|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 22:45:01 GMT -5
The Necessity of the Atonement
The Priesthood of Christ; according to the Apostle Paul and the types of the Jewish ritual; is divided into two parts: the atonement which he made to divine justice; and his intercession in heaven; (1 John 2:2. Heb. 9: 12). The necessity of such an atonement; which is the foundation of all practical piety and all Christian hopes; must therefore be firmly established; and defended against the fiery darts of Satan; with which it is attacked by innumerable adversaries.
Upon this subject; the opinions of divines may be classed under three heads:
1. That of the Socinians; who I not only deny that an atonement was made; but affirm that it was not at all necessary; since God both could and would pardon sin; without any satisfaction made to his justice.
2. That of those who distinguish between an absolute and a hypothetical necessity: and in opposition to the Socinians maintain the latter; while they deny the former. By a hypothetical necessity they mean that which flows from the divine decree; God has decreed that an atonement is to be made; therefore it is necessary. To this they also add a necessity of fitness: as the
commands-of God have 1 been transgressed; it is fit that satisfaction should be made; that the transgressor may not pass with impunity.
Yet they deny that it was absolutely necessary; as God; they say; might have devised some other way of pardon than through the medium of an atonement. This is the ground taken by Augustine in
his book on the Trinity. Some of the reformers who wrote before the time of Socinus; adopt the opinions of that father.
3. That of those who maintain its absolute necessity: affirming that God neither has willed; nor could have willed to forgive sins; without a satisfaction made to his justice. This; the common opinion of the orthodox; is our opinion. Various errors are maintained on this point; by our opponents. The removal of the grounds upon which they rest will throw light upon the whole subject. They err in their views of the nature of sin; for which a satisfaction is required: of the satisfaction itself: of the character of God to whom it is to be rendered: and of Christ by whom it is rendered.
1. Of sin; which renders us guilty; and binds us over to punishment as hated of God. It may be viewed as a debt which we are bound to pay to divine justice; in which sense the law is called "a handwriting;" (Col 2:14) as a principle of enmity; whereby we hate God and he becomes our enemy: as a crime against the government of the universe by which; before God; the supreme governor and judge; we become deserving of everlasting death and malediction. Whence; sinners are expressly called "debtors;" (Matt. 6:12): "enemies to God;" both actively and passively; (Col. 1:21): "and guilty before God;" (Rom. 3:19.) We; therefore; infer that three things were necessary in order to our redemption: the payment of the debt contracted by sin.; the appeasing of the divine wrath; and the expiation of guilt.
2. From the preceding remarks; the -nature of the satisfaction which sin requires may be easily perceived. That which we are chiefly to attend to in sin being its criminality; satisfaction has relation to the penalty enacted against it by the Supreme Judge.
But here we must attend to a twofold payment; which is noticed by jurists. One which; by the very deed of payment; sets at liberty the debtor; and annuls the obligation; whether the payment is made by the debtor in his own person; or by a surety in his name. Another in which the bare fact of payment is not sufficient to liberate the debtor; because; the payment is not precisely that which is demanded in the obligation; but all equivalent. In this case; though the creditor such
payment; has a right to refuse the acceptance of yet if lie admits it and esteems it a payment; it is a satisfaction. The former of these takes place in a pecuniary; the latter in a penal debt. In a pecuniary transaction; the fact of the payment of the sum due frees tile debtor; by whomsoever the payment is made. Respect here is bad; not to the person paying but to the payment only. Whence; the creditor; having been paid the full amount due; is not said to have treated with
indulgence the debtor; or to have forgiven the debt. But in penal matters the case is different. The debt rewards not things; but persons: not what is paid; so much as him who pays: i.e.; that the transgressor may be punished. For as the law demands individual personal obedience; so it demands individual personal suffering. In order that the guilty person may be released through an atonement made by another in his stead; the governor or judge must pass a decree to that effect.
That decree or act of the judge is; in relation to the law; called relaxation; and in relation to the debtor or guilty person.; pardon: for his personal suffering is dispensed with; and in
its place a vicarious suffering accepted. But because; in the subject under discussion; sin has not a relation to debt only; but also to punishment; satisfaction is not of that kind; which by the act itself frees the debtor. To effect this there must be an act of pardon passed by the Supreme Judge; because that is not precisely paid; i.e.; a personal enduring of the penalty; which the law demands; but a vicarious suffering only. Hence we discover how perfectly accordant
remission and satisfaction are with each other; notwithstanding the outcry made by the enemy respecting their supposed discrepancy.
Christ made the satisfaction in his life and at his death; and God; by accepting this satisfaction; provides for remission. The satisfaction respects Christ; from whom God demands a punishment; not numerically; but in kind; the same with that which we owed. Pardon respects believers; who are freed from punishment in their own persons; while a vicarious suffering is accepted. Hence we see how admirably mercy is tempered with justice. Justice is exercised against sin; and mercy towards the sinner: an atonement is made to the divine justice by a surety; and God mercifully pardons us.
3. This reasoning is greatly fortified from a consideration of the relations in which God stands to the sinner. He may be viewed in a threefold relation: as the creditor: as the Lord and party offended: and as the judge and ruler. But though both the former relations must be attended to in this matter; yet the third is to be chiefly considered. God here is not merely a creditor; who may at pleasure remit what is his due; nor merely the party offended who may do as he will with his own claims without injury to any one: but he is also a judge and rectoral governor; to whom alone pertains the infliction of punishment upon offenders; and the power of remitting the penal sanction of the law. This all jurists know belongs to the chief magistrate alone. The creditor may demand his debt; and the party offended reparation for the offence or indemnity for his loss: but the judge alone has the power to compel payment; or exact punishment.
Here lies the capital error of our adversaries; who maintain that God is to be considered merely in the light of a creditor; who is at liberty to exact or remit the punishment at pleasure. It is however certain; that God sustains the character of judge and ruler of the world; who has the rights of sovereignty to maintain; and professes himself to be the guardian and avenger of his laws: and hence lie possesses not only the claims of a creditor; which he might assert or remit at
pleasure; but also the right of government and of punishment; which is naturally indispensable. We must; however; in the punishment itself; distinguish accurately between the enforcing of the penalty; and the manner and circumstances under which it is enforced; as they are things widely different. Punishment may be viewed generally: and in this respect the right of Heaven to inflict it is indispensable; being founded in the divine justice. If there be such an attribute as justice belonging to God; then sin must have its due; which is punishment. But as to the manner and circumstances of the punishment; the case is altogether different. They are not essential to
that attribute. They are to be arranged according to his will and pleasure. It may seem fit to the goodness of God that there should be; in relation to time; a delay of punishment: in relation to degree; a mitigation of it: and in relation to persons; a substitution. For although the person sinning deserves punishment and might suffer it with the strictest justice; yet such punishment is not necessarily indispensable. For reasons of great importance; it may be transferred to a surety. In this sense; it is said by divines that sin is of necessity punished impersonally; but every sinner is not therefore of necessity to be punished personally. Through the singular mercy of God some may be exempted from punishment; by the substitution of a surety in their stead.
But that we may conceive it possible for God to do this; he must not be considered as an inferior judge appointed by law. An officer of that character cannot remit anything of the rigor of the law by transferring the punishment from the actual offender to another person. God must be viewed in his true character; as a supreme judge who giveth account of none of his matters; who will satisfy his justice by the punishment of sin; and who; through his infinite wisdom and unspeakable mercy; determines to do this in such a way as shall relax somewhat of the extreme rigor of punishment; by
admitting a substitute and letting the sinner go free. Hence we discover to whom the atonement is to be made: whether to the devil; (as Socinus; with a sneer; asks;) or to God; as sovereign judge. For as the devil is no more than the servant of God; the keeper of the prison; who has no power over sinners; unless by the just judgment of God; the atonement is not to be made to this executor of the divine vengeance; but to the Supreme Ruler; who primarily and principally holds them in durance. We may add; that it is a gratuitous and false supposition; that in the suffering of punishment; there must be some person to whom the punishment shall be rendered; as in a pecuniary
debt. It is sufficient that there is a judge; who may exact it in order to support the majesty of the State; and maintain the order of the empire.
4. The person who makes the atonement is here to be considered. As sin is to be viewed in the threefold light of debt; enmity; and crime: and God in the threefold light of creditor; party offended; and judge: so Christ must put on a threefold relation corresponding to all these.
He must sustain the character of a Surety; for the payment of the debt. He must be a Mediator; a peace-maker; to take away the enmity of the parties and reconcile us to God. He must be a Priest
and victim; to substitute himself in our room; and make atonement; by enduring the penal sanction of the law. Again: that such an atonement may be made; two things are requisite:
- 1. That the same nature which sins shall make restitution.
2. That the consideration given must possess infinite value; in order to the removal of the
infinite demerit of sin.
In Christ; two natures were necessary for the making of an atonement: a human nature; to stiffer; and a divine nature; to give the requisite value to his sufferings. Moreover; we must demonstrate
how it is possible; in consistency with justice; to substitute an innocent person; as Christ was. in our room: because such a substitution; at first view; appears to be not only unusual; but also unjust. Though a substitution; which is common in a pecuniary debt;rarely occurs in penal transactions - nay; is sometimes prohibited; as was the case among the Romans; because no one is master of his own life; and because the commonwealth would suffer loss in such cases - yet it was not 'unknown among the heathen. We have an example of it in Damon and Pythias: two intimate friends; one of whom voluntarily entered himself bail for the other to Dionysius in a capital cause. Curtius; Codrus; and Brutus devoted themselves for their country. The right of punishing hostages; when princes fail in their promises; has been recognized by all nations. Hence hostages
are called anti-psukoi substitutes. To this Paul alludes; when he says; (Rom. 5:7) "For a good man some would even dare to die." The Holy Scriptures often give it support; not only from the imputation of sin; by which one bears the punishment due to another; but from the public use of sacrifices; in which the victim was substituted in the place of the sinner and suffered death in his stead. Hence the imposition of hands;and the confession of sins over the head of the victims.
But; that such a substitution may be made without the slightest appearance of injustice; various conditions are requisite in the substitute or surety; all which are found in Christ.
1. A common nature; that sin may be punished in the same nature which is guilty; (Heb. 2:14).
2. The consent of the will; that he should voluntarily take the burden upon himself; (Heb. 10:9) - "Lo; I come to do thy will."
3. Power over his own life; so that he may rightfully determine respecting it; (John; 10:18) - "No one taketh away my life; but I lay it down of myself; for I have power to lay it down; and take it up again."
4. The power of bearing the punishment due to us; and of freeing both himself and us from the power of death: because; if he himself could be holden of death; he could free no one from its
dominion. That Christ possesses this power; no one doubts.
5. Holiness and immaculate purity; that; being polluted by no sin; he might not have to offer sacrifice for himself; but for us only; (Heb. 7:26-27.)
Under these conditions; it was not unjust for Christ to substitute himself in our room; while lie is righteous and we unrighteous. By this act no injury is done to anyone. Not to Christ; for he voluntarily took the punishment upon himself; and had the right to decide concerning his own life and death; and also power to raise himself from the dead. Not to God the judge; for he willed and commanded it: nor to his natural justice; for the Surety satisfied this by suffering the punishment which demanded it. Not to the empire of the universe; by depriving an innocent person of life; for Christ; freed from death; lives for evermore: or by the life of the surviving sinner
injuring the kingdom of God; for he is converted and made holy by Christ. Not to the divine law; for its honor has been maintained by the perfect fulfillment of all its demands; through the righteousness of the Mediator: and; by our legal and mystical union; he becomes one with us; and we one with him. Hence he may justly take upon him our sin and sorrows; and impart to us his righteousness and blessings. So there is no abrogation of the law; no derogation from its
claims: as what we owed is transferred to the account of Christ; to be paid by him.
These preliminary remarks we have thought necessary; in order to the lucid discussion of the question concerning the necessity of the atonement. We now proceed to inquire whether it was necessary that Christ should satisfy for us; as well absolutely; in relation to the divine justice; as hypothetically; on the ground of a divine decree: whether it was absolutely necessary; in order to our salvation; thatan atonement should be made; God not having the power to pardon
our sins without a satisfaction; or whether it was rendered necessary only by the divine decree? The Socinians; indeed; admit no kind of necessity. Some of the old divines; and some members of the Reformed Church; contend for a hypothetical necessity only. They think it sufficient for the refutation of the heretic. But we; with the great body of the orthodox; contend for both. We do not urge a necessity simply natural; such as that of fire to burn; which is involuntary;
and admits of no modification in its exercise. It is a moral and rational necessity for which we plead: one which; as it flows from the holiness and justice of God; and cannot be exercised any
other way than freely and voluntarily; admits of various modifications; provided there is no infringement of the natural rights of Deity. That there is such a necessity; is evinced by many
arguments.
1. The vindicatory justice of God. That such an attribute is natural and essential to God; has been proved at large elsewhere. This avenging justice belongs to God as a judge; and he can no more dispense with it than he can cease to be a judge or deny himself: though; at the same time; he exercises it freely. It does not consist in the exercise of a gratuitous power; like mercy; by which; whether it be exercised or not; injustice is done to no one. It is that attribute by which God gives to every one his due; and from the exercise of which; when proper objects are presented; he can no more abstain; than he can do what is unjust. This justice is the constant will of
punishing sinners; which in God cannot be inefficient; as his majesty is supreme and his power infinite. And hence the infliction of punishment upon the transgressor or his surety is inevitable. No objection to this can be drawn from the liberty of God; for the from his mercy; because that; while it may free the sinner from punishment; does not demand that sin shall not be punished.
2. The nature of sin; which is a moral evil and essentially opposed to holiness; forms another argument. The connection between it and physical evil is natural and necessary. As physical or penal evil cannot exist without moral evil; either personal or imputed; so there cannot be moral evil without producing natural evil. Moral and physical good; or holiness and happiness; are united together by the wisdom; as well as by the goodness and justice of God: so that a good
man must be happy; for goodness is a part of the divine image. The wicked must be miserable; because God is just: and this the rather; because when God gives blessings to the righteous; he does it of his own bounty; without any merit on their part: but when he punishes the sinner; he renders to him precisely what he has merited by his sins.
3. The sanction of the Law; which threatens death to the sinner;(Deut. 27:29; Gen. 2:17; Ez.18:20; Rom. 1:18; 32; and 6:23). Since God is true and cannot lie; these threatening's must necessarily be executed either upon the sinner; or upon some one in his stead. In vain do our opponents reply; that the threatening is hypothetical; not absolute; and may be relaxed by repentance. This is a gratuitous supposition. That such a condition is either expressed or understood; neither has been nor can be proved. Nay; as the penal sanction of the law is a part of the law itself; which is natural and indispensable; this sanction must also be immutable. With the judicial threatening's of the law; we must not confound particular and economical commination's; or such as are paternal and evangelical; which are denounced against men to recall them to repentance. Such threatening's may be recalled in case of penitence. Of this kind were those denounced against Hezekiah; (Isaiah 38) and against Nineveh;(Jon. 3).
4. The Preaching of the Gospel; which announces the violent and painful death of the Mediator and Surety on the cross; is another argument which power fully confirms the necessity of that event. For we cannot believe that God would multiply sufferings unnecessarily. His goodness and wisdom do not permit us to harbor an idea that the Father could expose his most innocent and beloved Son to an excruciating and ignominious death; without a necessity which admits of no relaxation. The only necessity which can be possibly imagined here;; is that of making an atonement to the divine justice for our sins. Every; one must perceive that it was absolutely necessary. I know that our opponents affect to produce various other reasons for the accursed death of the cross; such as to confirm Christ's doctrine; and to set an example of all kinds of virtue; especially of charity and constancy! But since Christ had confirmed his doctrines by numerous stupendous miracles; and 11 through his life had given the most illustrious examples of every human virtue; who could believe that God; for that one cause alone; would expose his only begotten Son to such dire torments? Therefore; without all doubt; there was another cause for that dispensation; to wit: a regard
for the honor of his justice. To this the Holy Spirit bears witness by the Apostle Paul; (Rom. 3:5) who affirms that "God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation for our sins to declare his righteousness;" which was inexorable; and did not suffer our sins to be pardoned on any other terms; than by the intervention of the death of Christ.
Again: if God was able and willing by his word alone without any atonement to pardon our sins; why does the Apostle Paul so often and emphatically refer our justification and salvation to the blood of Christ? "We are justified- by the redemption which is in his blood;"(Rom. 3:24.) "We have redemption through his blood: the remission of sins;" (Eph. 1:7). "He hath reconciled all things to himself by the blood of Christ;" (Col. 1:20). Now there was no need that his blood should be shed if remission depended solely upon the divine will. On this supposition; the apostle would rashly and falsely affirm; what he often Arms; that the blood of bulls and of goats; that is; the sacrifices under the law; could not take away sins: and that the oblation of Christ alone could If there was no need of any purgation; but penitence alone was sufficient to take away sin; that is; the guilt of sin; without any sacrifice; the apostle's assertion is groundless. What
could be taken away without any sacrifice at all; could surely be removed by legal sacrifices. If the divine will alone is necessary; why is it that Paul never refers to it; but always ascends to the nature of things; as when he asserts that it was impossible for the blood of bulls to take away sins? Surely it must be because sin is so hateful to God; that its stain can be washed away by nothing less than the blood of the Son of God.
5. If there was no necessity that Christ should die; the greatness of God's love in not sparing his own Son; but delivering; him up for us all; which the apostle commends; will be not a little diminished. If there was no obstacle on the part of justice; in the way of our salvation; it would indeed have been great grace in God to have forgiven our sins. But it would have fallen far short of that stupendous love which; though justice inexorable stood in the way; removed; by means found in the treasures of infinite wisdom; all impediments to our redemption; displaying a most amiable harmony between justice and mercy. Nor can Christ be said to have appeased the wrath of God; if he; without demanding any satisfaction; could by a mere volition have laid aside his own wrath.
6. Finally; our opinion relative to the necessity of an atonement does not; in the least; derogate from any of the Divine Perfections. Not from God's absolute Power; because he can neither deny himself nor any of his attributes; nor can he act in such a way as to give the appearance of delighting in sin; by holding communion with the sinner. Not from the Freedom of his Will; because he can will nothing contrary to his justice and holiness; which would be injured should sin go unpunished. Not from his boundless Mercy; for this is exercised towards the sinner; though punishment is inflicted on the Surety. On the contrary; it makes a glorious display of the most
illustrious of the divine perfections: of his Holiness; on account of which he can have no communion with the sinner; until; by an atonement; his guilt is removed and his pollution purged: of his Justice; which inexorably demands punishment of sin: of his Wisdom; in reconciling the respective claims of justice and mercy: and of his Love; in not sparing his own Son in order that he might spare us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 22:47:26 GMT -5
The Truth of the Atonement
Having in the last chapter asserted the necessity of the atonement; we shall now endeavor to prove its truth; which the Socinians not only call in question; but expressly deny. Though; in order to conceal their real views; they appear willing to retain the word satisfaction; and indeed often use it; yet it is in a sense widely different from that of the orthodox divines: as will appear from the statement of the question.
The subject in controversy is not; whether Christ; by a general satisfaction; has fulfilled all the conditions which the divine will imposed upon him; in order to procure our salvation: for our
adversaries admit such a satisfaction; as Crellius professes in his book against Grotius. But we inquire whether the satisfaction made by Christ was strictly penal; and not only fulfilled the will of God; but also satisfied his justice: Christ having taken upon himself our sins.
Our opponents deny: we affirm.
The controversy does not respect a metaphorical satisfaction; which is effected by a nominal remission of sin: a satisfaction; which by supplication obtains; through the mere indulgence of God; some favor. This is admitted; and often spoken of by our adversaries to deceive the simple. But they pertinaciously deny that Christ has made a true and proper satisfaction; by paying a full price; and by obtaining; through his merits; the acquittal of the sinner on the ground of justice. We maintain that this is the true scriptural atonement.
It is not whether the death of Christ is advantageous to us; and in various respects promotes our interests: for this also they willingly admit. It is whether; by substituting himself in our place; he suffered the punishment due to us. We maintain that he did. It is not whether Christ is our Saviour; on account of his doctrine announcing to us the way of salvation: on account of the example of his life; in which by his virtues and miracles he confirmed the truth: or on account of his efficacious power; by which he will assuredly bestow on us this salvation: for all this ; grants to Christ. The great subject of debate is; whether Christ; by his satisfaction and merits; is our Saviour in the strictest sense of the word. Our opponents have openly made the utmost exertions to overturn this doctrine; which has been constantly held by the orthodox; and is proved by various solid and irresistible arguments.
I. The first argument is drawn from those texts in which Christ is said to have redeemed us at the price of his blood: for the payment of a price properly so called and perfectly sufficient; shows that a satisfaction in its true and proper sense has been made; since price always has reference to distributive justice. These texts are various. "Ye were redeemed by a price;” (1 Corinthians 6:20). "Ye were redeemed from your vain conversation; not by corruptible things such as silver and gold; but by the precious blood of Christ; as of a lamb without spot;” (1 Peter 1:19). "Christ gave himself for us; that he might redeem (purchase) us from all iniquity;” (Titus 2:14). "In whom we have redemption through his blood;” (Ephesians 1:7). "The Son of man came that he might lay down his life a ransom for many -a price of payment; in the room of many.
The name Jesus was given to him; "because he saves his people from their sins;” (Matthew 1:21).
