to everlasting death" (III., iii.), unless we are prepared to deny that "it comes to pass" that some go to eternal life and some to eternal death?[1] Are we to be Calvinists only "in the vague," and on the moment that we descend into details, be ready not only to stumble at our Calvinistic faith, but also to desert elementary logic? What need there is for amending this section we certainly fail to see.
It is a matter of interest, indeed, but of less importance, to ask what would be the effect of adopting the amendment to it proposed by Dr. Van Dyke, who desires that the words "for their sins" should be inserted into Section 3. "Will any opponent of revision," he asks, "maintain that the addition of these words would mar the integrity of our Confession?" I answer, unhesitatingly, yes; the insertion of these words into Section 3 would be an intolerable confusing of the logical order and exactitude of statement of this now beautifully ordered and carefully phrased chapter. It would prematurely introduce the statement of the ground of God's actual dealings with one class into the statement of the fact that two classes are discriminated. It would confound the treatment of preterition (which is sovereign) with that of condemnation (which is based on sin). It would throw the whole chapter into such confusion
- ↑ Compare the admirable discussion of the late Principal Cunningham (Historical Theology, II., pp. 422–430). "It is manifest," he says, "that if the Calvinistic doctrine upon this great general question be established" (i. e., of the Decrees, as in III., 1, 2), "this settles all the questions bearing upon the subjects of election and reprobation, or the purposings and actings of God with respect to the character and fate of men individually. If God has unchangeably foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, and if, in point of fact, some men are saved and the rest perish, then it must be true that He has predestinated some men to everlasting life and has foreordained others to everlasting death" (pp. 424–7).
