,” p. 8).
48. “The Rule of Faith,” 1912, pp. 240ff. Cf., what is said of the Church in the Romish system by H. Bavinck, Het Christendom, 1912, pp. 33, 36: “All this superabundant grace (and truth) Christ has committed to his Church for distribution. In it he himself continues to live on earth; it is the perpetuation of his incarnation; in the Mass he repeats in an unbloody manner his sacrifice on the cross; through the priest he communicates his grace in the sacraments; through the infallible mouth of the Pope he leads his Church into the truth. The Church is thus, above everything, the institute of salvation, no assembly of believers or communion of saints, but in the first place a supernatural institute established by God in order to preserve and distribute here on earth the saving benefits of grace and truth. Whatever may be lacking to believers in doctrine and life, the Church abides the same, for it has its center in the priesthood and sacraments and in them remains partaker everlastingly of the attributes of unity and holiness, of catholicity and apostolicity” (p. 33). “The Church alone can break the power of the seduction (of the devil and his angels), and it does that in the most manifold ways, by its sacraments and sacramentation, by holy actions (blessings, benedictions, exorcisms) and by holy things (amulets, phylacteries, scapularies, etc.); so long as the natural is not hallowed by the Church, it remains profane and of lower rank” (p. 36).
49. Conc. Trid. Sess. xxii, ch. 2.
50. We do not pause to inquire how far, in the modern Romish system, the Pope has absorbed into himself the functions of the Church, and become, as George Tyrrell would say, in a separate capacity, the representative and substitute of Christ on earth. Cf. the “Joint Pastoral of the English Catholic Hierarchy” of Dec. 29, 1900, and the controversy which arose from it, a good brief account of which is given by Miss Petre in her “Life of Tyrrell,” vol. ii, ch. vii, pp. 146–161.
51. Symbolik, pp. 332, 333.
52. Conc. Trid. Sess. vii, Proem.
53. Op. cit., p. 244.
54. p. 274.
55. “His Divine Majesty,” London, 1897, p. 191ff.
56. Dr. J. Armitage Robinson has taught modern Anglicans to translate Eph. i, 23: “The Church is the completion of Him who all in all is being fulfilled”: and those of sacerdotal tendency have not been slow to utilize this understanding of the text in its entirety. Cf. W. Temple in “Foundations,” 1912, pp. 340, 359.
57. W. J. Knox Little, “Sacerdotalism,” 1894, pp. 46, 47.
58. “Outlines of Christian Dogma,” 1900, pp. 107, 123.
59. p. 149.
60. A. G. Mortimer, “Catholic Faith and Practice,” 1897, i, pp. 65, 82, 84, 100, 114, 120, 122, 127, cf. 130.
61. Cf. p. 130: “By the Incarnation and Atonement of Christ, human nature as a whole was taken into God and as a whole was saved. But”—As if there could be any “but” after this!
62. Query: Is there any such thing as the “race” apart from the individuals which constitute the race? How could the Incarnation and Atonement affect the “race” and leave the individuals which constitute the race untouched?
63. Title of a volume of Lutheran polemics by the late Dr. C. P. Krauth.
64. E. F. Karl Müller, Die Bekenntnischriften der reformirten Kirche, 1903, p. 451.
64a. Samuel Huber, born 1547, died 1624, Professor at Wittenburg 1592–1595, was the standard example of a “holoprædestinarian” for the next age. But the relevant teaching of this “embittered martyr of universalism” seems to have begun only in connection with the Mümpelgart Colloquy (1586). A good account of him may be found in A. Schweitzer, Die protestantischen Centraldogmen, 1854, i, pp. 501ff; see also G. Müller’s article in Herzog. How the matter is dealt with by the Seventeenth Century dogmaticians may be seen in Hollaz, Exam. Theolog. Acroam. 1741, p. 643, or in Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-Polemica, 1715, ii, p. 72. Quenstedt tells us that Sebastian Castalio was the architect of the error of universal election and was followed by Samuel Huber, who absurdly taught that “Election is universal, that God chose all men really, properly and unambiguously to salvation, without any regard to faith.” He adds that Huber had no followers and that his error was extinct.
65. Edinburgh 1904, p. 282.
66. London and New York, 1912, pp. 310–313.
67. “The Homilectical Review,” Feb., 1910, vol. lix, no. 2, p. 101.
68. Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, 1900, xi, p. 500.
69. p. 601.
70. Schmid, p. 421.
71. As cited, p. 601.
72. “System of Christian Doctrine,” 1903, p. 417.
73. H. F. Henderson, “The Religious Controversies of Scotland,” 1905, p. 187.
74. H. F. Henderson, as cited, pp. 182, 183.
75. “Life After Death,” pp. 184, 185.
76. Grundrids af den System, Theologi, pp. 114, 115, (as cited by Dahle).
77. “The Methodist Review,” (N. Y.), for July, 1909.
78. Erlangen Edition of Works, xlix, p. 343.
79. W. P. Paterson, as cited, p. 375; referring to A. Ritschl, “Justification and Reconciliation,” E. T., p. 130.
80. Erlangen Edition of Works, xviii, p. 20.
81. It is important to observe that the terms Supralapsarian, Sub- (or Infra-) lapsarian concern the place relatively to the decree of the fall given to the decree of election. A habit has grown up among historians who do not comprehend the matter, of defining Supralapsarianism as the view which holds that God’s decree in general is formed before the fall. Thus Th. Häring, “The Christian Faith,” E. T., 1912, p. 479, speaks of a view being called Supralapsarianism because it makes “the will of God include the fall of the first man.” That the “will of God includes the fall of the first man,” no Calvinist (be he Supralapsarian, Sublapsarian, Post-redemptionist, Amyraldian, Pajonist), either doubts or can doubt. No Theist, clear in his theism, can doubt it.
82. Accordingly the tendency to erect the fewness of the saved into a dogma has no connection with Calvinism as such, but is just as prominent among (for example) the Lutherans. Quenstedt, Theologia Didactico-Polemica, 1715, ii, p. 30, makes the first attribute of the “elect” to be “fewness,” as of the “reprobate” to be “multitudinousness;” and John Gerhart, Loci Theologici Ed. Cotta, 1781, xx, p. 518, declares of the “object of eternal life” among human beings, first of all, that they are “few.” See further “The Lutheran Church Review” for January, 1915, article “Are there few that be saved?” For hints of the Sacerdotal point of view, see F. W. Farrar, “Eternal Hope,” 1878, pp. 90ff., and “Mercy and Judgment,” 1881, pp. 137-155.
83. Cf. what is said by R. A. Knox, “Some Loose Stones,” 1913, pp. 111 sq. William Temple had said strikingly in “Foundations”: “The earth will in all probability be inhabitable for myriads of years yet. We are the primitive Church.” R. A. Knox takes exception to this (which nevertheless seems true enough), and proceeds to argue that there is no solid ground for supposing that Christianity shall ever be triumphant over her enemies. “Theologically,” he asserts, “it seems certain that if free will is to be more than a name, the possibility must remain open that the majority of the world will reject the Christian revelation.” Certainly we agree that if the matter is to be hung upon free will there can be no ground to expect that there is ever to be a saved world.
84. Accordingly the testimony of even a Th. Häring (“The Christian Faith,” E. T., 1913, p. 474) is true: “It is only through faith in the living God that faith in an ultimate goal to be surely reached has become a power in the world and in the individual heart.”