Though the word Redemption is sometimes used in Scripture to denote a mere deliverance; which is procured without the payment of any price; as Moses is called λυτρωτης; a deliverer: (Acts
7:35: Deuteronomy 7:8); and as God is said to have "redeemed Israel out of the house of bondage:” yet it does not follow that in this argument it is to be taken in that sense. Many things prove that in the business of man’s salvation; the word is to be understood as signifying redemption by the payment of a price.
1. This is the primary import of the wordsλυτρον; απολυτρον; and we may in no case give them any other; unless for a very solid reason. This is not denied by Socinus himself. (Book 12; chapter 1) "To redeem any one; properly signifies nothing else but to free a captive; by paying a price
to him who detains him.”
2. The condition of man requires this: since he is a prisoner not only of Satan and death; but also of sin; both as to its guilt and its pollution;and therefore of the divine law and justice. He is condemned of God and a child of wrath; and cannot be released but by a satisfactory payment.
3. Such is the redemption procured by the price mentioned; (1 Corinthians 6:20). Why should
the apostle use λυτρον and τιμη; price of redemption and punishment; if no price was paid? The reply usually made to this is; that the term is used in a figurative sense; and denotes that we are freed from the power of sin. This is an assumption; which; as we do not grant it; our opponent is bound to prove. Nay; the contrary is evident. The price is compared to very precious earthly things; such as gold; silver; and jewels; which have always a relation to price; strictly so called; (1 Peter 1:18).
4. We have not only the word λυτρον; a price of redemption; but also the word αντιλυτρον; applied to the suffering and death of Christ. Nothing can be more express than this word ντιλυτρον. It denotes not merely a price; but such a price as is perfectly equal to the debt which it pays: this is the force of the preposition αντι; which here expresses substitution.
Aristotle uses the same word αντιλυτρον; in the ninth book of his Ethics; and second chapter; to denote the redemption of a life; by substituting another in its room.
Hence it appears that this redemption is not a mere manumission; such as that in which a master; without any price; sets free his slaves: nor is it simply an act of power; by which captives are rescued from the hand of an enemy: nor a bare exchange; such as that of prisoners of war. It is a real satisfaction; such as a surety makes by paying in full for the debtor. Our deliverance; indeed; is procured without any price paid on our part; and purely through the free grace and mercy of God; (Romans 3:24: Ephesians 2:8). The divine power; too; is displayed gloriously in emancipating us from the tyrannical dominion of Satan; over whom Christ obtains a victory and triumph; (Colossians 2:15). There is also an exchange in respect of Christ; who was substituted in our place; and suffered the punishment due to us.
Yet in relation to the justice of God there is a real and perfect satisfaction made.
II. The truth of the atonement is also proved from those passages of Scripture; in which Christ is said to have died; not only for our advantage; but also in our stead; as a substitute. "For when we were yet without strength; in due time Christ died for the ungodly - in that while we were yet sinners; Christ died for us;” (Romans 5:6;7). "For Christ also hath suffered for our sins; the just for the unjust;” (1 Peter 3:18). Our reasons for understanding these phrases in this sense and none other; are:
1. This is the common import of the preposition υπερ; (for) which is used in these texts; and which; when applied to persons; denotes among the Greeks substitution: as in Romans 5:7; "Scarcely for a just man will one die;” i.e.; in his place: and in Romans 9:3; "αναθεμα υπερ αδελφων;” "for (or in the room of) his brethren.”
2. It is elsewhere expressed by αντι; in the room of; as in Matthew 20:28; and by αντιλυτρον; a price of redemption; as in 1 Timothy 2:6. "Who gave himself a ransom (αντιλυτρον) for all.” Both of these import substitution:life for life; as in the phrase "eye for (αντι) eye;” (Matthew 5:38).
3. Christ is said to have died for us in a manner peculiar to himself - a manner in which neither Paul nor Peter could be said to die or be crucified for us; (1 Corinthians 1:13). Yet either of these might be said to die for our edification and confirmation in the faith. Hence the sufferings
and death of Christ were vicarious: and in their design entirely different from that of the apostles or martyrs. Though the apostles may be said to have suffered for the Church; yet it does not follow from this; that the object of their death was the same with that of Christ’s. They suffered as martyrs; to edify; confirm; and comfort the Church; by bearing testimony to the truth of the Christian system: as it is expressed by the apostle: "Whether we be afflicted; it is for your consolation:” (2 Corinthians 1:6); but Christ alone laid down his life to redeem the Church: And if we are commanded to lay down our lives for our brethren; (1 John 3:13); as Christ laid down his life for us; this means that we are not to refuse to undergo the danger of death; nay; to suffer with firmness even death itself; whenever the glory of God; the good of our neighbor; or the edification of the Church requires it; as was the case with the martyrs. Hence; indeed;
we may infer that we should in this way imitate the example of Christ: but it does not hence follow; that our death for our brethren is for the same purposes as Christ’s death for us. We are unable to pay a ransom for our brother; that we may free him from death; as the Psalmist expresses it in Psalm 49:7–8: nor by our death can we procure his reconciliation with God and purge him from sin - all which Christ does for his people by his death. Thus our death may in some respects be compared to that of Christ; but not in all. In relation to an example of love; a comparison may be instituted; but not in relation to the merit of satisfaction. The particle καθως; as; denotes similitude; not equality; as may be learned from its use in Matthew 5:48: "Be ye perfect; even as (καθως) your Father in heaven is perfect.”
III. Another proof is derived from those Scriptures in which Christ is said to have borne our sins; and on account of them to have been afflicted; to have been wounded; to have died. "He bore our sins in his own body on the tree;” (1 Peter 2:24). This passage is taken by the apostle from Isaiah 53; in which the Chaldee Paraphrase and the ancient Jews consider the prophet as treating of Messiah. "He hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows - he was wounded for our
transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities - the chastisement of our peace was upon him - the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity(i.e.; the punishment) of us all - he shall make his soul an offering for sin.” In proving the atonement from these texts; we reason as follows: -
1. From bearing our sins - though to bear and to carry are sometimes figuratively put for taking away and pardoning; (Exodus 34:7: Numbers 14:18); yet there is no good reason why we thus should understand them in these passages. Nay; there are most weighty reasons which forbid us to depart from the primary and most common signification; according to which; Socinus himself acknowledges; to bear sin; is the same thing as to bear the punishment of sin. The word ns ; which sometimes relates to a simple taking away of sin; is indeed used: but the word ; which signifies the bearing of a burden laid upon one; is also used; and clearly intimates the suffering of punishment.
2. The manner of bearing the sins confirms us in this view. The sins are borne by the bearer’s being bruised and wounded. Sin is also said to be laid upon him. None of these could be said; unless Christ took upon himself and suffered the punishment of sin.
3. Christ made his soul an offering; and laid down his life an offering for sin; bore sin in
the manner of a victim: nay; he made himself in reality a victim by
suffering death and shedding his blood in the room of sinners.
4. All things which indicate a real satisfaction occur in this portion of Scripture: our sins as the moving; the meritorious cause; "he was bruised for our iniquities;” (Isaiah 53:5): the suffering of punishment due to sin:"he hath borne our griefs;and carried our sorrows;”(Isa. 53:4): the imputation of our sins to Christ by God as a judge: "the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all;” (Isaiah 53:6): the voluntary undertaking of Christ as our surety: "he was oppressed and
afflicted; yet he opened not his mouth;” in complaining of his sufferings; or in refusing to bear them; (Isaiah 53:7): an expiation for sin and a full payment of the debt: "yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him: he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul on offering for sin;” (Isaiah 53:10). Now; with what propriety could all these things be affirmed; if Christ laid down his life merely to exhibit an example of patience and love; and not to make satisfaction for sin?
In Matthew 8:17; we are; indeed; informed that this prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled; when Christ healed bodily diseases; which; properly speaking; he did not bear; but take away: yet we cannot
infer from this; that the same thing may be affirmed of sins which are the diseases of the mind: for the diseases of the body are to be viewed in a different light from those of the mind. In healing the former; it was not necessary that Christ should himself become sick: it was only necessary that he should exercise his power. Not so the latter. He must first take them upon himself before he could take them away from us. Hence he is held forth by the prophet as wounded and bruised; which were not necessary to the healing of bodily maladies; but to bearing those of the mind alone: from which it is easy to infer what the mind of the Holy Spirit is in this prophecy; and how it is said to have been fulfilled when Christ healed corporeal diseases. Without doubt; it relates primarily to spiritual disease and debility; i.e.; to sin; the punishment of which was laid upon him; that he might suffer its desert in our room. But bodily infirmities and
pains are a part of the punishment of sin; and on this account; in a secondary and subordinate sense; it refers to them: because Christ had a right to heal them. Thus; what the prophet declares in general concerning all diseases; Peter applies in particular to the diseases of the mind; and Matthew to the diseases of the body; not excluding; but rather including; those of the mind. He demonstrates that by removing the cause the effect was taken away.Spiritual and physical maladies are intimately connected with each other: the former draw after them the latter; while the latter presuppose the former. Christ is said to have borne both; but in different ways; according to their different natures. Bodily griefs he bore only by efficaciously taking them away; not by undergoing them in his own person: but he bore spiritual griefs in two methods: by suffering them himself; and by taking them away. Nor; if Matthew asserts that Christ healed the sick; and thus fulfilled this prophecy; may we thence rightly infer that the Spirit refers to them alone: because it is well known; that in the Scriptures; a prophecy is said to be accomplished; not only when
it is completely and ultimately fulfilled; but also when a partial accomplishment of it is begun.
Here also are to be considered those Scriptures which assert that Christ was made sin and a curse for us; (Galatians 3:13: 2 Corinthians 5:21: Leviticus 8:9). How can he be said "to have been made sin;” i.e.; an offering for sin; by God as a judge: and a "curse;” a subject of the malediction which the law pronounces against sinners: not; indeed; for himself; seeing he was most holy and
supremely beloved by his Father; but for us: unless it was as being substituted in our place; and taking upon himself that curse which the law justly pronounces against our sins; in order that he might bear it; and by bearing it take it away? Thus he was made a blessing; by procuring for us the remission of our sins and a right to eternal life. What reference is there here to an example of patience; or to a confirmation of doctrine? Is it not most evident that there was a real
substitution of Christ in our room: and that in consequence of this substitution; a real satisfaction; expiation or atonement has been made; and that this is the doctrine taught by these Scriptural phrases? The force of this argument cannot be evaded by objecting that Christ is said to have been a curse; not on account of having really borne the curse of the law; which could not have been laid on him; a perfectly blessed and holy person: but because he suffered crucifixion; which; under the law; was denominated a curse. The very words of the apostle; and the redemption from the curse of the law; which Christ by his death procured for us; evince the futility of the
objection. How can he be a curse; and that for the express purpose of delivering us from the curse; unless he took it upon himself? It is no solid objection to this reasoning; that he is the only-begotten Son;and the ever-blessed God: for he did not endure the curse; in and for himself as the Son of God; but as our surety and on our behalf.
Hence as to his person; he is styled "blessed forever;” and in his official character as our representative; he is said to have suffered the punishment due to our sins.
Hence we are enabled to understand the force of the expression;he was delivered for our offences;” (Romans 4:25). Socinus contends; that all which is here intended; is; that an occasion for the death of Christ was given by our offences; or that Christ died only with the view that he might; by his example; incline us to leave off the commission of sin; and render us certain of its pardon. All which is incompatible with the Scriptures quoted above; which teach us that the meritorious and moving cause; for Christ’s being delivered over to death; was our sins; that he might suffer the punishment due to them and take away their guilt. He is said "to have been delivered for our offences;” as sacrifices were offered for sin; doubtless; on account of its guilt and to take it away. Hence the guilt of our sins was the meritorious cause of the death of Christ; and its final cause or chief end; to expiate and remove this guilt.
IV. The truth of the atonement is further proved; from the sacrifice of Christ on the cross; of which the Scriptures so often speak; (Isaiah 53:10: John 1:29: Ephesians 6:2: and throughout the Epistle to the Hebrews). Why should Christ be so often and so expressly called a priest; truly and properly a priest; far more excellent than all the Levitical priests; one who by his oblation appeased the wrath of God; and obtained eternal salvation for us: unless because a full expiation
for sin has been made by his satisfaction; and a more luminous display of the truths shadowed forth by the ancient figures? As by the sacrifices under the law; doctrines were not confirmed; examples of love and obedience were not given; no covenant was entered into;
nor could they by their own efficacy appease the wrath of God: these sacrifices must have been instituted with a primary view to represent a real satisfaction; an atoning sacrifice for sin. This is more particularly confirmed:
1. From the nature of the priesthood which Christ sustains.
He is constituted a priest in things pertaining to God; to appease him by an atoning sacrifice.
2. From the nature of the victim which is substituted in the room of sinners; to bear the punishment of death due to them; as evinced by the rite of imposing hands upon the head of the offering; and over it making a confession of sin.
3. From the three-fold effect of the sacrifice: in respect to God; by the propitiation of his wrath: in respect to sin; by the expiation and removal of its guilt: in respect to man; by the pardon which followed from the propitiation of God and the expiation of sin. For a person cannot be freed and obtain pardon; without the substitution of a victim in his room: nor can God be appeased without the shedding of blood: nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment.
(1.) "That the propitiatory sacrifices did not all prefigure the sacrifice of Christ: but the annual sacrifice only; which was offered upon the great day of expiation; and which contained no
satisfaction: as a satisfaction could flow neither from the victims offered up nor from the person of the chief priest.” The Apostle Paul; on whose judgement more dependence is to be placed than on that of our opponents; opposes not one propitiatory sacrifice only; but all the sacrifices to that of Christ; and hence he infers their abrogation; (Hebrews 7:27: 10:4–5;11). Neither the perpetual sacrifice offered up daily; nor the other propitiatory offerings of lambs which were of a private nature; could refer to anything else than the oblation of the immaculate Lamb of God for us. It is no objection to this view; that they were offered for individuals; and not for all in common: for; as the sacrifices which were offered for the whole congregation of Israel; signified that Christ was to make a propitiation for the sins of all his people; so those which were offered for each individual; were designed to show that every one of Christ’s people laden with sin;
should seek and obtain reconciliation through the offering of Christ.
Further; although those sacrifices did not; in the sight of God; contain a satisfaction properly so called: because the soul of man is of too exalted a value to be purchased with the blood of bulls or of goats: yet a typical; ceremonial satisfaction; pertaining to the purity of the flesh; was made by them; (Hebrews 9:13); a satisfaction; which by the appointment of God was to be attributed; neither to the victims; nor to the officiating priest separately; but jointly to both.
Another objection is that:
(2.) "An expiation is nothing else than an entire deliverance from the dominion of sin; which deliverance cannot be in the way of merit attributed to the death of Christ; but only in the way of example and declaratively.” In this objection; the cause is confounded with the effect. The office of the judge; who releases the prisoner; is confounded with the office of the surety; who pays the ransom. The judge sets the prisoner at liberty; while the prisoner; or some one in his place; pays the price of his redemption. Hence it follows that the purging of guilt and the
removal of the accusation are effected by the suffering of punishment either in the person of the accused; or in that of another. If all the end answered by the death of Christ was to declare that an expiation was to be made; it effected nothing more than the victims under the law; which might; nay did attest the same thing: yet the Apostle Paul expressly declares that they could not make expiation for sin. If there were any propriety in this objection; the expiation might be
attributed no less to Christ’s resurrection than to his death; which the Scripture nowhere does. Besides; declaration respects men; expiation God: that belongs rather to his prophetical office; this to his priestly. Though the work of expiation may sometimes be attributed to God the Father; (Deuteronomy 21:8); who never makes satisfaction; yet we cannot justly infer that this expiation is of the same nature with that of Christ: because; according to the different nature of the subjects to whom the expiation is attributed; it is to be differently understood. For God the Father to expiate; is to admit of an expiation made by a priest; which is done by pardon and
acceptance. But for a priest and victim to expiate; is to effect reconciliation meritoriously by the shedding of blood and vicarious suffering. It is further objected that:
(3.) "Sacrifices were offered up only for smaller offences; such as were committed through ignorance or error: while for more aggravated; willful transgressions; there were no sacrifices instituted: but that Christ died for all sins without distinction.” This objection is grounded on an assumption which we do not admit. It is indeed expressly contrary to Scripture. On the
great day of annual atonement; the goat is said to bear all the iniquities of the children of Israel. Sacrifices are elsewhere said to be offered up not for those sins only which are committed through error; but for those which are committed willingly; Leviticus 16:21–22). And though the
priest is said to have offered for the errors (αγνοηματων) of the people; (Hebrews 9:6–7); yet it does not follow that willful sins are excluded: for the word αγνοημα; which signifies properly an error of the mind; is used to denote every kind of sin; because every sin proceeds from an error of the mind. Hence wicked men are called fools; and these Hebrew words signify wickedness and rebellion. For some aggravated crimes; such as murder; idolatry; adultery; etc.; we do not read of any sacrifices having been particularly instituted: because God determined to punish them by the sword of the civil magistrate with capital punishment: and those who sinned thus had no need of this remedy; as their death was a satisfaction to the public.
V. Again; we argue for the doctrine of the atonement; from our reconciliation with God; which Christ by his death has procured for us. Since that reconciliation supposes the making up of the breach which sin had produced between God and his creatures; this could not be effected without the removal of a two-fold barrier; by a satisfaction. On the part of God; his justice must be satisfied; and on the part of man; the guilt of sin must be removed by suffering the punishment due to it. The Apostle Paul; everywhere; teaches us that Christ procured for us such a reconciliation; (Romans 5:10: 2 Corinthians 5:18–19: Colossians 1:20–21; etc.).
The substance of the objections which our opponents offer against this argument is; that "this reconciliation is effected by our conversion to God; and not at all by appeasing the divine wrath;
because God is not said to be reconciled to us; but we to God: nay; he is said to procure for us this reconciliation; which is not the part of an enemy; but of a friend.” This capital error of our opponents is refuted by many powerful arguments.
1. The Scriptures speak of a double enmity and reconciliation; (Romans 1:21); an enemy in his mind by wicked works; (Colossians 1:21): but also on the part of God; by his wrath which is revealed from heaven against all iniquity;(Romans 1:18). Hence men are by nature children of wrath;
(Ephesians 2:5). God is said to be of purer eyes than to behold iniquity; (Habakkuk 1:13). He hates all workers of iniquity; (Psalm5:5). Now as there is an alienation on both sides; so there must be on each side a reconciliation: on the part of God; by a turning away of his wrath: on the part of man; by a conversion to God: all which the Apostle clearly teaches; (2 Corinthians 5:18–19). In consequence of God’s reconciling us to himself through Christ; Paul shows that the
apostles; in the name of Christ; exhorted sinners to be reconciled to God.
2. If reconciliation were nothing but conversion; then it should rather be said to proceed from Christ’s holy life; than from his bloody death. On this ground; no reason can be offered why the Apostle should propose sanctification as the end of our reconciliation; (Colossians 1:22); for nothing can be the medium and end of itself.
This would be to say that the end of reconciliation was reconciliation.
3. It is such a reconciliation as is effected by not imputing to us our sins; on account of their having been imputed to Christ; who was made sin for us; (2 Corinthians 5:18;21): a reconciliation effected by the substitution of Christ in our place; that he might die for us: as we collect from the comparison instituted between him and the man who would dare to die for a good man; (Romans 5:7): which implies a proper satisfaction; not a simple conversion.
4. This reconciliation is effected "by making peace through the blood of his cross;”(Col. 1:20); and by an atoning sacrifice; ιλασμος; (1 John 2:2).
All these denote not mere conversion: but primarily; the appeasing of the divine wrath; which is effected by the death of a victim. Though the Scriptures commonly speak of our being reconciled to
God; rather than of God’s being reconciled to us; because those who offend have need to be reconciled to him who is offended: yet this; so far from excluding the reconciliation of God to us; includes it: because there can be no offence; unless justice is injured: and this injury must be repaired before God can reconcile men to himself; and admit them to hold communion with him. God’s procuring this reconciliation for us; is no evidence that he has not been angry with us; or that he was at peace and in a state of friendship with us. It only proves that God; moved towards us with a love of benevolence; decreed to procure for us a reconciliation: not that he was forthwith to be deemed appeased and reconciled; but only that he might become so; while yet; in the mean time; he could not but be offended at our sins.
In vain is it pleaded by our opponents; that "Christ is said to be our propitiation and expiatory sacrifice: not that he may reconcile an angry God to us; but that he may testify that God is already appeased and by no means angry with us.” The blood of Christ was not shed to prove the remission of sin; but to obtain it; as was the case in the propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation: otherwise; there was no need that Christ should die and shed his blood; when the truth of the remission could be as well attested by his life and doctrine. Nor because the covering of the ark is improperly and declaratively called ιλαστηριον; or an expiation;
because by it God declared his benevolence towards his people; are we thence to infer that it was of the same nature with the expiation made by Christ. The making of expiation is attributed to Christ not so much passively as actively; and in the strictest sense of the word.
What was only typically and symbolically shadowed forth in the mercy-seat and by the sprinkling of the blood of victims; Christ truly and properly effected by the shedding of his own blood. Again;
though the application and fruit of this atonement is imparted to us through the medium of his continual intercession in heaven; yet we may not hence infer that he has made it in heaven only. The passage in Hebrews 2:17 does not relate to this: for it is not there said that he makes reconciliation for the sins of the people in heaven; but only that he must be made like unto his brethren in all things; that he may be a faithful high priest; in things pertaining to God; and in this character make reconciliation; which he had done by his death and suffering; as is intimated in the following verse.
VI. The doctrine of the atonement is also confirmed by the nature and circumstances of Christ’s passion; as well as by the kind of death which he suffered: in all which we have everything requisite to a full and perfect satisfaction. Let us consider the essence and kind of the punishment. The death which he endured was not a common death: but violent and most bitter; inflicted as a punishment; and accursed of God himself: one in which he suffered the greatest
ignominy and experienced the severest pains in his most holy body. His soul was seized with the most appalling terror and sorrow; with such fear and anguish that an angel was sent to minister comfort to him. Sweat flowed from the pores of his body like great drops of blood; and "he offered up prayers and supplications; with strong crying and tears to him who was able to save him;” (Hebrews 5:7). With a voice of deepest sadness; he complained that he was forsaken by God the Father; though not by a dissolution of the union; nor by withdrawing a participation of holiness; nor by withholding his supporting power; yet by withholding from him the beatific vision;
by suspending the sense and fruition of full felicity. How shall we find an adequate cause for all these sufferings in a perfectly holy person; unless by admitting that avenging justice demanded from Christ a full atonement for our sins? Or shall we say that Christ was of more feeble mind and possessed less heroic firmness; than innumerable martyrs; who have suffered the same most painful
death of the cross; nay; if possible; torments more intolerable; and yet with unshaken fortitude; with the greatest alacrity; and without any indications of grief or terror? Such blasphemy shocks the ears of the Christian. Though the time of Christ’s sufferings was but finite in duration; yet; in consequence of the dignity of the sufferer; it was equal in value to infinite duration of torment. The law; indeed; demands that the person who sins shall suffer: but the Gospel;
through the fatherly kindness of God; declares it meet that there shall be a substitution: that it suffices to punish sin; and let the sinner go free.
VII. A final argument is drawn from the Perfections of God. By the atonement we have an astonishing display of the divine Mercy; which is so great that God spared not his own Son; that he might spare us. It asserts the claims of Justice; which; that it might remain unimpeachable; demanded even the blood of the Son of God. It gloriously exhibits the divine Wisdom; which found out an admirable plan of reconciling mercy with justice; and untied a knot which otherwise could never have been loosed: a plan by which the conscience of man; alarmed with a penetrating sense of sin; judgement; and the divine malediction; is rendered peaceful and serene. Take away the atonement; and what becomes of the Truth of God; which so uniformly denounces death and a curse against sinners? What becomes of justice; which not only acquits the guilty and convicted sinner without inflicting upon him the deserved punishment; but also bestows on him rewards most honorable? Besides; by denying the atonement; the following. absurdities are unavoidable: -
1. That our redemption may be attributed no less to the death of the apostles and martyrs than to the death of Christ: since; by their death and sufferings; they have given strong testimony in favor of the doctrines of the Gospel; and have set before us in their lives illustrious examples of patience and obedience.
2. That Christ saved us rather by his life and miracles than by his death; since the promulgation of his doctrines and the example of his life were much more plain exhibitions of truth than his death affords.
3. The priestly office is altogether taken away from this world; and confounded with his prophetical and kingly offices.
4. The saints under the Old Testament were not saved by Christ: because they had not the benefit of his example; nor did they hear him preaching doctrines.
We now proceed to remove the difficulties which have been raised.
Though the word satisfaction is not expressly used in the Scriptures; yet; what is quite sufficient; there are other words used which are altogether equivalent to it; and which either have no meaning or else mean that real satisfaction for which we contend. Such are the the redemption of a captive; by making a payment: αντιλυτρον; a price of redemption: ιλασμος; a
propitiation: τιμη; a price of punishment: καταρα; a curse: θυσια; a sacrifice: προσφορα; an offering: and many others of the same import; which we have mentioned above.
As Christ sustains a two-fold relation to believers - one in the character of their Surety; bound to satisfy justice in their behalf: the other in the character of their Head and Lord; operating in them by the animating and directing influence of his Spirit - so he had a two fold end in his death and sufferings: one; the payment of a price of redemption for us to justice: the other; to set before us an example worthy of imitation. Hence his sufferings may be viewed either as
satisfactory or as exemplary. Though the sufferings of Christ are proposed; (1 Peter 2:21); to us as an example; and his death as that which we should imitate by dying for our brethren; at his command; (1 John 3:16): yet we are not hence to infer that by his death he made no real satisfaction: for the mentioning of the one end does not exclude but supposes the other.
There is a wide difference between a payment made by a debtor in his own person; and a payment made by a surety. As to the reality of payment there is no difference in the eye of the law; but in relation to grace there is a striking difference. When a debtor pays out of his own purse his debts; it cannot be said that the creditor has forgiven him the debt or shown him favor: but if the debt has been paid by another and that other has been found out by the creditor; then grace
may be said to have been shown. Satisfaction and remission are inconsistent with each other; when referred to the same thing; but not so when they are referred to different things. Satisfaction has God for its object; remission man for its object. Satisfaction is made by Christ to God for man; and yet man is freely pardoned. Justice and mercy kiss each other. Justice is exercised against sin as imputed to Christ; and mercy; free and sovereign mercy; is shown to sinners.
The pardon granted to us is entirely of grace; while full satisfaction is demanded of the surety. Nothing is demanded of us; full payment having been made by Christ.
If Christ makes satisfaction; we cannot say that he satisfies himself; in the same character in which he makes the satisfaction: he satisfies himself as God and the Son of God; not as Christ. Thus it is not precisely in the same character nor in the same relation; that he gives and receives the satisfaction. Christ gives it as God-man; as mediator; and receives it as God the judge. It is indeed absurd to suppose that the same person should make satisfaction to himself;
when the subject treated of is of a private nature; by which a private loss is compensated or money that is due paid; for in that case the person would take of his own and with it pay himself. But when we speak of a public satisfaction by which a public injury is repaired; it is not absurd to say that a judge who has violated the law; may make satisfaction to himself as judge by suffering; either in his own person or in the person of another; that punishment which the law
denounces: and thus it is in the work of Redemption. Christ did not suffer eternal death but a death of three days only; and yet he fully paid the debt of everlasting punishment which we owed.
His; which was one of finite duration; was equivalent to an everlasting death suffered by us; because of the infinite dignity of his person. His were the sufferings not of a mere man; but of the true God; who purchased the Church with his blood; (Acts 20:28). Hence what was deficient in duration is supplied by the divinity of the sufferer; which gave infinite importance to a temporary passion. Yet we may not hence infer; that as the person suffering was infinite; one
drop of his blood was sufficient for our redemption. The smallest passion of Christ might have infinite value considered merely in relation to the infinite exaltation of him who suffered: yet death only could possess infinite value; in respect of the judge by whose sentence it was inflicted. The dignity of the person increases the dignity of the punishment endured - the more exalted the person is; so much the heavier is the suffering which he undergoes: yet nothing
but that species of punishment which the law denounces can satisfy its claims upon the guilty. Death and death alone could fulfil the demands of law and justice.
It was not necessary; when Christ was suffering the punishment due to sin; that he should suffer that despair and gnashing of teeth; which are a part of the punishment of the damned: for these are not essential to the punishment which the judge inflicts or which the surety must bear. They are mere circumstances; which arise from the character of the persons of the damned; who; when they find that their torments are overwhelming and eternal; sink into utter despair and gnashing of teeth. This could not be so with Christ; who in the midst of his greatest agonies; had full assurance of deliverance and a resurrection from the tomb; and hence when encompassed by tortures the most excruciating; always manifested his faith in God -"My God! My God!” are his words.
Though a death of infinite value was due for every individual sinner; yet such a death as Christ’s is quite sufficient for the redemption of the whole elect world. A penal satisfaction is not of the same nature with a pecuniary payment; which is valued only by the amount paid; without regard to the person who pays: and hence can be of avail to none but the individual for whom the payment is made. But penal satisfaction is estimated by the dignity of the person who makes it; and is increased in worth in proportion to his dignity; and hence avails for many as well as for one. Money paid by a king is indeed of no more avail in the discharge of a debt; than money paid by a slave: but the life of a king is of more value than the life of a vile slave; as the life of King David was thought of more worth than that of half the Israelitish army; (2 Samuel 18:3). In this way Christ alone is more excellent than all men together. The dignity of an infinite person
swallows up all the infinities of punishment due to us: they sink into it and are lost. Besides; it is no new thing that what is necessary for one should be amply sufficient for many. One sun is necessary to the illumination of an individual; and yet the same sun illuminates the whole human family. One victim was sufficient for the priest and all the people; and yet it would have been requisite for one. Although there were as many atonements necessary as there were Israelites;
yet the one great annual expiatory sacrifice atoned for the sins of all the people; because it was so offered for the whole congregation as that by divine appointment it availed for the case of each singly. On this subject the Scriptures are so express; that no one; unless he have the hardihood to contradict the Holy Spirit; can deny it. "The Lord laid on him the iniquities of us all;” (Isaiah 53:6). "If one died for all;” (2 Corinthians 5:14). "By one offering of himself he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified;” (Hebrews 10:14). What do all these Scriptures teach; unless that one death of Christ is sufficient to make a full atonement for all the elect; in the same manner as the disobedience of Adam made many sinners? - (Romans 5:18–19) One
cannot satisfy for many; when he and they are of the same rank. One plebeian cannot satisfy for many plebeians: but one prince may satisfy for many plebeians. If this is admitted among creatures who are all finite and mortal; how much more between creatures and the Creator; between whom there is an infinite distance?
The rule which is laid down in Ezekiel 18:20; "the soul that sinneth; it shall die;” cannot be understood as absolute and universal; for so all imputation of sin would be barred; which yet the Scriptures teach by many examples. It must be referred to the ordinary dispensations of Providence; and not to an extraordinary dispensation of grace. Or it may relate to a particular providence towards the Jews; to whom the Lord speaks in such a way as to close their mouth; and prevent them from complaining that they had undeservedly suffered punishment on account of the sins of their fathers: and not to the general government of men; in which God declares that he will visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children until the third and fourth generation; (Exodus 20:5).
So far is the doctrine of the atonement from opening a door to impiety and spreading a couch on which spiritual sloth may repose in security; that it is the most efficacious means of holiness; and the death of sin itself; which is; among others; one of the ends that Christ assigns for his death - "that being dead unto sin; we may live unto righteousness: that henceforth we may no more live unto ourselves; but to him who died for us and was raised again for our justification.” See Romans 6; for the manner in which the Apostle Paul reasons on this subject: also Titus 2:14; and 1 Peter 2:24.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 23:02:51 GMT -5
The Perfection of the Atonement
In the preceding chapter we reasoned against the followers of
Socinus. In this chapter we contend for a doctrine that is denied by
the Romanists. They indeed pretend to hold the unity and perfection
of the satisfaction of Christ; and often exclaim that great injustice is
done them; when they are charged with maintaining that "Christ by
his sufferings did not make a full and complete satisfaction for our
sins:” (Bellarmine; Book II. concerning Indulgences; chapter 14);
while in reality they; in many ways; weaken and overturn this
doctrine; by maintaining that it must be confined to sins committed
before baptism and to the pollution of sin: but that it does not extend
to punishment either temporal or eternal.
In order to ascertain distinctly the question; we observe; that a
satisfaction made to God is of a nature different from a satisfaction
made to man. Among men; satisfactions are of two kinds. One is
private; and is called a reparation: the other public; and is called
canonical; because prescribed by the ancient canons of the Church.
Satisfaction of the latter kind is very often demanded by civil and
ecclesiastical courts; for the reformation of offenders and the
removal of scandals. In treating of the satisfaction made to God; we
speak strictly concerning the λυτρον; the price of redemption; by
which Christ; as our surety; atoned for our transgressions. This is by
Romanists in part ascribed to certain meritorious; expiatory works;
by which they pretend to atone for their own sins and for those of
others. It is of the atonement for sin and satisfaction to justice; which
Christ made; that we are to treat in this chapter. The point in
controversy is not whether the satisfaction of Christ bars all human
satisfactions; public and canonical; or private; which are imposed
upon offenders for their correction; and to remove scandals from the
Church. We admit that these were; with propriety; often demanded
under the Old Testament dispensation; and may yet be laudably
exacted. But we inquire; whether; besides the satisfaction made by
Christ; other satisfactions for sin are to be made to God; and should
be imposed upon the saints? Here we and our opponents are at issue.
They affirm that such additional satisfactions are to be made by the
saints themselves: while we maintain that they are not only useless;
but contrary to the Scriptures.
The infliction of chastisements on the people of God when they go
astray - chastisements which are of a medicinal or corrective
character; such as are inflicted upon children in their father’s house -
forms no part of this controversy. We cheerfully admit that God; for
valuable purposes; exercises his people with such wholesome
discipline. But does the atonement of Christ exclude penal expiatory
sufferings on the part of the saints: sufferings designed; not as proofs
of their piety; or to heal their backslidings; but as a satisfaction to
avenging justice: not inflicted by God as a father and through
parental love; but decreed by God as a judge: sufferings which the
law denounces against the wicked? Our adversaries affirm that the
atonement does not exclude such sufferings. We maintain that it
does. The Church of Rome teaches; that though the satisfaction of
Christ is of infinite value; yet that it is not so full and ample; but that
various atonements are to be made by believers in their own persons.
These; they say; are necessary; if not on account of their guilt and
liability to eternal punishment; which they admit are taken away by
Christ; yet to save them from temporal punishment. Hear what they
say: "If any one shall affirm that; on account of the merits of Christ;
there is no necessity that we should make any satisfaction to God;
through temporal punishments inflicted by Christ and patiently
borne by us; or through punishments enjoined by the priest; not
voluntarily undertaken - such as penances; prayers; fastings; alms;
and other pious exercises - and shall further say that the new life
only is the best penitence; let that man be accursed.” (Council of
Trent; section 4; cap. 8; canon 13)
The Remonstrants - a name given to Arminians; on account of the
remonstrance which they presented to the Synod of Dort against the
act by which their tenets were condemned - endeavour not a little to
destroy the perfection of the atonement. Though they have not yet
been so bold as; with the disciples of Socinus; to reject the atonement
entirely; yet they make every effort in their power to diminish its
efficacy and fulness. They maintain that the satisfaction of Christ was
accepted by God; not on account of its own dignity; but merely
through grace: that it was not a real; but a nominal satisfaction. The
substance of the doctrine which they teach on this head is; that God
forbore to punish after the death of Christ; not because satisfaction
had been truly rendered to his justice; but because he was graciously
pleased to admit the satisfaction; notwithstanding its imperfection;
as altogether sufficient.
The doctrine for which we contend is; that Christ hath so perfectly
satisfied divine justice for all our sins; by one offering of himself:
and not only for our guilt; but also for both temporal and eternal
punishment; that henceforth there are no more propitiatory offerings
to be made for sin: and that though; for the promotion of their
penitence and sanctification; God often chastises his people; yet no
satisfaction is to be made by them either in this or a future state of
existence.
Such is the perfection of the atonement; that it corresponds to the
justice of God revealed in the Word; to the demands of the law; and
to the miseries and necessities of those for whom it was made. Had it
been in its own nature deficient; and derived its sufficiency only from
God’s acceptance of it through mere grace; then the victims under
the law might have possessed equal efficacy in making atonement for
sin; contrary to Hebrews 10:4. Its perfection is derived from its own
intrinsic fulness of merit. It is perfect:
(1.) In respect to parts: because it satisfied all the demands which the law makes upon us;
both in relation to the obedience of life and the suffering of death. By
enduring the punishments due to us; it has freed us from death and
condemnation. And by its meritorious efficacy; it has reconciled God
the Father to us and has acquired for us a title to eternal life.
(2.) It is perfect in degree: for Christ has not only done and suffered all that
which the law claims of us; but all this in a full and perfect degree: so
that nothing more; in this respect; can possibly be desired. The
perfection in degree is derived from the infinite dignity of the person
who suffered and the severity of the punishment exacted.
(3.) Hence follows the perfection in its effects. In respect of God; it has effected
an entire reconciliation with him; (Romans 5:10: 2 Corinthians 5:18);
in relation to sin; it has wrought full expiation and pardon;
(Ephesians 1:7: Hebrews 1:3: 9:26): and in relation to believers; its
effects are perfection in holiness and complete redemption; both as
to deliverance from death; and as to a title to life and its possession;
(Hebrews 9:12: 10:14).
We now offer the proofs which establish this view of the atonement.
I. The dignity of Christ’s person; which is not only of immaculate
purity; but also truly divine: a person in which all fulness dwells;
(Colossians 1:19). In Christ’s person there is a fulness of divinity; a
fulness of office; a fulness of merit and graces. Who; then; can doubt
but that the satisfaction which he has made is one of infinite value
and efficacy; and therefore of such fulness and all-sufficiency; that
nothing can be added to it? For though Christ’s human nature; which
was the instrument in the obedience and sufferings; was finite; yet
this does not lessen the value of the satisfaction; because it derives its
perfection from the divine person of Christ; to which all his actions
must be attributed: as he is the person who obeyed and suffered.
II. Our view is also established by the Oneness of Christ’s Offering.
Why does the Apostle Paul assert that Christ has once offered
himself for us; (Hebrews 7:9–10); and that by one offering of himself
he hath forever perfected them that are sanctified? Why does he
always set before us the obedience of Christ alone as the ground of
our justification; unless this obedience is full and complete? As a
repetition of the same offering argues its imperfection; so; on the
other hand; an offering’s having been but once made; necessarily
imports its plenitude and the full accomplishment of its object.
III. The Perfection of the Atonement is confirmed by the
Approbation of God as Judge. If God declares that he is perfectly
satisfied; let no one dare to say that the satisfaction is imperfect. The
question is; whether the Supreme Judge; who demands the
satisfaction; approves of and receives it as altogether sufficient. That
the atonement has been approved and accepted by God; is
established; not only by the appointment of Christ to the mediatorial
office; of whom the Father often declares that he is his beloved Son;
in whom he is well pleased: but especially by his resurrection from
the dead; which is irresistible evidence both of his divinity and of the
perfection of the atonement; (Romans 1:4). Unless Christ had
satisfied to the uttermost; can we believe that God the judge; whose
inexorable justice demands full payment; would have freed him; and
have exalted him to that supreme glory; which was the reward of his
sufferings? - (Philippians 2:9). Would the creditor free the surety
from prison before he had paid the full debt? Could Christ; when he
had undertaken to pay to divine justice the debts which man owed;
be set free; until he had to the full redeemed the debt? Seeing; then;
that Christ has gloriously arisen; being raised by the power of the
Father; there is no room left for doubt respecting the perfection of
the satisfaction; the full payment of the price of redemption: of the
full discharge of which; the Father has given us such indubitable
testimony.
IV. The effects which are produced by the atonement prove its entire
sufficiency. Why are our reconciliation with God and the
appeasing of his wrath: the expiation and pardon of sin; and this not
partial; but full and complete: and our redemption and glorification;
all attributed to the death and obedience of Christ; (Colossians
1:20: 2 Corinthians 5:21: 1 John 1:7: Romans 3:24: 5:10: Hebrews
1:3: 9:14: 10:14); unless his atonement was full and complete? A
perfect effect requires a perfect cause to produce it.
The doctrine thus established overthrows at once the Romanist
dogmas of the sacrifice of the Mass; of human merits in this life and
of Purgatorial expiations hereafter. For if these are allowed; it follows
either that Christ’s satisfaction is inadequate; or else that God
unjustly exacts a double satisfaction for the same sins.
In vain do our opponents contend; "that by pleading for satisfactions
to be made by the saints; they do not derogate from the infinity of
Christ; nor from his satisfaction: since they make all their virtue and
efficacy to depend upon the atonement of Christ; who not only has
satisfied for us; but also gives us the power to satisfy for ourselves:
and since they do not esteem our good works as atonements to be
associated with that of Christ; and as of the same exalted nature; but
inferior and subordinate.” They assume what they ought to prove.
We do not grant that Christ gives us any power to atone for
ourselves. Such a supposition receives no countenance from
Scripture; and is contrary to the very nature of an atonement. It is
one thing to make satisfaction; another to give the power to make
satisfaction. They are indeed utterly inconsistent with each other. If
Christ has made a complete satisfaction; why is any other
demanded? Where the primary cause is solitary; no co-operative or
subordinate causes are admissible. So far is this doctrine of our
opponents from advancing the glory of Christ; that it in reality; by
resorting to other grounds of salvation than those afforded by him;
offers an indignity to him and his atonement. What he; as our
Redeemer; has engaged to accomplish; they pretend to effect; at least
in part; by other agents. And though in the application of this
redemption; men are bound to contribute by their efforts as fellow-
workers with God; yet they are unable to co-operate with him in its
acquisition.
Equally futile is their reasoning; when they resort to the "distinction
between sin and punishment; contending that though Christ has
satisfied for our sin; he has not fully satisfied for our punishment: or
if for eternal punishment; at least not for temporal; which must be
suffered by the saints themselves; either in the present or a future
state.” Because the remission of sin on account of the satisfaction
made by Christ is perfectly complete: "there is no condemnation to
them who are in Christ Jesus:” and in consequence of his atonement;
their justification is perfect; and in due time they shall obtain full
glorification; (Romans 8:9). Besides; the distinction thus made
between sin and its punishment is absurd; for there is a necessary
connection between sin and suffering. Sin is the cause and suffering
the effect: take away the cause; and the effect is necessarily
destroyed. Remission of sin is nothing but a deliverance from all
punishment; which cannot be justly inflicted where there is no
transgression. Would it be just to demand the payment of a debt
which is already either paid or remitted?
They also assert; "that Christ; in a limited sense; makes satisfaction
for temporal punishment; in and by us.” 1. This assertion is rash;
having no countenance from Scripture. 2. It is dangerous; associating
men with Christ in making satisfaction; and thus taking a part of the
work of redemption out of his hands: for redemption and satisfaction
are words of similar import; there being no other way to redeem; but
by rendering satisfaction. 3. It is false and contrary to Scripture;
which asserts; that Christ by himself hath satisfied once for sin; and
that there is no further satisfaction to be made by others.
The view which we have given of the perfection of the atonement
prostrates the Arminian doctrine of nominal atonement. When a full
payment is made; there is no room for the exercise of grace in
accepting what was no more than nominal. In making payments
grace is not considered; nor merely the dignity of him who pays; but
also the value of the thing given; or its equality to the debt. This is
confirmed fromRomans 8:3; where Christ is said to have been sent;
that all righteousness might be fulfilled. Christ fulfilled all
righteousness; or satisfied all the demands of the law; by doing what
we ourselves were not able to do; on account of the weakness of the
law. Now if; by the satisfaction of Christ; the demands of the law are
fulfilled in us; this satisfaction must equal the claims of the law.
Farther; an imperfect atonement graciously accepted; we cannot
admit; for Christ took upon himself; (Isaiah 53:6–8); all the
punishment which was due to us; even that which was the most
grievous; the curse of the law itself; (Galatians 3:13). Finally; if God
might have accepted of any imperfect satisfaction; it was
unnecessary that Christ should stand as our surety; and be exposed
to extreme tortures and a most painful death: for satisfaction
could have been received from any other man.
We shall now proceed to remove objections. An objection is drawn
from those expressions of Scripture; where the apostles are said to
suffer for the Church. But it is one thing to suffer for the Church; in
order to purchase her by paying a price of redemption; and another
to suffer persecution and death for the purpose of consoling and
confirming the people of God; by placing before them an example of
patience and obedience. When Paul says that he suffers for the
Church or for the body of Christ; (Colossians 1:24); it is not in the
former sense; for he elsewhere denies that any one except Christ
alone is crucified for us; (1 Corinthians 1:13): but in the latter; as he
himself teaches us; 2 Corinthians 5:6; "for your consolation.” In 2
Timothy 2:10; he says that he endures all things for the elect’s sake;
not to redeem them from temporal punishment; but that; confirmed
and animated by his example; they may obtain salvation by Christ.
The remark made by Thomas; (3 Quest. 48; Art. 3); on this subject is
a correct one. "The sufferings of the saints are profitable to the
Church; not as a price of redemption; but as affording it example and
exhortation not to depart from the truth.”
When Paul says; (Colossians 1:24); "that he fills up that which is
behind of the sufferings of Christ;” he means not the sufferings
endured by Christ in his own person: but the sufferings of Christ
mystical; i.e.; of his body; the Church: sufferings which are to be
endured by every Christian; after the manner of Christ; whose
members they are. Paul; as well as all other saints; had to take up his
cross and follow Christ; and endure that share of tribulation which
God allotted him; while on the way to the kingdom of heaven. In
filling up this measure of tribulation; the apostle bears his cross with
alacrity. Christ is often thus; by a figure; put for his body; the
Church: "Saul; Saul; why persecutest thou me?” (Acts 9:4: 1
Corinthians 12:12). The sufferings of the saints are often called the
sufferings of Christ: "For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us;” (2
Corinthians 1:5). They are called so in relation to their origin;
because Christ; as supreme director of the theatre of life; appoints
them to us; and calls upon us to suffer them; (Acts 9:16: 1 Peter
2:21: Philippians 1:29): in relation to their object; for they are laid
upon us on account of Christ and his Gospel: and also in relation to
our union and communion with Christ; for we are one with him: so
that blessings and sufferings are in some sense common to us and
Christ: "In all their afflictions he was afflicted.” We are called to
participate in his sufferings; that we may be conformed to him in his
cross; before we are conformed to him in his glory (Romans 8:18).
It is one thing for a person to atone for his sins by a real satisfaction;
another to break them off by works of repentance and charity. It is in
the latter sense that Daniel; (Daniel 4:27); advises Nebuchadnezzar
to break off his sins. The Hebrew word peraq (H6562); used by the
prophet here; does not primarily signify to redeem; nor even to
deliver: its primary sense is to tear away; or break off: and hence; as
a collateral signification; to deliver. The prophet exhorts the king to
repentance and a change of life; in order to make reparation to men;
and not to God; for the injuries and oppressions which he had
practised: and that thus; by breaking off his course of sinning; he
might be more prosperous; escape from the ruin which was hanging
over him; and obtain a longer continuance of peace in his empire. To
the same purpose are all those places of Scripture in which pardon of
sin is promised to repentance. The repentance is not a meritorious
cause; but a condition annexed; the medium through which pardon is obtained.
Sufferings are of two kinds. In the one; they are exacted by a judge to
make satisfaction to justice: in the other; they are inflicted for the
correction of the offender. We admit that the latter species of
offering is often appointed to believers; not for vengeance; but for
healing: not for destruction; but for correction. God lays it upon
them; not as a judge; but as a father: not out of hatred; but out of
love. Cyprian says; "The Lord chastises the saints that he may
advance their holiness; and he advances their holiness that he may
save them.” To the same purpose Thomas speaks: (III. Q. 96);
"Before pardon; the sufferings of the elect are punishments for sin:
after pardon; they are exercises.” Augustine happily explains the
difference between the punishments of the wicked and the
chastisements of the saints: "All; both good and evil; suffer the same
afflictions: nor by their afflictions can we distinguish between the
righteous and the wicked: for all things happen alike to all: there is
one lot to the righteous and to the wicked. There is; however; a
distinction between the persons who suffer. All who are subjected to
the same pains are not alike vicious or virtuous. In the same fire gold
shines and stubble smokes: by the same fan the chaff is blown away
and the wheat purged. Dregs must not be confounded with oil;
because both are pressed in the same press. The very same afflictions
which prove; purify; and refine the righteous; are a curse and
destruction to the wicked. Hence; under the pressure of the same
calamities; the wicked detest and blaspheme God; while the
righteous pray to him and praise him. Thus the difference is not in
the nature of the punishments; but in the character of those who
suffer them;” (De Civ. Dei.; lib. i. cap.8).
The chastisements which the saints experience sometimes; indeed;
retain the name punishments; but not in a strict sense.
1. Because punishments; in a strict sense; are inflicted by the Supreme Judge
upon transgressors; on account of their violation of his law. Hence;
even after the state of a man is changed and he becomes a saint; the
pains and griefs which he suffers are called by the same name;
because; though not formally; they are materially the same.
2.Because there are many points of resemblance between them and
punishments properly so called: like them; they are not joyous; but
grievous to the flesh; which they are designed to subdue: they are
dispensed to the saints; by the will of a gracious God; with as much
care and attention as he; in the character of an avenging judge;
dispenses punishments: sin gives occasion to both: both produce in
the mind the same apprehension that God is an angry judge: and
both serve as an example salutary to other offenders. But this grand
difference still remains - that; in the punishments of the wicked;
God; as a judge; has in view satisfaction to his justice: while in the
chastisements of his people; he; as a father; designs the correction
and amendment of his disobedient children.
The death of David’s child; which affliction happened to him after
the pardon of his sin; (2 Samuel 12:14); was not a judicial
punishment; but a fatherly chastisement: for his sin having been
once pardoned; no punishment could remain to be borne. The reason
which God assigns for thus afflicting the King of Israel gives no
countenance to the idea that the affliction was judicial and expiatory.
By his sin; he had given occasion to the enemy to blaspheme the
name of God; and thus the discipline of the house of God had been
most basely violated. This breach of discipline must be healed by a
salutary example. Nor can we infer that it was judicial; from David’s
deprecating it. It is the part of human nature to endeavour to escape
whatever is painful; just as a sick man deprecates the caustic
powders; the pain of the amputating knife; and the bitterness of
medicine: though nothing can be further from the nature of
punishment than these.
Though death cannot be inflicted upon us to guard us against future
transgression; nor for our amendment; yet it by no means follows
that it is designed as an atonement for sin. There are many other
weighty reasons; rendering it necessary that all should die: such as;
that the remains of sin may be destroyed: that we may pass from a
natural and terrestrial state to one spiritual and heavenly: that piety
may be exercised: that Christian virtues may be displayed in the most
brilliant manner: and finally; that we may have a most powerful
excitement to amend our life; and prepare for entering upon a better
inheritance.
The judgement; which; the Apostle Peter tells us; must begin at the
house of God; (1 Peter 4:17); is not the legal judgement of avenging
justice; which proceeds from God as a wrathful judge; but a fatherly
and evangelical chastisement: not to punish and destroy; but to hold
out a useful example; and to correct us; that thus we may not be
condemned with the world; as Paul says; (1 Corinthians 11:32). The
revenge mentioned in 2 Corinthians 7:11; is not properly a
punishment inflicted by God in the character of judge: but either an
ecclesiastical censure; such as excommunication; which is adjudged
by the Church for the removal of scandal: or it rather denotes the
repentance and contrition in which a sinner is offended with himself;
and; as it were; takes vengeance on himself for his offences.
Though those under the Old Testament dispensation; whose sins
were pardoned; had still to offer sacrifices for sin; yet a warrant for
attempting to make human atonements is not thence to be inferred.
The sacrifices then offered were not; properly speaking; a satisfaction
for sin: they were types of a future atonement to be made by Christ;
through the efficacy of which they procured pardon.
When Solomon says; (Proverbs 16:6); that "by mercy and truth
iniquity is purged;” no countenance is given to the human
satisfaction for which the Church of Rome contends. There are two
opinions maintained respecting this passage. One is; that by "mercy
and truth” are meant; the mercy and truth of God: then the wise man
would directly allude to and assert the atonement of Christ. The
other opinion is; that the mercy and truth of man are intended: then
the doctrine which the text teaches would be; that mercy and truth
are a condition always required when sin is pardoned; (but not the
cause for which the sentence of pardon is pronounced): because;
against the unmerciful; judgement without mercy will be exercised:
while on the other hand; "the merciful shall obtain mercy;” (Matthew
5:6).
The Hebrew word kphar (H3722); which is here translated "purged;”
does not properly signify expiatory purging; but either covering and
remission only; which God bestows on the believing and merciful: or
else the removal of the power of sin; in which sense it is used by the
Prophet Isaiah; (Isaiah 28:18). Then the passage would intimate that
the exercise of mercy and sincere piety removes the contrary vices.
The following clause of the verse confirms this interpretation of the
word: "By the fear of the Lord men depart from evil.”
Though nothing defiled can enter into the New Jerusalem; yet there
is no need of any satisfaction in this life; besides that of Christ; nor of
a purgatory in another; to purge away the pollutions of sin: for in the
moment of death; when the soul is separated from the body; all the
remains of sin are entirely removed by the Spirit of Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 23:10:14 GMT -5
The Matter of the Atonement
Concerning the matter and parts of the satisfaction; various opinions
have been embraced by divines. Some limit it to the sufferings and
punishments which he endured for us. This opinion appears to have
been first maintained by Cargius; a Lutheran minister; and after him
by Piscator; a Reformed professor at Herborne. Some of the divines
who embrace it; confine that righteousness by which we are justified
to the death which he suffered: while others of them comprehend in
it; also; all the sufferings of his life. This they call his passive
righteousness. The obedience which he yielded to the precepts of the
law; they term his active righteousness; which they suppose to have
been necessary in the person of the Mediator to the performance of
his mediatorial functions. They maintain; however; that it forms no
part of his atonement; or his merits; which are imputed to us.
The common opinion in our churches is; that the atonement made by
Christ; which is imputed to us for righteousness before God; is not
confined to the sufferings which he endured either in his life or at his
death; but extends also to the obedience of his whole life: to all those
just and holy actions by which he perfectly obeyed the law in our
stead. From these two parts; his sufferings and his obedience; they
maintain that the full and perfect price of our redemption proceeds.
In order to ascertain precisely the state of the question; we remark;
that the subject of controversy is not; whether Christ perfectly
fulfilled both the general law binding him to serve God; and the
special law commanding him to submit to death. Nor; whether the
obedience of Christ’s whole life was for the promotion of our
interests; and necessary to procure our salvation. Both are granted
by our opponents. They acknowledge that he fulfilled both laws; that
the obedience of his life was necessary for him in the performance of
his mediatorial duties; and in many respects profitable for us. We
inquire whether this obedience forms a part of the satisfaction which
he made to God for us: whether it was yielded in our stead.
Again; the inquiry is not; whether the mere sufferings belong to the
satisfaction. For those; whose opinion we controvert; acknowledge
that no suffering can be of an atoning nature; unless it be of an active
character; voluntarily endured. They also admit that; in order to its
being acceptable to God; it must include an active obedience or
voluntary oblation; which unites the highest love with the most
perfect righteousness and holiness. They even say that the
observance of the whole law was condensed into one action; that of
Christ’s death.
But the inquiry is; whether the obedience which Christ through his
life yielded to the law; is to be joined to the obedience which he
yielded in his death and sufferings; in order to constitute our
justifying righteousness before God. We must distinguish between
what Christ did directly and immediately to make an atonement; and
what only pertained as previous conditions to his making it. In this
last we place the personal holiness of Christ. Hence the question is
reduced to this point: is the atonement which Christ made for us
restricted to his death alone; or at least to all those sufferings which
were either antecedent to his death or accompanied it? Or does it
comprehend all which Christ did and suffered for us; from the
beginning to the end of his life? The former is the opinion of Cargius;
Piscator; and their followers: the latter is our opinion and that of our
churches generally. In order to set forth more clearly the doctrine for
which we contend; we make the following remarks:
1. The atoning sufferings of Christ extend to all those which were
inflicted upon him; not only in the garden of Gethsemane; but also
during his whole life. We cannot approve of the hypothesis; which
restricts the expiatory sufferings of our Redeemer to the pains he
suffered during the three hours in which the sun was darkened; and
he hung on the cross before his death: while it excludes all the other
sufferings of his life; as; at most; necessary only to vindicate the truth
of God; and to accomplish the typical representations of Christ under
the law. We admit; indeed; that the greatest agonies of Christ were
those to which he was exposed during those hours of darkness. But it
is abundantly evident that all his other sufferings were expiatory. (1.)
Because the Scripture nowhere restricts his expiation to the three
hours in which the sun was darkened; but refers it to his sufferings in
general; without any limitation; (Isaiah 53:4–5: 1 Peter 2:21:
3:18: Matthew 16:21:Hebrews 5:7: 10:8–9). They even extend it to
his whole humiliation; (Philippians 2:6–7).
(2.) Because the agonies which he endured in the garden; and which are expressed by the
words grief; sorrow; agony; heaviness; amazement; and being
exceeding sorrowful even unto death; on account of the tremendous
weight of divine wrath and malediction; were the chief sufferings
which Christ had to endure in his soul for us. (3.) The contrary
opinion wrests from many pious Christians one great means of
consolation. In the sufferings of Christ’s whole life; as expiatory; they
find rest to their souls. This idle imagination of Cargius and Piscator
would snatch from Christians all this solace; and deprive them of
innumerable evidences of the divine love.
The objection which is brought against this reasoning
from Zechariah 3:9: "I will remove the iniquity of that land in one
day;” is of no avail. That from these words of the Apostle; "We are
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus once for all;”
(Hebrews 10:10); is equally unsubstantial. The inference to be drawn
from these texts is not that the sufferings of Christ; antecedent to
those on the cross; are not expiatory; but only that the atonement
was consummated on the cross. In consequence of this
consummation all the sins of all the elect were; in one day; blotted
out. The reason why the Apostle; by a figure common in all
languages; refers the expiation of our sins to the one offering of
Christ; is; that his sufferings on the cross were the last and most
piercing; without which all his antecedent sufferings would have
been insufficient: as the payment of the last farthing completes the
liquidation of the debt and cancels the bond. Because he was
inaugurated into his mediatorial office in the thirtieth year of his age;
we may not thence infer; that previously to that time; he was neither
a priest nor a victim: for by the same mode of reasoning; it would
follow; that before thirty years of age he was not a Mediator. That
Christ was in favour with God; that he was his well-beloved Son; nay;
that he was sometimes in his life glorified; does not prove that he did
not then bear the divine wrath. These two are not at all incompatible
with each other. Christ; viewed in himself; never ceased to be most
dearly beloved of his Father; not even in his excruciating tortures on
the accursed tree; though; as our surety; he bore the load of the
divine wrath; and was made a curse for us. It was not necessary that
the punishment which Christ underwent should be so intense; that it
could admit of no intervals of alleviation by which he might be
animated to encounter gloriously the dreadful conflict set before him.
2. In the actions and sufferings of Christ; two things are to be
considered: their substance and their form. They are considered in
relation to their substance; when we examine their nature and
intensity. They are considered formally; when they are examined as
constituting a righteousness to be sustained before the tribunal of
God. In the former light the actions and sufferings are many and
various. In the latter they are to be considered under one form only;
that of a whole; composed of all his actions and passions - a one and
perfect righteousness. Wherefore one action or passion alone cannot
be said to effect a full atonement; because it is necessary that a
perfect obedience should be connected with it. Hence; although
various degrees and acts may be remarked in the obedience of Christ;
which commenced at his birth; was continued through his life; and
completed at his death; yet it is unique; as to the completion of the
work of salvation and the righteousness which it accomplishes.
3. There is in the obedience of Christ a two-fold efficacy. The one is
expiatory; that by which we are freed from those punishments to
which we were liable on account of sin. The other is a meritorious
efficacy; by which; through the remission of our sins; a title to
eternal life and salvation has been acquired for us. For as sin has
brought upon us two evils - the loss of life; and exposure to death: so
redemption must procure two benefits - liberation from death; and a
title to life: or; deliverance from hell and an introduction into
heaven. There are various passages of Scripture which clearly express
these two benefits. "To make reconciliation for iniquity; and to bring
in an everlasting righteousness;” (Daniel 9:24). "Christ hath
redeemed us from the law; being made a curse for us - that the
blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles;” (Galatians 3:13–
14). "God sent forth his Son - to redeem them that were under the
law; that we might receive the adoption of sons;” (Galatians 4:4).
"We were reconciled to God by the death of his Son: much more
being reconciled; we shall be saved by his life;” (Romans 5:10). "That
they may receive forgiveness of sins; and inheritance among them
which are sanctified;” (Acts 26:18).
These two blessings; indeed; which flow from the obedience of
Christ; are indissolubly connected in the covenant of grace; so that
no one who obtains the pardon of sin can fail of acquiring a right to
life. Yet they must be distinguished; and not confounded as if they
were one and the same thing. It is one thing to free from death;
another to introduce into life: one thing to deliver from hell; another
to conduct into heaven: one thing to free from punishment; another
to bestow rewards. Though it is true that no one is freed from death;
who is not also made a partaker of life; yet it does not follow that a
deliverance from the death which we deserve is not to be
distinguished from the acquisition of glory. There are many grades of
life as well as of holiness. The possession of life does; indeed; follow
liberation from death; but it is not necessary that this life should be a
happy and glorious one: as liberty follows deliverance from prison;
but it may be liberty without a throne and a diadem. Joseph might
have been freed from prison and not set over the land of Egypt.
Between death and life simply there is no medium; but between
eternal death; and a life happy and glorious; there is a medium - the
life of bondage in which man is now placed. The present life; in
which man is bound to the performance of duty; is a state of
pilgrimage; not of heavenly rest.
While we believe it necessary to make distinctions such as these; we
think it improper to inquire curiously; as some do; by what particular
acts Christ made atonement; and by what he merited life for us.
Those who make these too nice distinctions; attribute the atonement
to his sufferings: and the acquisition of a right to life; to his active
obedience to the law. These distinctions receive no countenance from
Scripture; which nowhere distinguishes the obedience of Christ into
parts; but; on the contrary; represents it as a thing unique; by which
he hath done in our place everything which the law requires of us. As
Christ; by the obedience of his life; has rendered to the law that
which it required of us; and to which we were otherwise personally
bound: so by this obedience he has satisfied the law; as to those
demands which it makes upon us: and hence his active obedience
partakes of the nature of satisfaction. Again; as his passive obedience
proceeded from unspeakable love to us; and as love is the fulfilling of
the law; we cannot deny but it was meritorious; and of the nature of
a price of redemption; by which a right to life has been acquired for
us. Therefore; we should avoid those curious distinctions; and
consider liberation from death and our right to life as flowing from
all the mediatorial duties; which Christ performed during his
humiliation; and which; considered as a whole; are called the
obedience of Christ. Sin could not be expiated before the law was
fulfilled; nor could a right to life be acquired; before the charges
preferred against us on account of sin were blotted out. Christ
merited by making atonement; and by meriting he made atonement.
Herein lay the utmost merit; that he performed a most arduous
work; impossible to all other beings and by no means obligatory
upon himself; by his perfect obedience. This obedience was at once a
great proof of love to us; an act of submission to the Father and a
conformity to the special law of his own vocation. Yet it would have
been of no avail to us; had it not been sealed and consummated by
his death. The atonement is not to be ascribed merely to the external
shedding of his blood; but also; and principally; to an internal act -
his spontaneous and unchangeable will to suffer even to the death of
the cross for us. By this voluntary offering of himself; we are said to
be sanctified; (Hebrews 10:14). It is to be ascribed to the payment
not of the last farthing; but of the whole of the price of redemption;
which is Christ; delivering up and subjecting himself for us.
The objection which Socinus offers against this is of no force. He
says; that "atonement and merit are incompatible with each other;
for satisfaction or atonement is the payment of a just debt; whereas
merit is effected by giving something not due on the score of justice.”
This is accurate when applied to a satisfaction or payment made by a
debtor in his own person; but not when applied to a vicarious
satisfaction; in which a surety; while making satisfaction; may have
merit with both the debtor and the creditor: with the debtor; by
paying; when under no obligation to do so; a debt for him; and thus
graciously freeing him from all obligation to the creditor: with the
creditor also; especially if a covenant has been made; in which it is
stipulated that upon making a specified payment; it shall be
admitted not only as a satisfaction for sin; but as procuring a title to
blessings not otherwise due. This is the case here; as appears
from Isaiah 53:10: Hebrews 9:15: Colossians 1:19–20; and similar
passages.
. There are two things contained in the law. These are precepts;
which prescribe duties: and sanctions; which ordain rewards to those
who keep the law; and punishments to its transgressors. Man; who is
under the obligation of the law; may be at the same time bound both
to obedience and punishment. This; however; cannot take place in a
state of primitive rectitude; but in a state of sin. For sinful man
sustains a two-fold relation to God - one the relation of a creature;
the other that of a sinful and condemned creature. In the former he
always owes obedience to God; and can never be freed from this
obligation so long as he continues a creature; no matter how
situated. In the latter he is obnoxious to punishment. Yet we cannot
infer from this doctrine that man pays his debt twice to God. A penal
debt is very different from a debt of obedience. A penal debt arises
from past transgressions: a debt of obedience; from the
indispensable obligation of the creature to obey the Creator; which is
coextensive with the whole term of its existence; and neither is nor
can be relaxed; even while the creature is suffering the punishment
of its transgressions.
5. There is a three-fold subjection to the law - a natural; a federal;
and a penal subjection. The natural subjection arises from the law as
a rule of holiness; and respects the creature as a creature. It is eternal
and indispensable; because; in every situation; the creature is bound
to be subject to God and to obey him. The federal subjection arises
from the law as prescribing a condition; upon the fulfilment of which
a reward is to be attained: respects the creature as placed in a
covenant state: and prescribes the performance of duty under the
promise of rewards and punishments. The penal subjection respects
the creature as placed in a state of sin and condemnation; and binds
him to suffer the punishment which the law denounces. The first is
absolute and immutable: for as long as there is a creature and a
Creator; the creature must be subject to the Creator. God can no
more dispense with his claim of subjection upon the creature than he
can deny himself. The second is economical and changeable;
because; as it respects man not in a natural; but in a constituted
state; it continues in force as long as man continues in that state; and
no longer. So soon as he has finished his probation; and; by fulfilling
the condition; has obtained the reward; he is freed from his
subjection. The third is necessary and inevitable; whenever the
creature falls into sin; which is always followed by punishment. The
first is founded in a right essential to God: in his natural; underived;
and necessary authority over the creature; and in the natural
dependence of the creature upon him. The second is founded in the
sovereign pleasure of God; whereby he has been pleased to enter into
a covenant with his creature; and promise life under this or that
condition. The third; is founded in the judicial authority and
vindicatory justice of God; by which he avenges the transgressions of
his creature. "Vengeance is mine; and I will repay.” All creatures;
angels and men; are under the natural subjection to the law. Adam;
in a state of innocence; was under the federal subjection. Devils and
reprobate men are under the penal subjection.
In this third respect; it is easy to conceive how Christ was subjected
to the law - "Made under the law;” as the apostle expresses it: and
whether he was subjected to the law for himself or for us. As a man;
there is no doubt but he was subject to the law for himself as a rule of
holiness;* by a common and natural subjection; under which angels
and glorified saints are in heaven; who are bound to love and serve
God.
* Witsius; the elegant author of the "Economy of the
Covenants;” as well as Turretin and President Edwards; takes
this view of the obligations of Christ as a creature. But; as
Turretin says the human nature of Christ is only an adjunct of
his divine person; he could owe no obedience for himself. It is a
person only; who is the subject of the moral law; and the person
of Christ is the second person of the Trinity; who is Lord of the
law. His humility is everywhere in Scripture represented as
voluntary. Had he been subject to the law for himself; he could
not have performed an obedience for others. Those great divines
rather express themselves loosely than erroneously: not
foreseeing the bad use which men of subtle and unsound mind
would make of their inaccurate phrases.
But it does not follow from this that he was subject to the law as to
that which imposed the indispensable conditions of happiness. Nor
that he was federally subject to it; so as to need to earn eternal life by
obedience; for such life was his already by virtue of the hypostatical
union. Much less was he bound by a penal subjection; for he was
most holy and absolutely free from all sin. So that when he
undertook the two-fold office of fulfilling the precepts of the law; and
suffering its sanction; all this was to be done in consequence of a
voluntary arrangement; by which he; as Mediator; engaged to
perform them for us. It resulted from his covenant with his Father; to
do and suffer as our surety all those things which the law claimed of
us; and which were necessary to our redemption.
These remarks being premised in order to an accurate understanding
of the subject; we now proceed to offer proofs in support of our
opinion. It is confirmed from many passages of Scripture.
I. The first we adduce is Romans 5:19: "For as by the disobedience of
one many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one; are many
made righteous.” Here the atonement is referred to his obedience;
not to that of his death; but also that of his life.
1. Because the apostle treats of his whole obedience; without any limitation: hence this
obedience must be perfect; and continued from the beginning of his
life to the end. An incomplete obedience will not suit the language
here used by the Spirit.
2. He treats concerning an obedience; which
imports universal conformity to the law; not only with respect to the
penal sanction; but also; and indeed chiefly; with respect to
observing its precepts.
3. He treats of what is called; (Romans 5:17);
the "gift of righteousness;” which cannot be applied to the sufferings
of Christ.
4. He speaks of an obedience which is opposed to the
disobedience of Adam: and as the disobedience of Adam was a
violation of the whole law; so the obedience of Christ must be a
fulfilment of the whole law.
5. Of an obedience which was due from
us; both as to precept and penalty. It will be of no avail to object;
"that the obedience is nothing else than the one righteousness
mentioned in Romans 5:18; and which is said to be to justification of
life; and that the condemnation of sin under which we have fallen
arose from one sinful act of Adam.” The righteousness spoken of here
does not intend one act of righteousness: it denotes a righteousness
effected by a complete and perfect obedience. Nor; though the
offence came upon all from one sin; can the righteousness be derived
to all from one act: because the least failure in performing the
demands of the law is sin: whereas righteousness requires the
fulfilment of the whole law.
II. The obedience of Christ is said to have been even to death;
(Philippians 2:8); in which not only its intensity as to degree is
expressed; an intensity the greatest which can be rendered by any
one: but also its extension and duration; from the beginning of his
life to its end. This appears from his obedience being referred to the
whole of his humiliation; which appeared not in his death only; but
in his whole life. In other portions of Scripture; the obedience of
Christ is described by the writing of the law in his heart; (Psalm 40);
and his active observance of it; (Hebrews 10:5). Again; it is spoken of
as a race which Christ had to run; (Hebrews 12:1–2); and as a work
which he had to perform; (John 17:4). These were not to be
consummated by one act; but to be a constant tenor of obedience
through his whole life.
III. It behoved Christ to be made in the likeness of sinful flesh; that
he might supply what the law could not do; in that it was weak; and
fulfil the claims of the law in us; (Romans 8:3–4). This weakness of
the law is not to be understood subjectively; as if it were in the law;
but objectively; in the sinner in relation to the law: on account of his
inability to perform any one of the duties which it commands. This
law is said to be weak; not in relation to the infliction of punishment;
but as to the observation of its precepts. Christ; therefore; by
supplying what the law could not do in us; must fulfil all the law
demanded of us; and work out what the apostle calls
"righteousness;” or the rights of the law; without doubt a right to life;
obtained by doing what the law commands. This required not only a
passive; but also an active obedience. For seeing the law and
commands of God are the same; punishments cannot be said to fulfil
the law; or its commands. They satisfy its denunciations only. Who
would say that a malefactor; who had been capitally punished for his
crimes; had obeyed the king or the law? To act agreeably to law is a
good and praiseworthy thing; which cannot be asserted respecting
the suffering of punishment; per se; unless it will be asserted; that he
is to be applauded who suffers the punishments of hell.
IV. We argue; in favor of extending the atonement to the active
obedience of Christ; from his being bound to all that the law required
of us; in order to acquire a title to life. To this; obedience of life was
no less requisite than the suffering of death: because the sinful
creature is bound to both these; and both were necessary to the
obtaining of pardon and a right to life. In the law; life is not promised
to him who suffers its penalties; but to him who performs its duties.
"Do this and thou shalt live.” Hence; to undergo the penalty by
dying; was not sufficient; without the obeying of the precepts. Let it
not here be objected; "that there is a difference between evangelical
and legal justification: that in the latter a perfect obedience to the law
is requisite; but not in the former.” The difference of our justification
now under the Gospel; from that under the covenant of works; is not
placed in the thing itself; but in the manner in which we obtain it.
Justification; whether legal or evangelical; must be founded on a
righteousness; perfect; absolutely perfect; in all its parts: a
righteousness which shall comply with all the conditions that the law
imposes for the purpose of obtaining eternal life: a righteousness
which shall answer to the eternal and immutable claims of God upon
the creature. These were qualities in that righteousness by which we
were to be justified; that could not be dispensed with even in Christ:
"for he came not to destroy the law; but to fulfil it;” (Matthew
5:17: Romans 3:31). The only difference of our justification lies in the
manner in which it comes to us. What the law demanded of us as a
perfect righteousness to be wrought out in our own persons; has
been wrought by another; even by Christ; in our stead.
V. We infer that the active obedience of Christ is comprehended in
that atonement which he made for sin; from the atonement’s being
founded in his righteousness; as appears from various passages of
Scripture; (Romans 1:17: 3:21: 5:18: Philippians 3:2: Daniel 2:24).
Whence justification is said; (Romans 4); to be effected by the
imputation of righteousness. But the righteousness of Christ does not
consist in his suffering; but in his doing. The righteousness of the law
is not obtained by suffering; but by doing; even as the sentence of
condemnation is pronounced for sinning. Christ testifies; that it
"became him to fulfil all righteousness;” (Matthew 13:15); by doing in
everything the will of his Father: and Paul says; "that Christ was
made sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in
him;” (2 Corinthians 5:21). By which it is to be understood; that; as
those sins which violated the law were imputed to Christ; so his
righteous actions; by which he fulfilled the law; are imputed to us for
a justifying righteousness.
VI. The same doctrine is established from 1 Corinthians 1:13; where it
is said; that Christ is not divided. Hence; we infer that his
righteousness is not to be divided; but; as a whole and unique
inheritance; is to be bestowed on us. The paschal lamb was to be
eaten whole: and; in like manner; Christ; who was typically
represented by that lamb; is to be received by us in all his
mediatorial fulness; both as to what he did and what he suffered.
This view of the subject attributes greater glory to Christ and
presents richer fountains of consolation. This consolation is greatly
diminished by those who take away from the price of our redemption
a part of his perfect righteousness and most holy obedience; and thus
rend his seamless coat.
We shall now proceed to the removal of objections. If our
redemption and salvation are attributed to the death and blood of
Christ; this is not done to the exclusion of the obedience of his life:
for such a restriction is nowhere mentioned in Scripture. On the
contrary; the work of man’s salvation is; in many places; as shown
above; attributed to the obedience and righteousness of Christ. When
the death or blood of Christ is mentioned alone; and our redemption
ascribed to it; this is done by a synecdoche; a figure which puts a part
for the whole. The reason is; that his death was the lowest degree of
his humiliation and the completion of his obedience; that which
supposes all the other parts; and without which they would have
been of no avail. No righteousness merits anything unless it is
persevered in to the last breath: a payment is never perfectly made;
until the last farthing is paid and the bond cancelled.
Though the Apostle Paul attributes the blessedness of the saints to
the remission of sin which flows from the blood of Christ; (Romans
4:7); yet it does not follow from this; that all our righteousness and
the whole of the satisfaction made by Christ; are founded in his
passion. For the apostle does not argue from the pardon of sins being
precisely equivalent to the imputation of righteousness and its
proceeding precisely from the same thing in the atonement: but from
the indissoluble connection among the blessings of the new
covenant; a connection so intimate; that every one who obtains
pardon of sin; necessarily and immediately obtains a right to life and
becomes an heir of the kingdom of heaven. In the same way Paul
treats of love to our neighbour; and the fulfilling of the whole law; as
the same thing; (Galatians 5:14): because; when love to our
neighbour exists; all the other duties of the law will necessarily be
performed.
Though each obedience of Christ; as well that of his life as of his
death; was perfect in its kind; yet neither of them alone was a
sufficient satisfaction; which required the observance of precepts as
well as the suffering of punishments; that liberation from death and
a right to life might be procured. One does not exclude the other:
nay; they mutually include each other.
What one person owes for himself; he cannot pay for another; if he
be a private person. But nothing prevents such a payment; when the
person is a public character; who may act both in his own name and
in the name of those whom he represents. He who pays what he owes
for himself; cannot by the same thing make a payment for others;
unless he has voluntarily made himself a debtor for them; in which
case he can. For; although he may be a debtor; yet this character
arises from his own voluntary act - the debt which he has to pay for
himself is a debt which; were it not for his own voluntary deed; he is
not bound to pay; and hence; while he is paying for himself; he may;
by the same act; pay for another. So Christ; who became man; not for
his own sake; but for our sakes; was under obligation to fulfil the law
in order to merit life; not for himself; but for us. Though Christ; as a
creature; was naturally subject to the law; yet he was not under it by
a covenant and economical subjection; binding him to obtain life for
himself; and stand as a surety in the room of sinners: for this arose
from a voluntary agreement entered into between him and his
Father. In an economical sense; he owed nothing for himself;
because he is the Son of God; and Lord of the law. As to his human
nature; he was not thus bound either absolutely or partially. Not
absolutely; for his human nature was an adjunct of his divine person:
and as this was not subject to the law; neither could the nature be
which was assumed by it. Moreover; since the assumption of human
nature was a part of his humiliation; the same must be true of all that
results from that assumption. One of these results is the subjection
to the law. Not relatively; because; as man; he was not bound by the
old legal covenant; which belonged only to those whom Adam
represented; and who were naturally descended from him. From all
which I infer; that he had no need to perform the duties of the law to
acquire for himself a right to life: which right; of necessity; results
from the connection of his human nature with the Logos; the second
person of the Trinity. Hence also I infer; that Christ owed all his
covenant obedience for us; and this in the character of a surety
who represented us.
Though Christ obeyed God in our room; we cannot thence infer that
we are no longer bound to obedience in our own persons. It is indeed
fairly to be inferred; that we are not bound to obey for the same end
and from the same cause - to obtain life by the performance of
duties; to which we are bound by covenant obligation. Yet we may
be; and are; in perfect consistency with the obedience of Christ for
us; bound by a natural obligation to yield the same obedience to God;
not that we may obtain life; but because we have obtained it: not that
we may acquire a right to heaven; but that; having through Christ
obtained a title; we may be prepared for entering upon its
enjoyment. Hence; though Christ has died for us; we are still
obnoxious to natural death: not; however; for a punishment; but for
a deliverance from the evils of this life and an introduction into
heaven.
We must distinguish between a righteousness of innocence; which
takes place when one is accused of no fault; and a righteousness of
perseverance; to which a reward is due for duties done. The pardon
of sin produces the former kind of righteousness; by taking away
every accusation on account of sins committed: but it does not of
necessity so produce the latter; that he who obtains it must be
forthwith adjudged to have performed all duties. It is one thing to
free a person from the punishment which is due to the omission of
duty: another to account him really righteous with the righteousness
of perseverance to which life is promised; just as if he had omitted no
duty and done no evil. The former of these is obtained in the day of
pardon; but not the latter: which would be contrary to truth and the
just judgement of God. Pardon does not remove sin; but prevents its
imputation. He who is pardoned may and does commit sin: but in
consequence of the pardon which he has obtained; it shall not be
imputed to him for condemnation. Pardon takes away only the guilt
of sin; and consequently its punishment; but not its pollution. Thus;
to be viewed as having done no sin and as having omitted no duty;
can be understood in a two-fold sense:
1. In relation to punishment -that we can no more be punished than
if we had in reality committed no sin and omitted no duty:
because we are freed from all that punishment which is due to sin.
2. In relation to the obtaining of
reward - that he who is esteemed to have performed all duty and
avoided all sin; shall be judged by God to have done all things which
are necessary to life. In this latter sense; it is not true that he whose
sins are remitted is to be esteemed free from all sin: for; as was
remarked above; pardon takes away punishment: but God is not; by
the sentence of pardon which he pronounces; bound to hold the
sinner as free from all delinquency; as having fulfilled all his duty;
and as a perfectly just person. This is not true in fact. The guilty is
not to be esteemed righteous; because; through supplication and
confession; he has obtained pardon from the Judge.
It cannot be said that God demands a double payment of the same
debt. For the law binds the sinner both to obedience and
punishment; as is said above: and the actions and sufferings of Christ
do not constitute a double payment; but both together constitute one
payment: one unique righteousness; by which deliverance from
death and a right to life have been acquired for us.
A perfect fulfilment of the law cannot be said to have been condensed
into the voluntary death of Christ. For the law demands perfect
obedience to all its several precepts; and this not in degree only; but
in duration; from the beginning to the end of life: all which cannot be
accomplished in one action.
So far is the whole of Christ’s righteousness; which is imputed to us;
from being placed in his sufferings; that; strictly speaking; no
righteousness is placed in suffering; but in doing only. No one can be
called righteous merely because he suffers; for misery is not virtue.
Besides; sufferings yield no obedience to those commands of the law
to which life is promised: they only satisfy its sanctions; and cannot
be called; per se; righteousness. If there is any righteousness in
punishment; it belongs to the person who inflicts the punishment;
and not to him who is punished.
Calvin; in many parts of his works; teaches the doctrine for which we
contend. Take the following passages. (Institutes; book ii; cap. 16;
sec. 5) "When it is asked how; by the removal of sin; Christ hath
taken away the enmity between God and us: and brought in a
righteousness which hath made God our friend? It may be answered
in general; that he has done this by the whole course of his
obedience. This is proved by the testimony of Paul; as by the
transgression of one; many were made sinners; so by the obedience
of one; many were made righteous.
Elsewhere; the ground of pardon; that which delivers us from the
curse of the law; the same apostle extends to the whole of Christ’s
life. ‘When the fulness of time was come; God sent forth his Son;
made under the law; to redeem them that were under the law.’ Even
in his baptism; God declares; Christ fulfilled a part of this
righteousness; because he obeyed his Father’s will. Finally; from the
time that ‘he took upon himself the form of a servant;’ he began to
pay the price of our redemption. Nevertheless; that the Scripture
may define more precisely the manner in which salvation is
procured; it ascribes peculiarly the price of redemption to the death
of Christ.” He afterwards adds; "Yet the remaining part of his
obedience which he performed during his life is not excluded: for the
apostle comprehends the whole of his obedience from the beginning
of his life to the end; when he says; that ‘he humbled himself; and
took upon him the form of a servant; and was obedient to his Father
unto death; even the death of the cross.’ Indeed; his death occupies
the first grade in his voluntary subjection: because a sacrifice availed
nothing; unless it was offered freely.” Elsewhere; he remarks;
(Institutes; book iii; cap. 14; sec. 12); that "accepting grace; is
nothing else but his unmerited goodness; by which the Father
embraces us in Christ; clothes us with his innocence; causing us to
accept it; that on account of it; he may esteem us holy; pure and
innocent. It behooves the righteousness of Christ; which alone is
perfect and will stand in the sight of God; to be presented for us; and
as a righteousness offered by our surety; to be set to our account in
the Judgement. Furnished with this; we; through faith; obtain
perpetual remission of sin. By its immaculate purity; all our
defilements are washed away: they are not laid to our account; but
before the splendour of Immanuel’s righteousness; are banished and
flee away; never more to rise against us in judgement.”
The Gallic Synods; by repeated acts; have given their most explicit
testimony in favour of the same truth; (Privatensis Synodus; anno
1612; and Tonninensis; anno 1614): "Since man can find in himself;
either before or after effectual calling; no righteousness by which he
can stand before the tribunal of God; he cannot be justified unless in
our Lord Jesus Christ; who was obedient to God the Father; even
from his entrance into the world until his ignominious death on the
cross. In his life and at his death; he fulfilled the whole law given to
man and the command to suffer and lay down his life; a price of
redemption for many. By this perfect obedience we are rendered
righteous: for through the goodness of God it is imputed to us and
received by faith; which is the gift of God. We; by the merit of the
whole of this obedience; obtain remission of our sins and are
rendered worthy of eternal life.”
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 23:18:35 GMT -5
The Extent of the Atonement
Having in the last chapter asserted the necessity of the atonement;
we shall now endeavour to prove its truth; which the Socinians not
only call in question; but expressly deny. Though; in order to conceal
their real views; they appear willing to retain the word satisfaction;
and indeed often use it; yet it is in a sense widely different from that
of the orthodox divines: as will appear from the statement of the
question.
The subject in controversy is not; whether Christ; by a general
satisfaction; has fulfilled all the conditions which the divine will
imposed upon him; in order to procure our salvation: for our
adversaries admit such a satisfaction; as Crellius professes in his
book against Grotius. But we inquire whether the satisfaction made
by Christ was strictly penal; and not only fulfilled the will of God; but
also satisfied his justice: Christ having taken upon himself our sins.
Our opponents deny: we affirm.
The controversy does not respect a metaphorical satisfaction; which
is effected by a nominal remission of sin: a satisfaction; which by
supplication obtains; through the mere indulgence of God; some
favour. This is admitted; and often spoken of by our adversaries to
deceive the simple. But they pertinaciously deny that Christ has
made a true and proper satisfaction; by paying a full price; and by
obtaining; through his merits; the acquittal of the sinner on the
ground of justice. We maintain that this is the true scriptural
atonement.
It is not whether the death of Christ is advantageous to us; and in
various respects promotes our interests: for this also they willingly
admit. It is whether; by substituting himself in our place; he suffered
the punishment due to us. We maintain that he did. It is not whether
Christ is our Saviour; on account of his doctrine announcing to us the
way of salvation: on account of the example of his life; in which by
his virtues and miracles he confirmed the truth: or on account of his
efficacious power; by which he will assuredly bestow on us this
salvation: for all this Socinus; (Chap. 9; Book I. de Servatore; Chap.
5; 6); grants to Christ. The great subject of debate is; whether Christ;
by his satisfaction and merits; is our Saviour in the strictest sense of
the word. Our opponents have openly made the utmost exertions to
overturn this doctrine; which has been constantly held by the
orthodox; and is proved by various solid and irresistible arguments.
I. The first argument is drawn from those texts in which Christ is
said to have redeemed us at the price of his blood: for the payment of
a price properly so called and perfectly sufficient; shows that a
satisfaction in its true and proper sense has been made; since price
always has reference to distributive justice. These texts are various.
"Ye were redeemed by a price;" (1 Corinthians 6:20). "Ye were
redeemed from your vain conversation; not by corruptible things
such as silver and gold; but by the precious blood of Christ; as of a
lamb without spot;" (1 Peter 1:19). "Christ gave himself for us; that he
might redeem (purchase) us from all iniquity;" (Titus 2:14). "In
whom we have redemption through his blood;" (Ephesians 1:7). "The
Son of man came that he might lay down his life a ransom for many -
λυτρον αντι πολλων - i.e.; a price of payment; in the room of many.
The name Jesus was given to him; "because he saves his people from
their sins;" (Matthew 1:21).
Though the word Redemption is sometimes used in Scripture to
denote a mere deliverance; which is procured without the payment of
any price; as Moses is called λυτρωτης; a deliverer: (Acts
7:35: Deuteronomy 7:8); and as God is said to have "redeemed Israel
out of the house of bondage:" yet it does not follow that in this
argument it is to be taken in that sense. Many things prove that in
the business of man's salvation; the word is to be understood as
signifying redemption by the payment of a price.
1. This is the primary import of the wordsλυτρον; απολυτρον; and we may in no
case give them any other; unless for a very solid reason. This is not
denied by Socinus himself. (Book 12; chapter 1) "To redeem any one;
properly signifies nothing else but to free a captive; by paying a price
to him who detains him."
2. The condition of man requires this: since
he is a prisoner not only of Satan and death; but also of sin; both as
to its guilt and its pollution; and therefore of the divine law and
justice. He is condemned of God and a child of wrath; and cannot be
released but by a satisfactory payment.
3. Such is the redemption procured by the price mentioned; (1 Corinthians 6:20).
Why should the apostle use λυτρον and τιμη; price of redemption and
punishment; if no price was paid? The reply usually made to this is;
that the term is used in a figurative sense; and denotes that we are
freed from the power of sin. This is an assumption; which; as we do
not grant it; our opponent is bound to prove. Nay; the contrary is
evident. The price is compared to very precious earthly things; such
as gold; silver; and jewels; which have always a relation to
price; strictly so called; (1 Peter 1:18).
4. We have not only the
word λυτρον; a price of redemption; but also the word αντιλυτρον;
applied to the suffering and death of Christ. Nothing can be more
express than this word ντιλυτρον. It denotes not merely a price; but
such a price as is perfectly equal to the debt which it pays: this is the
force of the preposition αντι; which here expresses substitution.
Aristotle uses the same word αντιλυτρον; in the ninth book of his
Ethics; and second chapter; to denote the redemption of a life; by
substituting another in its room.
Hence it appears that this redemption is not a mere manumission;
such as that in which a master; without any price; sets free his slaves:
nor is it simply an act of power; by which captives are rescued from
the hand of an enemy: nor a bare exchange; such as that of prisoners
of war. It is a real satisfaction; such as a surety makes by paying in
full for the debtor. Our deliverance; indeed; is procured without any
price paid on our part; and purely through the free grace and mercy
of God; (Romans 3:24: Ephesians 2:8). The divine power; too; is
displayed gloriously in emancipating us from the tyrannical
dominion of Satan; over whom Christ obtains a victory and triumph;
(Colossians 2:15). There is also an exchange in respect of Christ; who
was substituted in our place; and suffered the punishment due to us.
Yet in relation to the justice of God there is a real and perfect
satisfaction made.
II. The truth of the atonement is also proved from those passages of
Scripture; in which Christ is said to have died; not only for our
advantage; but also in our stead; as a substitute. "For when we were
yet without strength; in due time Christ died for the ungodly - in that
while we were yet sinners; Christ died for us;" (Romans 5:6;7). "For
Christ also hath suffered for our sins; the just for the unjust;" (1 Peter
3:18). Our reasons for understanding these phrases in this sense and
none other; are:
1. This is the common import of the
preposition υπερ; (for) which is used in these texts; and which; when
applied to persons; denotes among the Greeks substitution: as
in Romans 5:7; "Scarcely for a just man will one die;" i.e.; in his
place: and in Romans 9:3; "αναθεμα υπερ αδελφων;" "for (or in the
room of) his brethren."
2. It is elsewhere expressed by αντι; in the
room of; as in Matthew 20:28; and by αντιλυτρον; a price of
redemption; as in 1 Timothy 2:6. "Who gave himself a ransom
(αντιλυτρον) for all." Both of these import substitution: life for life;
as in the phrase "eye for (αντι) eye;" (Matthew 5:38).
3. Christ is saidto have died for us in a manner peculiar to himself - a manner in
which neither Paul nor Peter could be said to die or be crucified for
us; (1 Corinthians 1:13). Yet either of these might be said to die for
our edification and confirmation in the faith. Hence the sufferings
and death of Christ were vicarious: and in their design entirely
different from that of the apostles or martyrs. Though the apostles
may be said to have suffered for the Church; yet it does not follow
from this; that the object of their death was the same with that of
Christ's. They suffered as martyrs; to edify; confirm; and comfort the
Church; by bearing testimony to the truth of the Christian system: as
it is expressed by the apostle: "Whether we be afflicted; it is for your
consolation:" (2 Corinthians 1:6); but Christ alone laid down his life
to redeem the Church: And if we are commanded to lay down our
lives for our brethren; (1 John 3:13); as Christ laid down his life for
us; this means that we are not to refuse to undergo the danger of
death; nay; to suffer with firmness even death itself; whenever the
glory of God; the good of our neighbour; or the edification of the
Church requires it; as was the case with the martyrs. Hence; indeed;
we may infer that we should in this way imitate the example of
Christ: but it does not hence follow; that our death for our brethren
is for the same purposes as Christ's death for us. We are unable to
pay a ransom for our brother; that we may free him from death; as
the Psalmist expresses it in Psalm 49:7–8: nor by our death can we
procure his reconciliation with God and purge him from sin - all
which Christ does for his people by his death. Thus our death may in
some respects be compared to that of Christ; but not in all. In
relation to an example of love; a comparison may be instituted; but
not in relation to the merit of satisfaction. The particle καθως; as;
denotes similitude; not equality; as may be learned from its use
in Matthew 5:48: "Be ye perfect; even as (καθως) your Father in
heaven is perfect."
III. Another proof is derived from those Scriptures in which Christ is
said to have borne our sins; and on account of them to have been
afflicted; to have been wounded; to have died. "He bore our sins in
his own body on the tree;" (1 Peter 2:24). This passage is taken by the
apostle from Isaiah 53; in which the Chaldee Paraphrase and the
ancient Jews consider the prophet as treating of Messiah. "He hath
borne our griefs and carried our sorrows - he was wounded for our
transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities - the chastisement
of our peace was upon him - the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity
(i.e.; the punishment) of us all - he shall make his soul an offering for
sin."
In proving the atonement from these texts; we reason as follows: -
1. From bearing our sins - though to bear and to carry are sometimes
figuratively put for taking away and pardoning; (Exodus
34:7: Numbers 14:18); yet there is no good reason why we thus
should understand them in these passages. Nay; there are most
weighty reasons which forbid us to depart from the primary and
most common signification; according to which; as Socinus himself
acknowledges; (Prælec. cap. 21) to bear sin; is the same thing as to
bear the punishment of sin. The word ns (H5375); which sometimes
relates to a simple taking away of sin; is indeed used: but the word
çbal (H5445); which signifies the bearing of a burden laid upon one;
is also used; and clearly intimates the suffering of punishment.
2. The manner of bearing the sins confirms us in this view. The sins are
borne by the bearer's being bruised and wounded. Sin is also said to
be laid upon him. None of these could be said; unless Christ took
upon himself and suffered the punishment of sin.
3. Christ made his soul an offering; and laid down his life an offering for sin;
bore sin inthe manner of a victim: nay; he made himself in reality a victim by
suffering death and shedding his blood in the room of sinners.
4. All things which indicate a real satisfaction occur in this portion of
Scripture: our sins as the moving; the meritorious cause; "he was
bruised for our iniquities;" (Isaiah 53:5): the suffering of punishment
due to sin: "he hath borne our griefs; and carried our sorrows;"
(Isaiah 53:4): the imputation of our sins to Christ by God as a judge:
"the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all;" (Isaiah 53:6): the
voluntary undertaking of Christ as our surety: "he was oppressed and
afflicted; yet he opened not his mouth;" in complaining of his
sufferings; or in refusing to bear them; (Isaiah 53:7): an expiation for
sin and a full payment of the debt: "yet it pleased the Lord to bruise
him: he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul on
offering for sin;" (Isaiah 53:10). Now; with what propriety could all
these things be affirmed; if Christ laid down his life merely to exhibit
an example of patience and love; and not to make satisfaction for sin?
In Matthew 8:17; we are; indeed; informed that this prophecy of
Isaiah was fulfilled; when Christ healed bodily diseases; which;
properly speaking; he did not bear; but take away: yet we cannot
infer from this; that the same thing may be affirmed of sins which
are the diseases of the mind: for the diseases of the body are to be
viewed in a different light from those of the mind. In healing the
former; it was not necessary that Christ should himself become sick:
it was only necessary that he should exercise his power. Not so the
latter. He must first take them upon himself before he could take
them away from us. Hence he is held forth by the prophet as
wounded and bruised; which were not necessary to the healing of
bodily maladies; but to bearing those of the mind alone: from which
it is easy to infer what the mind of the Holy Spirit is in this prophecy;
and how it is said to have been fulfilled when Christ healed corporeal
diseases. Without doubt; it relates primarily to spiritual disease and
debility; i.e.; to sin; the punishment of which was laid upon him; that
he might suffer its desert in our room. But bodily infirmities and
pains are a part of the punishment of sin; and on this account; in a
secondary and subordinate sense; it refers to them: because Christ
had a right to heal them. Thus; what the prophet declares in general
concerning all diseases; Peter applies in particular to the diseases of
the mind; and Matthew to the diseases of the body; not excluding;
but rather including; those of the mind. He demonstrates that by
removing the cause the effect was taken away. Spiritual and physical
maladies are intimately connected with each other: the former draw
after them the latter; while the latter presuppose the former. Christ is
said to have borne both; but in different ways; according to their
different natures. Bodily griefs he bore only by efficaciously taking
them away; not by undergoing them in his own person: but he bore
spiritual griefs in two methods: by suffering them himself; and by
taking them away. Nor; if Matthew asserts that Christ healed the
sick; and thus fulfilled this prophecy; may we thence rightly infer
that the Spirit refers to them alone: because it is well known; that in
the Scriptures; a prophecy is said to be accomplished; not only when
it is completely and ultimately fulfilled; but also when a partial
accomplishment of it is begun.
Here also are to be considered those Scriptures which assert that
Christ was made sin and a curse for us; (Galatians 3:13: 2
Corinthians 5:21: Leviticus 8:9). How can he be said "to have been
made sin;" i.e.; an offering for sin; by God as a judge: and a "curse;"
i.e.; a subject of the malediction which the law pronounces against
sinners: not; indeed; for himself; seeing he was most holy and
supremely beloved by his Father; but for us: unless it was as being
substituted in our place; and taking upon himself that curse which
the law justly pronounces against our sins; in order that he might
bear it; and by bearing it take it away? Thus he was made a blessing;
by procuring for us the remission of our sins and a right to eternal
life. What reference is there here to an example of patience; or to a
confirmation of doctrine? Is it not most evident that there was a real
substitution of Christ in our room: and that in consequence of this
substitution; a real satisfaction; expiation or atonement has been
made; and that this is the doctrine taught by these Scriptural
phrases? The force of this argument cannot be evaded by objecting
that Christ is said to have been a curse; not on account of having
really borne the curse of the law; which could not have been laid on
him; a perfectly blessed and holy person: but because he suffered
crucifixion; which; under the law; was denominated a curse. The very
words of the apostle; and the redemption from the curse of the law; which
Christ by his death procured for us; evince the futility of the
objection. How can he be a curse; and that for the express purpose of
delivering us from the curse; unless he took it upon himself? It is no
solid objection to this reasoning; that he is the only-begotten Son;
and the ever-blessed God: for he did not endure the curse; in and for
himself as the Son of God; but as our surety and on our behalf.
Hence as to his person; he is styled "blessed forever;" and in his
official character as our representative; he is said to have suffered the
punishment due to our sins.
Hence we are enabled to understand the force of the expression; "he
was delivered for our offences;" (Romans 4:25). Socinus contends;
that all which is here intended; is; that an occasion for the death of
Christ was given by our offences; or that Christ died only with the
view that he might; by his example; incline us to leave off the
commission of sin; and render us certain of its pardon. All which is
incompatible with the Scriptures quoted above; which teach us that
the meritorious and moving cause; for Christ's being delivered over
to death; was our sins; that he might suffer the punishment due to
them and take away their guilt. He is said "to have been delivered for
our offences;" as sacrifices were offered for sin; doubtless; on
account of its guilt and to take it away. Hence the guilt of our sins
was the meritorious cause of the death of Christ; and its final cause
or chief end; to expiate and remove this guilt.
IV. The truth of the atonement is further proved; from the sacrifice of
Christ on the cross; of which the Scriptures so often speak; (Isaiah
53:10: John 1:29: Ephesians 6:2: and throughout the Epistle to the
Hebrews). Why should Christ be so often and so expressly called a
priest; truly and properly a priest; far more excellent than all the
Levitical priests; one who by his oblation appeased the wrath of God;
and obtained eternal salvation for us: unless because a full expiation
for sin has been made by his satisfaction; and a more luminous
display of the truths shadowed forth by the ancient figures? As by the
sacrifices under the law; doctrines were not confirmed; examples of
love and obedience were not given; no covenant was entered into;
nor could they by their own efficacy appease the wrath of God: these
sacrifices must have been instituted with a primary view to represent
a real satisfaction; an
1. From the nature of the priesthood which Christ sustains.
He is constituted a priest in things pertaining to God;
to appease him by an atoning sacrifice.
2. From the nature of the
victim which is substituted in the room of sinners; to bear the
punishment of death due to them; as evinced by the rite of imposing
hands upon the head of the offering; and over it making a confession
of sin.
3. From the three-fold effect of the sacrifice: in respect to God;
by the propitiation of his wrath: in respect to sin; by the expiation
and removal of its guilt: in respect to man; by the pardon which
followed from the propitiation of God and the expiation of sin. For a
person cannot be freed and obtain pardon; without the substitution
of a victim in his room: nor can God be appeased without the
shedding of blood: nor can sin be expiated without the suffering of punishment.
The objections which Volkelius and others oppose to this reasoning;
do not; in the least; weaken its force.
They object:
(1.) "That the propitiatory sacrifices did not all prefigure
the sacrifice of Christ: but the annual sacrifice only; which was
offered upon the great day of expiation; and which contained no
satisfaction: as a satisfaction could flow neither from the victims
offered up nor from the person of the chief priest." The Apostle Paul;
on whose judgement more dependence is to be placed than on that of
our opponents; opposes not one propitiatory sacrifice only; but all
the sacrifices to that of Christ; and hence he infers their abrogation;
(Hebrews 7:27: 10:4–5;11). Neither the perpetual sacrifice offered up
daily; nor the other propitiatory offerings of lambs which were of a
private nature; could refer to anything else than the oblation of the
immaculate Lamb of God for us. It is no objection to this view; that
they were offered for individuals; and not for all in common: for; as
the sacrifices which were offered for the whole congregation of
Israel; signified that Christ was to make a propitiation for the sins of
all his people; so those which were offered for each individual; were
designed to show that every one of Christ's people laden with sin;
should seek and obtain reconciliation through the offering of Christ.
Further; although those sacrifices did not; in the sight of God;
contain a satisfaction properly so called: because the soul of man is
of too exalted a value to be purchased with the blood of bulls or of
goats: yet a typical; ceremonial satisfaction; pertaining to the purity
of the flesh; was made by them; (Hebrews 9:13); a satisfaction; which
by the appointment of God was to be attributed; neither to the
victims; nor to the officiating priest separately; but jointly to both.
Another objection is that:
(2.) "An expiation is nothing else than an
entire deliverance from the dominion of sin; which deliverance
cannot be in the way of merit attributed to the death of Christ; but
only in the way of example and declaratively." In this objection; the
cause is confounded with the effect. The office of the judge; who
releases the prisoner; is confounded with the office of the surety;
who pays the ransom. The judge sets the prisoner at liberty; while
the prisoner; or some one in his place; pays the price of his
redemption. Hence it follows that the purging of guilt and the
removal of the accusation are effected by the suffering of punishment
either in the person of the accused; or in that of another. If all the
end answered by the death of Christ was to declare that an expiation
was to be made; it effected nothing more than the victims under the
law; which might; nay did attest the same thing: yet the Apostle Paul
expressly declares that they could not make expiation for sin. If there
were any propriety in this objection; the expiation might be
attributed no less to Christ's resurrection than to his death; which
the Scripture nowhere does. Besides; declaration respects men;
expiation God: that belongs rather to his prophetical office; this to
his priestly. Though the work of expiation may sometimes be
attributed to God the Father; (Deuteronomy 21:8); who never makes
satisfaction; yet we cannot justly infer that this expiation is of the
same nature with that of Christ: because; according to the different
nature of the subjects to whom the expiation is attributed; it is to be
differently understood. For God the Father to expiate; is to admit of
an expiation made by a priest; which is done by pardon and
acceptance. But for a priest and victim to expiate; is to effect
reconciliation meritoriously by the shedding of blood and vicarious
suffering.
It is further objected that:
(3.) "Sacrifices were offered up only for
smaller offences; such as were committed through ignorance or
error: while for more aggravated; wilful transgressions; there were
no sacrifices instituted: but that Christ died for all sins without
distinction." This objection is grounded on an assumption which we
do not admit. It is indeed expressly contrary to Scripture. On the
great day of annual atonement; the goat is said to bear all the
iniquities of the children of Israel. Sacrifices are elsewhere said to be
offered up not for those sins only which are committed through
error; but for those which are committed willingly; and which are
expressed by pesha' (H6588); 'ashm (H817); cht' (H2398); p'al
(H6466); and similar words; (Leviticus 16:21–22). And though the
priest is said to have offered for the errors (αγνοηματων) of the
people; (Hebrews 9:6–7); yet it does not follow that wilful sins are
excluded: for the word αγνοημα; which signifies properly an error of
the mind; is used to denote every kind of sin; because every sin
proceeds from an error of the mind. Hence wicked men are called
fools; ανοητοι. The Septuagint renders pesha' (H6588) and 'ashm
(H817) by the Greek word αγνοια; and these Hebrew words signify
wickedness and rebellion. For some aggravated crimes; such as
murder; idolatry; adultery; etc.; we do not read of any sacrifices
having been particularly instituted: because God determined to
punish them by the sword of the civil magistrate with capital
punishment: and those who sinned thus had no need of this remedy;
as their death was a satisfaction to the public.
V. Again; we argue for the doctrine of the atonement; from our
reconciliation with God; which Christ by his death has procured for
us. Since that reconciliation supposes the making up of the breach
which sin had produced between God and his creatures; this could
not be effected without the removal of a two-fold barrier; by a
satisfaction. On the part of God; his justice must be satisfied; and on
the part of man; the guilt of sin must be removed by suffering the
punishment due to it. The Apostle Paul; everywhere; teaches us that
Christ procured for us such a reconciliation; (Romans 5:10: 2
Corinthians 5:18–19: Colossians 1:20–21; etc.).
The substance of the objections which our opponents offer against
this argument is; that "this reconciliation is effected by our
conversion to God; and not at all by appeasing the divine wrath;
because God is not said to be reconciled to us; but we to God: nay; he
is said to procure for us this reconciliation; which is not the part of
an enemy; but of a friend." This capital error of our opponents is
refuted by many powerful arguments. 1. The Scriptures speak of a
double enmity and reconciliation; not only on the part of man; who
by sin is become a hater of God; (Romans 1:21); an enemy in his
mind by wicked works; (Colossians 1:21): but also on the part of God;
by his wrath which is revealed from heaven against all iniquity;
(Romans 1:18). Hence men are by nature children of wrath;
(Ephesians 2:5). God is said to be of purer eyes than to behold
iniquity; (Habakkuk 1:13). He hates all workers of iniquity; (Psalm
5:5). Now as there is an alienation on both sides; so there must be on
each side a reconciliation: on the part of God; by a turning away of
his wrath: on the part of man; by a conversion to God: all which the
Apostle clearly teaches; (2 Corinthians 5:18–19). In consequence of
God's reconciling us to himself through Christ; Paul shows that the
apostles; in the name of Christ; exhorted sinners to be reconciled to
God.
2. If reconciliation were nothing but conversion; then it should
rather be said to proceed from Christ's holy life; than from his bloody
death. On this ground; no reason can be offered why the Apostle
should propose sanctification as the end of our reconciliation;
(Colossians 1:22); for nothing can be the medium and end of itself.
This would be to say that the end of reconciliation was reconciliation.
3. It is such a reconciliation as is effected by not imputing to us our
sins; on account of their having been imputed to Christ; who was
made sin for us; (2 Corinthians 5:18;21): a reconciliation effected by
the substitution of Christ in our place; that he might die for us: as we
collect from the comparison instituted between him and the man
who would dare to die for a good man; (Romans 5:7): which implies
a proper satisfaction; not a simple conversion. 4. This reconciliation
is effected "by making peace through the blood of his cross;"
(Colossians 1:20); and by an atoning sacrifice; ιλασμος; (1 John 2:2).
All these denote not mere conversion: but primarily; the appeasing
of the divine wrath; which is effected by the death of a victim.
Though the Scriptures commonly speak of our being reconciled to
God; rather than of God's being reconciled to us; because those who
offend have need to be reconciled to him who is offended: yet this; so
far from excluding the reconciliation of God to us; includes it:
because there can be no offence; unless justice is injured: and this
injury must be repaired before God can reconcile men to himself;
and admit them to hold communion with him. God's procuring this
reconciliation for us; is no evidence that he has not been angry with
us; or that he was at peace and in a state of friendship with us. It only
proves that God; moved towards us with a love of benevolence;
decreed to procure for us a reconciliation: not that he was forthwith
to be deemed appeased and reconciled; but only that he might
become so; while yet; in the mean time; he could not but be offended
at our sins.
In vain is it pleaded by our opponents; that "Christ is said to be our
propitiation and expiatory sacrifice: not that he may reconcile an
angry God to us; but that he may testify that God is already appeased
and by no means angry with us." The blood of Christ was not shed to
prove the remission of sin; but to obtain it; as was the case in the
propitiatory sacrifices under the Old Testament dispensation:
otherwise; there was no need that Christ should die and shed his
blood; when the truth of the remission could be as well attested by
his life and doctrine. Nor because the covering of the ark is
improperly and declaratively called ιλαστηριον; or an expiation;
because by it God declared his benevolence towards his people; are
we thence to infer that it was of the same nature with the expiation
made by Christ. The making of expiation is attributed to Christ not
so much passively as actively; and in the strictest sense of the word.
What was only typically and symbolically shadowed forth in the
mercy-seat and by the sprinkling of the blood of victims; Christ truly
and properly effected by the shedding of his own blood. Again;
though the application and fruit of this atonement is imparted to us
through the medium of his continual intercession in heaven; yet we
may not hence infer that he has made it in heaven only. The passage
in Hebrews 2:17 does not relate to this: for it is not there said that he
makes reconciliation for the sins of the people in heaven; but only
that he must be made like unto his brethren in all things; that he may
be a faithful high priest; in things pertaining to God; and in this
character make reconciliation; which he had done by his death and
suffering; as is intimated in the following verse.
VI. The doctrine of the atonement is also confirmed by the nature
and circumstances of Christ's passion; as well as by the kind of
death which he suffered: in all which we have everything requisite to
a full and perfect satisfaction. Let us consider the essence and kind of
the punishment. The death which he endured was not a common
death: but violent and most bitter; inflicted as a punishment; and
accursed of God himself: one in which he suffered the greatest
ignominy and experienced the severest pains in his most holy body.
His soul was seized with the most appalling terror and sorrow; with
such fear and anguish that an angel was sent to minister comfort to
him. Sweat flowed from the pores of his body like great drops of
blood; and "he offered up prayers and supplications; with strong
crying and tears to him who was able to save him;" (Hebrews 5:7).
With a voice of deepest sadness; he complained that he was forsaken
by God the Father; though not by a dissolution of the union; nor by
withdrawing a participation of holiness; nor by withholding his
supporting power; yet by withholding from him the beatific vision;
by suspending the sense and fruition of full felicity. How shall we
find an adequate cause for all these sufferings in a perfectly holy
person; unless by admitting that avenging justice demanded from
Christ a full atonement for our sins? Or shall we say that Christ was
of more feeble mind and possessed less heroic firmness; than
innumerable martyrs; who have suffered the same most painful
death of the cross; nay; if possible; torments more intolerable; and
yet with unshaken fortitude; with the greatest alacrity; and without
any indications of grief or terror? Such blasphemy shocks the ears of
the Christian. Though the time of Christ's sufferings was but finite in
duration; yet; in consequence of the dignity of the sufferer; it was
equal in value to infinite duration of torment. The law; indeed;
demands that the person who sins shall suffer: but the Gospel;
through the fatherly kindness of God; declares it meet that there
shall be a substitution: that it suffices to punish sin; and let the
sinner go free.
VII. A final argument is drawn from the Perfections of God. By the
atonement we have an astonishing display of the divine Mercy;
which is so great that God spared not his own Son; that he might
spare us. It asserts the claims of Justice; which; that it might remain
unimpeachable; demanded even the blood of the Son of God. It
gloriously exhibits the divine Wisdom; which found out an admirable
plan of reconciling mercy with justice; and untied a knot which
otherwise could never have been loosed: a plan by which the
conscience of man; alarmed with a penetrating sense of sin;
judgement; and the divine malediction; is rendered peaceful and
serene. Take away the atonement; and what becomes of the Truth of
God; which so uniformly denounces death and a curse against
sinners? What becomes of justice; which not only acquits the guilty
and convicted sinner without inflicting upon him the deserved
punishment; but also bestows on him rewards most honourable?
Besides; by denying the atonement; the following. absurdities are
unavoidable: -
1. That our redemption may be attributed no less to
the death of the apostles and martyrs than to the death of Christ:
since; by their death and sufferings; they have given strong
testimony in favour of the doctrines of the Gospel; and have set
before us in their lives illustrious examples of patience and obedience.
2. That Christ saved us rather by his life and miracles
than by his death; since the promulgation of his doctrines and the
example of his life were much more plain exhibitions of truth than
his death affords.
3. The priestly office is altogether taken away from
this world; and confounded with his prophetical and kingly offices.
4. The saints under the Old Testament were not saved by Christ:
because they had not the benefit of his example; nor did they hear
him preaching doctrines.
We now proceed to remove the difficulties which have been raised.
Though the word satisfaction is not expressly used in the Scriptures;
yet; what is quite sufficient; there are other words used which are
altogether equivalent to it; and which either have no meaning or else
mean that real satisfaction for which we contend. Such are the
wordsαπολυτρωσις; the redemption of a captive; by making a
payment: αντιλυτρον; a price of redemption: ιλασμος; a
propitiation: τιμη; a price of punishment: καταρα; a curse: θυσια; a
sacrifice: προσφορα; an offering: and many others of the same
import; which we have mentioned above.
As Christ sustains a two-fold relation to believers - one in the
character of their Surety; bound to satisfy justice in their behalf: the
other in the character of their Head and Lord; operating in them by
the animating and directing influence of his Spirit - so he had a twofold end in his death and sufferings: one; the payment of a price of
redemption for us to justice: the other; to set before us an example
worthy of imitation. Hence his sufferings may be viewed either as
satisfactory or as exemplary. Though the sufferings of Christ are
proposed; (1 Peter 2:21); to us as an example; and his death as that
which we should imitate by dying for our brethren; at his command;
(1 John 3:16): yet we are not hence to infer that by his death he made
no real satisfaction: for the mentioning of the one end does not
exclude but supposes the other.
There is a wide difference between a payment made by a debtor in
his own person; and a payment made by a surety. As to the reality of
payment there is no difference in the eye of the law; but in relation to
grace there is a striking difference. When a debtor pays out of his
own purse his debts; it cannot be said that the creditor has forgiven
him the debt or shown him favour: but if the debt has been paid by
another and that other has been found out by the creditor; then grace
may be said to have been shown. Satisfaction and remission are
inconsistent with each other; when referred to the same thing; but
not so when they are referred to different things. Satisfaction has
God for its object; remission man for its object. Satisfaction is made
by Christ to God for man; and yet man is freely pardoned. Justice
and mercy kiss each other. Justice is exercised against sin as imputed
to Christ; and mercy; free and sovereign mercy; is shown to sinners.
The pardon granted to us is entirely of grace; while full satisfaction is
demanded of the surety. Nothing is demanded of us; full payment
having been made by Christ.
If Christ makes satisfaction; we cannot say that he satisfies himself;
in the same character in which he makes the satisfaction: he satisfies
himself as God and the Son of God; not as Christ. Thus it is not
precisely in the same character nor in the same relation; that he gives
and receives the satisfaction. Christ gives it as God-man; as
mediator; and receives it as God the judge. It is indeed absurd to
suppose that the same person should make satisfaction to himself;
when the subject treated of is of a private nature; by which a private
loss is compensated or money that is due paid; for in that case the
person would take of his own and with it pay himself. But when we
speak of a public satisfaction by which a public injury is repaired; it
is not absurd to say that a judge who has violated the law; may make
satisfaction to himself as judge by suffering; either in his own person
or in the person of another; that punishment which the law
denounces: and thus it is in the work of Redemption.
Christ did not suffer eternal death but a death of three days only; and
yet he fully paid the debt of everlasting punishment which we owed.
His; which was one of finite duration; was equivalent to an
everlasting death suffered by us; because of the infinite dignity of his
person. His were the sufferings not of a mere man; but of the true
God; who purchased the Church with his blood; (Acts 20:28). Hence
what was deficient in duration is supplied by the divinity of the
sufferer; which gave infinite importance to a temporary passion. Yet
we may not hence infer; that as the person suffering was infinite; one
drop of his blood was sufficient for our redemption. The smallest
passion of Christ might have infinite value considered merely in
relation to the infinite exaltation of him who suffered: yet death only
could possess infinite value; in respect of the judge by whose
sentence it was inflicted. The dignity of the person increases the
dignity of the punishment endured - the more exalted the person is;
so much the heavier is the suffering which he undergoes: yet nothing
but that species of punishment which the law denounces can satisfy
its claims upon the guilty. Death and death alone could fulfil the
demands of law and justice.
It was not necessary; when Christ was suffering the punishment due
to sin; that he should suffer that despair and gnashing of teeth;
which are a part of the punishment of the damned: for these are not
essential to the punishment which the judge inflicts or which the
surety must bear. They are mere circumstances; which arise from the
character of the persons of the damned; who; when they find that
their torments are overwhelming and eternal; sink into utter despair
and gnashing of teeth. This could not be so with Christ; who in the
midst of his greatest agonies; had full assurance of deliverance and a
resurrection from the tomb; and hence when encompassed by
tortures the most excruciating; always manifested his faith in God -
"My God! My God!" are his words.
Though a death of infinite value was due for every individual sinner;
yet such a death as Christ's is quite sufficient for the redemption of
the whole elect world. A penal satisfaction is not of the same nature
with a pecuniary payment; which is valued only by the amount paid;
without regard to the person who pays: and hence can be of avail to
none but the individual for whom the payment is made. But penal
satisfaction is estimated by the dignity of the person who makes it;
and is increased in worth in proportion to his dignity; and hence
avails for many as well as for one. Money paid by a king is indeed of
no more avail in the discharge of a debt; than money paid by a slave:
but the life of a king is of more value than the life of a vile slave; as
the life of King David was thought of more worth than that of half the
Israelitish army; (2 Samuel 18:3). In this way Christ alone is more
excellent than all men together. The dignity of an infinite person
swallows up all the infinities of punishment due to us: they sink into
it and are lost. Besides; it is no new thing that what is necessary for
one should be amply sufficient for many. One sun is necessary to the
illumination of an individual; and yet the same sun illuminates the
whole human family. One victim was sufficient for the priest and all
the people; and yet it would have been requisite for one. Although
there were as many atonements necessary as there were Israelites;
yet the one great annual expiatory sacrifice atoned for the sins of all
the people; because it was so offered for the whole congregation as
that by divine appointment it availed for the case of each singly. On
this subject the Scriptures are so express; that no one; unless he have
the hardihood to contradict the Holy Spirit; can deny it. "The Lord
laid on him the iniquities of us all;" (Isaiah 53:6). "If one died for
all;" (2 Corinthians 5:14). "By one offering of himself he hath forever
perfected them that are sanctified;" (Hebrews 10:14). What do all
these Scriptures teach; unless that one death of Christ is sufficient to
make a full atonement for all the elect; in the same manner as the
disobedience of Adam made many sinners? - (Romans 5:18–19) One
cannot satisfy for many; when he and they are of the same rank. One
plebeian cannot satisfy for many plebeians: but one prince may
satisfy for many plebeians. If this is admitted among creatures who
are all finite and mortal; how much more between creatures and the
Creator; between whom there is an infinite distance?
The rule which is laid down in Ezekiel 18:20; "the soul that sinneth;
it shall die;" cannot be understood as absolute and universal; for so
all imputation of sin would be barred; which yet the Scriptures teach
by many examples. It must be referred to the ordinary dispensations
of Providence; and not to an extraordinary dispensation of grace. Or
it may relate to a particular providence towards the Jews; to whom
the Lord speaks in such a way as to close their mouth; and prevent
them from complaining that they had undeservedly suffered
punishment on account of the sins of their fathers: and not to the
general government of men; in which God declares that he will visit
the iniquities of the fathers upon the children until the third and
fourth generation; (Exodus 20:5).
So far is the doctrine of the atonement from opening a door to
impiety and spreading a couch on which spiritual sloth may repose in
security; that it is the most efficacious means of holiness; and the
death of sin itself; which is; among others; one of the ends that
Christ assigns for his death - "that being dead unto sin; we may live
unto righteousness: that henceforth we may no more live unto
ourselves; but to him who died for us and was raised again for our
justification." See Romans 6; for the manner in which the Apostle
Paul reasons on this subject: also Titus 2:14; and 1 Peter 2:24.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 23:35:07 GMT -5
The Extent of the Atonement
The controversy concerning the extent or universality of the
atonement has been; and still is; greatly agitated; which imposes
upon us a necessity of handling it; that nothing may be wanting to a
clear elucidation of this all-important article of the Christian system.
Among the ancients; the Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians contended
that Christ died for all men: hence Prosper; in his letter to Augustine;
concerning the remains of the Pelagian heresy; says; "Those who
embrace the Pelagian heresy profess to believe that Christ died for all
men universally; and that none are excluded from the atonement and
redemption which the blood of Christ has effected." And among
those errors which they attribute to Augustine; they find this: "The
Saviour was not crucified for the redemption of the whole world."
Faustus; (Book i; De Libero Arbitrio); says; "They wander far from
the path of piety; who assert that Christ did not die for all." Hincmar;
in his letter to Pope Nicholas; (Flodoardus; book iii; chap. 14);
recounts it as one of the errors of Gotteschalcus; that he preached
that Christ did not shed his blood; precious to God the Father; for the
redemption and salvation of all men; but for those only who will be
saved; or for the elect. To the same purpose are the anathemas of the
pretended Council of Arles; recorded in a letter to Lucidus; written
by Faustus; the standard-bearer of the Semi-Pelagians: a Council
which Sirmundus does not deny to have been Semi-Pelagian.
Augustine; in his age; opposed himself to these heretical innovations:
so did his disciples; Prosper and Fulgentius; and other preachers of
the grace of Christ; who; travelling in their footsteps; boldly
defended the truth. The same was afterwards asserted by Remigius;
bishop of Leyden. (Liber de tribus epistolis; et Concilio Valentino III.
anno 855 habito.)
The controversy was afterwards renewed among the Roman
Catholics; some of whom taught; like the Semi-Pelagians; the
doctrine of universal atonement: while others; embracing the views
of Augustine and his genuine disciples; restricted the atonement to
the elect. This controversy was principally between the Jesuits and
Jansenists. The Jesuits; a genuine branch of the Semi-Pelagian
sectaries; warmly contend for a universal atonement. The Jansenists
with great firmness contended that the atonement was restricted to
the elect. In this they followed Jansenius; the founder of their order;
who has examined this subject very largely; and with great solidity of
argument. (In suo Augustine; et in Apologia Jansenii; et in
Catechismo de Gratia.)
The controversy passed from the Romanists to the Protestants. The
Lutherans follow the Jesuits; and contend for a universal
satisfaction. (Eckard. Fascicul. controv. c. 15. De PrÅ"desti. q. 6.
Brochmanus de gratia Dei. c. 2; q. 17; 18; 19; et al.) The Arminians;
however; called Remonstrants from the remonstrance which they
presented to the Synod of Dort; are its great champions. They have
indirectly recalled Romanism; and have drawn most of their errors
from Molinus; Lessius; Suarezius; and other Jesuits. From such
polluted fountains they have obtained their error concerning
universal atonement; which is placed second among those that were
rejected and condemned by the Synod of Dort; as may be seen in the
second chapter of their "Rejection of Errors concerning the Death of
Christ."
The doctrine on this subject for which the Arminians contended at
the Synod of Dort; is expressed in this manner: - "The price of
redemption which Christ offered to his Father; was not only in itself
sufficient for the redemption of the whole human family; but even by
the decree; will and grace of God the Father; was paid for all men
and every man; so that no one is; by an antecedent decree of God;
particularly excluded from a participation of its fruits. Christ; by the
merits of his death; has so far reconciled God to the whole human
family; that the Father on account of his merits; without any
impeachment of his truth or justice; can enter and wishes to enter
into and confirm a new covenant of grace with sinful men exposed to
damnation." 1. Hence they maintain; that according to the counsel of
God; Christ so died for all men that not only is his death; on account
of its own intrinsic value; sufficient for the redemption of all men;
but that agreeably to the will of God it was offered for that express
purpose: that it was a death in the room of all men and for their
good; by the intervention of which; God ever after willed to deal
graciously with all men: and hence; that the death of Christ was not a
blessing promised in the covenant of grace; but the very foundation
of it. 2. That by his own intention and that of his Father; he has
obtained for all men; as well those who perish as those who are
saved; a restoration into a state of grace and salvation; so that no
one; on account of original sin; is either exposed to condemnation or
will be condemned: but all are freed from the guilt of that sin. 3. That
Christ; according to the counsel of his Father; delivered himself up to
death for all men; without any fixed purpose that any individual in
particular should be saved: so that the necessity and utility of the
atonement made by the death of Christ might be in every respect
preserved; although the redemption obtained should not be actually
applied to one individual of the human family. 4. That Christ by his
atonement merited faith and salvation for none; with such certainty;
that the atonement must be applied to them for salvation: but merely
acquired for God the Father a perfect will and power to treat with
man upon a new footing; to enter into a covenant either of grace or of
works with man; and to prescribe whatever conditions he chose: the
performance of which conditions depends entirely on the free will of
man; so that it became possible that either all or none should fulfil
them. 5. That the procurement of salvation is more extensive than its
application: as salvation was obtained for all but will be applied to
very few. All these are clearly proved to be Arminian tenets; from the
Collation published at the Hague; and from the exposé of their
sentiments in their remonstrance against the second article of the
Synod of Dort.
Those of our ministers; who defend the doctrine of universal grace;
give great countenance to not a few of these Arminian tenets; nay; in
a great measure adopt them as their own. That they may evince a
philanthropy; a love of God towards the whole human family; they
maintain that Christ was sent into the world by the Father as a
universal remedy; to procure salvation for all men under the
condition of faith. They say that though the fruit and efficacy of
Christ's death will be enjoyed by a few only; on whom God; by a
special decree; has determined to bestow them; yet Christ died with
an intention to save all; provided they would believe. (The opinion
here unfolded is; with very little variation; that of the Hopkinsians -
Translator.) In this manner; they teach that the decree of the death
of Christ preceded the decree of election; that in sending Christ into
the world; no special respect was had to the elect any more than to
the reprobate; and that Christ was appointed to be equally the
Saviour of all men. They even distinctly assert that salvation was not
intended to be procured for any particular persons; but the
possibility of salvation for all. This; they tell us; was effected by the
removal of obstacles which justice placed in the way of man's
salvation; which was done by rendering satisfaction to justice and
thus opening a door of salvation; that God reconciled by the
atonement might; in consistency with the claims of justice; think of
entering into a new covenant with man and of bestowing upon him
salvation. But as God foresaw that on account of the wickedness of
their hearts; none would believe in Christ; he; by another special
decree; determined to bestow upon some faith; thus enabling them
to accept of salvation and become partakers of it: while the rest of the
human family would remain in unbelief; and on its account would be
justly condemned. In this they differ from the Arminians; and
embrace in so far the truth of the atonement. Such views as these
which we have stated are clearly contained in their writings.
Camerus; (In Cap. 2; Epist. ad Heb. ver. 9); says; "The death of
Christ; under the condition of faith; belongs equally to all men."
Testardus; (In Ireni. Thesis 78; et 79): "The end of giving Christ for a
propitiation in his blood was; that a new covenant might be entered
into with the whole human family; and that; without any
impeachment of justice; their salvation might be rendered possible;
and an offer of it made to them in the Gospel. In this sense; indeed;
no one who believes the Word of God can deny that Christ died for
all men." Amyraut; (Diss. de Gratia Universali); "The redemption
purchased by Christ may be considered in two respects. 1.
Absolutely; in relation to those who actually embrace it. 2.
Conditionally; as offered on such terms; that if any one will accept it;
he shall become a partaker of it. In the former respect it is limited; in
the latter universal. In like manner its destination is two-fold:
particular; as having the decree to bestow faith connected with it:
universal; when it is considered separately from this decree." This
writer says expressly; (Tr. de PrÅ"dest. cap. 7); "Since the misery of
the human family is equal and universal; and the desire which God
has to free them from it by a Redeemer; proceeds from the mercy
which he exercises towards us as his creatures fallen into
destruction; in which we are all equal: the grace of redemption;
which he has procured for us and offers to us; should be equal and
universal; provided we are equally disposed to its reception."
Though all agree that Christ died for all men; yet they explain
themselves differently in relation to the manner in which he died for
all. As appears from the quotations given above; some say openly
that Christ died conditionally for all; and absolutely for the elect
only. Others; perceiving that this view of the subject leads to gross
absurdities; are unwilling to express themselves in this manner; and
rather choose to say that Christ did not die for men on condition that
they would believe; but that his death for all was absolute; whether
they would believe or not. So that free access to salvation was opened
for all who would by faith accept it: and; all obstacles being removed
by the death of Christ; a way for a new covenant was opened equally
to all men: all were placed precisely in the same salvable state. Yet
they all come to this point; that Christ satisfied for all men severally
and collectively; and obtained for them remission of sins and
salvation: of which; if many are deprived; the cause is not to be
sought in any insufficiency of Christ's death; nor any failure of will
and intention on his part; but only in the unbelief of those who
wickedly reject the salvation offered by Christ.
But the common opinion of the Reformed Church is; that Christ;
from the mere good pleasure of his Father; was set apart and given as
a Redeemer and Head; not to all men; but to a definite number; who
by the decree of God constitute his mystical body. They maintain that
for these alone; Christ; perfectly acquainted with the nature and
extent of the work to which he was called; in order to accomplish the
decree of their election and the counsel of his Father; was willing and
determined to offer himself up a sacrifice; and to the price of his
death added an efficacious and special intention to substitute himself
in their room and acquire for them faith and salvation.
Whence we easily obtain a distinct statement of the question.
1. It does not respect the value and sufficiency of the death of Christ:
whether as to its intrinsic worth it might be sufficient for the
redemption of all men. It is confessed by all; that since its value is
infinite; it would have been sufficient for the redemption of the
entire human family; had it appeared good to God to extend it to the
whole world. To this purpose a distinction is made by the Fathers
and retained by many divines; "that Christ died sufficiently for all;
but efficiently for the elect only." This is perfectly true; if it be
understood of the dignity of Christ's death; though the phrase is not
accurate if it be referred to the will and purpose of Christ. The
question which we discuss concerns the purpose of the Father in
sending his Son; and the intention of the Son in dying. Did the
Father destine his Son for a Saviour to all men and every man; and
did the Son deliver himself up to death; with a design to substitute
himself in the room of all men of all nations; to make satisfaction
and acquire salvation for them? Or; did he resolve to give himself for
the elect only; who were given him by the Father to be redeemed;
and whose Head he was to be? The pivot on which the controversy
turns is; what was the purpose of the Father in sending his Son to
die; and the object which Christ had in view in dying: not what is the
value and efficacy of his death. Hence the question does not; as some
learned divines have affirmed; respect the revealed will of God; but
his secret will; his decree; to which; as all must agree; the mission
and death of Christ are to be referred.
2. We do not inquire; respecting the fruits and efficacy of Christ's
death; whether all will actually be partakers of these; which was
anciently held by Puccius and Huberus. Our opponents extend these
to believers only. But the question refers to the design of God in
sending his Son into the world; and the purpose of Christ in his
death. Were these such that Christ; by substituting himself in the
room of each and every man; made satisfaction and obtained the
pardon of sin and salvation for them all: or was his work designed for
the elect only? Our opponents say the former: we say the latter.
3. We do not inquire whether the death of Christ gives occasion to
the imparting of some blessings even to reprobates. Because it is in
consequence of the death of Christ that the Gospel is preached to all
nations; that the gross idolatry of many heathen nations has been
abolished; that the daring impiety of men is greatly restrained by the
Word of God; that multitudes of the human family obtain many and
excellent blessings; though not saving gifts; of the Holy Spirit. It is
unquestionable that all these flow from the death of Christ; for there
would have been no place for them in the Church; unless Christ had
died. The question is; whether the suretyship and satisfaction of
Christ were; by the will of God and purpose of Christ; destined for
every individual of Adam's posterity; as our opponents teach: or for
the elect only; as we maintain.
We embrace this opinion for the following reasons:
I. The mission and death of Christ are restricted to a limited number
- to his people; his sheep; his friends; his Church; his body: and
nowhere extended to all men severally and collectively. Thus; Christ
"is called Jesus; because he shall save his people from their sins;"
(Matthew 1:21). He is called the Saviour of his body; (Ephesians
5:23). "The good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep;"
(John 10:15); and "for his friends;" (John 15:13). He is said "to die -
that he might gather together in one; the children of God that were
scattered abroad;" (John 11:52). It is said that Christ "hath purchased
the Church [or his flock] with his own blood;" (Acts 20:28:
Ephesians 5:25€"26). If Christ died for every one of Adam's
posterity; why should the Scriptures so often restrict the object of his
death to a few? How could it; with propriety; be said absolutely that
Christ is the Saviour of his people and of his body; if he is the Saviour
of others also? How could it in the same way be said that he laid
down his life for his sheep; for the sons of God; and for the Church;
if; according to the will and purpose of God; he died for others also?
Would this be a greater proof of his love and a firmer ground of
consolation?
To this argument in general it is objected: (1.) "That the Scripture;
which in these passages appears to limit the atonement to a few;
elsewhere extends it to all." This objection is more specious than
solid. The universality alluded to is not absolute; but limited: one
which does not refer to all the individuals of the human family; but
to individuals of all nations: as will be shown at large hereafter. (2.)
Another objection is; "that in the texts quoted above; the satisfaction
is not considered separately; but in connection with its application
which is limited; though the satisfaction separately considered is
universal." To this we reply; that the words and phrases which the
Holy Spirit uses in the texts cited above - such as; "the Saviour;" "to
lay down life for one;" "to give himself for one;" etc.; properly denote
satisfaction; the procuring of salvation. And although they imply the
application of the thing obtained; yet this does not weaken the force
of the argument: because the atonement and its application are
inseparably connected; and are of the same extent: all which will be
proved in the proper place. (3.) Again; it is objected; that "Christ died
absolutely for some and conditionally for others." This; however;
takes for granted what ought to be proved. It is altogether gratuitous
to say that Christ in his death had a two-fold intention: one
conditional; which extended to all: the other absolute; which was
limited to a few. The Scripture nowhere countenances such a
distinction: it always represents the applicationof the atonement as
conditional; but the making of it never. The nature of the thing does
not; indeed; admit of such a distinction: for; according to the
hypothesis of the objectors; there was no consideration of the elect in
the decree according to which Christ died: and they admit that he
died with the same purpose with which the decree was passed: for
the execution must be agreeable to the plan. Christ and the Father
must have precisely the same object in view by his death. They say
that the elect were separated by a posterior decree: but if Christ was
destined to die for all before the elect were separated from the
reprobate; he must have died for the elect and the reprobate in the
same way. God decreed all things by one simple act; though we have
to conceive of the decree by parts: who; then; can believe that in one
simple act; God had two intentions so diverse; not to say contrary;
that in one manner Christ should die for all; and in another for some
only? Nay; since Christ could not will to die absolutely for the elect;
without involving; by the law of contraries; a will not to die for the
reprobate; it is inconceivable how in one act he should will both to
die for the reprobate; and not to die for them. (4.) Another objection
is; that "though these passages speak of the elect; yet they do not
speak of them exclusively of all others: as; when Paul says that Christ
was delivered for him; he does not exclude others." To this I answer;
that though those texts upon which I rely do not explicitly exclude all
others; yet they contain; in their description of those for whom
Christ died; certain circumstances which clearly exclude others.
Though the blessing is promised to the seed of Abraham; without
saying to the seed of Abraham alone; yet it is sufficiently clear that
the blessing was strictly confined to Abraham's seed. The object of
the passages quoted is to illustrate and magnify the love of Christ
towards his sheep for whom he lays down his life: towards his
Church and people for whom he delivered himself up to death. But
how will this exalt the love of Christ towards them; if they have no
prerogative; no claims in his death above the reprobate? Why should
the immense love of Christ; who lays down his life and sheds his
blood; be applied specially to the people of God? The example of Paul
does not strengthen the objection: for the apostle does not speak of
this as a blessing peculiar to himself; but as one common to himself
and the other elect or believers; to whom he proposes himself as an
example; that they might be able to say the same thing of themselves
because they were in the same state.
But there are also particular objections to each of the passages we
have quoted.
To the words of the Evangelist Matthew; it is said; that "though
Christ is called the Saviour of his people; in a peculiar sense; on
account of salvation being actually bestowed upon them; yet there is
no reason why he should not be the Saviour of others also; on
account of having obtained salvation for them; though; in
consequence of their unbelief; they will never be made partakers of
it: and that; in reference to this; Paul says that God is the Saviour of
all men; especially of them that believe;" (1 Timothy 4:10). It is
gratuitous to say that Christ is the Saviour of some; for whom he has
purchased salvation; but to whom it will never be applied. It is to
take for granted what ought to be proved. The very expression; to
save; denotes the actual communication of salvation. Christ is Jesus;
not only because he is willing and able to save; and because he
removes all obstacles out of the way of salvation; but because he does
in reality save his people; both by meritoriously acquiring salvation
for them; and effectually applying it to them. That such was the
intention of God in sending Christ; and the end of his mission; is
clearly intimated by the imposition of the name Jesus by the angel.
The passage quoted from Paul's Epistle to Timothy does not show the
contrary: for the word which is in that passage translated Saviour; in
its most extensive sense denotes Preserver: and when it is said that
he is the Saviour of men; the meaning is that he is the preserver of all
men; that he upholds or preserves them in their present life. It is
taken in a more strict and limited sense when it is applied to
believers; which is denoted by the word especially. In what other
sense than as the upholder of all men; can he be said to be the
Saviour of men who finally perish? To say that Christ; by his death;
intended to save them; will not solve the difficulty; for we do not call
a man a saviour who intends to save another; but him who does it
actually. Now Christ does actually uphold men in this life; for in him
we live; and move; and have our being; (Acts 17:28). In this the
apostle alludes to a passage in the Psalms where God is said to save
man and beast; (Psalm 36:7). Whence Chrysostom; Å'cumenius;
Primasius; and Ambrose say "that he is the Saviour of all in the
present life; but of the faithful only as to eternal life." And Thomas;
"he is the preserver of the present and future life; because he saves
all men with a bodily salvation; and thus he is called the Saviour of
all men: he also saves the righteous with both a bodily and spiritual
salvation; and is hence said to be the Saviour especially of them that
believe."
To the passage from John's Gospel; it is objected; "that those sheep;
for whom Christ is said to have laid down his life; are not said to be
the elect only." The context proves incontrovertibly that it can apply
to none but the elect. Christ is speaking concerning sheep who hear
his voice and follow him; whom he has known and loves intensely;
and whom he must bring into one fold under one shepherd; (John
10:15€"16). Those sheep for whom Christ lays down his life; shall be
put in possession of eternal life; and no man shall be able to pluck
them out of the Father's hand; which things can be affirmed of none
but the elect; who are called sheep; both on account of their eternal
destination to life; and their actual and effectual calling in time. Nor
let it be objected; "that he is said to have laid down his life for his
sheep; because they alone shall enjoy the fruits of his death; whilst
others; on account of their unbelief; receive no benefit from his
expiatory sacrifice. Thus; to die for some; either signifies that death
is suffered simply with an intention to profit some; which is true in
respect of all: or; with an intention that they shall be profited in
reality; which is true in relation to sheep only." For; in answer to this
objection; consider that to lay down life for some; can no more be
referred to the enjoyment of the fruits of Christ's death; than when it
is said; that he gave himself a ransom for all. There is no solid reason
why the former phrase should be referred both to the intention and
to the effect; but the latter restricted to the intention of bestowing
help. It cannot be conceived that there is any difference between
these two. He who dies for any one that he may profit him; intends
that he for whom he dies shall be profited in reality: and he will in
reality profit him if he can. Now; can any one assign a reason why
Christ gains the object which he had in view; as to his sheep; but
misses his aim as to the rest? Equally unsubstantial is the objection;
"that Christ could not lay down his life for his sheep as such:
because; then they would have been his sheep before he died for
them and purchased them for his own: hence; he died for them
merely as sinners; which character belongs to them in common with
others; and that hence he must have laid down his life in this way for
others." To this I reply; that though they were not actually his sheep;
yet they were so by destination. They had been given to Christ to be
purchased and redeemed by him as the good shepherd who must
shed his blood for their redemption. By the decree of God they were
given to him; before they were actually in his hands; (John 17:24).
Nay; the mission of Christ is founded in that donation. "And this is
the Father's will who hath sent me; that of all which he hath given
me I should lose none; but should raise it up again at the last day;"
(John 6:39). Had there not been a fixed number contemplated by
God when he appointed Christ to die; then the effects of Christ's
death would have been uncertain; and the mystery of our
redemption; might have been rendered utterly vain and fruitless; by
the perverseness of man in refusing to accept it.
To Ephesians 5:25 and Titus 2:14; the objection is; that "although
Christ is said to have given himself for his people; for his Church; yet
it is not expressly said that he gave himself for none others." We
answer; that from the expressions used in these passages; and from
the nature of the thing; it is clearly deducible that his offering of
himself was so restricted. Because; the giving of himself; which the
Apostle describes; arises from the love of Christ towards his Church
as his spouse; and such a love necessarily excludes a similar love to
others. In the preceding verse the Apostle gives this commandment;
"Husbands; love your wives." Now; though he does not add; "let your
love of women be confined to your wives;" yet all will acknowledge
that such a restriction is necessarily implied in the Apostle's
command. Who would hear; without indignation; the adulterer plead
thus in vindication of his crime: "It is indeed said; husbands; love
your wives; but it is not said; love those alone!" The giving of himself
which is here attributed to Christ; is one which has for its object the
sanctification of his Church and its salvation: both the procuring and
applying of salvation; which belong to the elect and to the elect only.
Since he delivered himself up for none except for this end; how can
he be said to have delivered himself for those who will not attain that
end?
It is objected to the passages Matthew 20:28: Matthew 26:28: and
Hebrews 9:28; that "many is not opposed to all; but to one or a few;
as is done in Romans 5:19: and Daniel 12:1; and that many is often
put for all." But the "many" of which the apostle and the evangelist
treat; are described by such characters as cannot be applied to all
men of all nations. For; of the many here spoken of; it is said; "that
he gave himself a ransom;" or actually substituted himself in their
room; that he shed his blood for the remission of their sins; and "that
he offered himself to bear their sins;" i.e.; that their sins might be
through his atoning sacrifice really taken away. Though many is
sometimes opposed to one or a few; yet it is not necessary; on that
account; to understand it so in these passages; for it is often used
when all cannot be included. Jerome; in his comment on Matthew
20; says; "The evangelist does not say that Christ gave himself for all;
but for many; i.e.; for all those who would believe;" who are none
other than the elect in whom God works both to will and to do. A
gloss interlined on Jerome's book adds these words; "for many; not
for all: but for those who were predestinated to life."
II. We further argue that the atonement was definite; from the fact
that Christ was destined to die for none but those who were given
him by the Father. All men universally were not given to Christ; but a
limited number only. Since; in the council of the Father which
regulated Christ's death and defined its object; there was a
designation; not only of Christ as Mediator; but also of those for
whose redemption and salvation he was to suffer: it is plain that he
could die for those only who were in this sense given him. Here we
may remark a two-fold donation. One of Christ to men; another of
men to Christ. Christ was given to men for the purpose of saving
them; and men to Christ that through him they might be saved. The
former is referred to in Isaiah 9:6: and Isaiah 49:6; as well as in all
those places in which he is said to be given and sent to us: the latter
is alluded to in the places where mention is made of those given to
Christ; as in John 17:2;6;12: andJohn 6:37. Seeing this two-fold
giving is reciprocal; each of them must be of the same extent: so that
Christ is given for none but those who are given to him; and all those
are given to Christ for whom he is given. Now; it is abundantly plain
that some men only; and not all men; were given to Christ. This is
asserted in many texts of Scripture; where those who are given to
him are distinguished from other men. "Thou hast given him power
over all flesh; that he might give eternal life to as many as thou hast
given him. I have manifested thy name unto the men whom thou
hast given me out of the world: thine they were; and thou gavest
them me;" (John 17:2;6). The Scripture designates those whom the
Father gave him by such phrases as these: the people whom he
foreknew; (Romans 11:2): heirs and children of promise; (Romans
9:8): the seed of Abraham; not carnal; but spiritual; both of the Jews
and Gentiles; (Romans 4:13: Galatians 3:18: Hebrews 2:16): his
people; his body; the Church; (Matthew 1:21: Ephesians 5:23):
vessels of mercy prepared to glory; (Romans 9:24): chosen in Christ;
predestinated to the adoption of sons and to conformity to his image;
(Romans 8:30: Ephesians 1:4€"5): and the posterity of the second
Adam; all of whom are to be quickened in Christ; in opposition to the
posterity of the first Adam; in whom all die; (1 Corinthians
15:22€"23). From all which it appears; that Christ was not given for
all of all nations; but for a limited number only.
To no purpose will our opponents reply; that "the giving of Christ
was conditional; not absolute: that the condition was that all who
would by faith receive the offered salvation; should be made
partakers of it: and since this was not to be the case with all; it is not
surprising that they derive no advantage from it." This is a begging of
the question: it is without foundation in Scripture; which nowhere
mentions such a conditional giving of Christ. Though faith is
proposed as a means and condition necessary to the reception of
Christ; and the enjoyment of the blessings offered in the Gospel; yet
it does not follow that it was a condition to the giving of Christ; since
faith itself is a gift of grace and one of the fruits of Christ's being
delivered up for sinners. Further; if the giving of Christ rested upon
any condition; the condition must depend either upon God or upon
man. The latter of these can be affirmed by none but a Pelagian: if
the former be affirmed; then it comes to this; that Christ is said to be
given to us as a Saviour by God on these terms; that he will bestow
him on us on condition of his working faith in us: which faith;
however; he will not give; though he alone is able to give it. How
glaring an absurdity!
Our view is further confirmed by the connection of that two-fold
relation to us; which Christ sustains: the relation of a Surety; and
that of a Head. He is our surety; that he may acquire salvation for us;
by rendering to justice that satisfaction which it demands. He is our
head; in order to apply this salvation to us; by working in us faith
and repentance; through the effectual operation of his Holy Spirit
upon our hearts. Hence; as he is not given as a head to all men; but
to his members only; or; which is the same thing; to the elect; who
are actually to partake of salvation; he cannot be the surety or
sponsor of any other than these. Of whomsoever he is the surety; he
is also the head. The one cannot be extended farther than the other.
This also appears from the connection between the death and
resurrection of Christ; in which there is the same two-fold relation.
Since he died as surety; he must rise as head; as the reasons for his
death and resurrection are the same: nor can any reason be given;
why the ground of the one should be more extensive than that of the
other. Hence it is; that the Apostle Paul speaks of these as being
equal in efficacy and extent: "Christ died for our sins; and rose again
for our justification;" (Romans 4:25); "That he died for all; that they
which live; should not live unto themselves; but unto him who died
for them; and rose again;" (2 Corinthians 4:15). Hence it cannot be
said that he died for any others than those for whom he rose; because
no one will be a partaker of the fruits of Christ's death; unless by his
resurrection. But that he did not rise as a head to confer salvation
upon all; is self-evident.
III. The same doctrine is established by the connection between the
atonement and the intercession of Christ. As they are both parts of
his priestly office; they must be of the same extent: so that for all for
whom he made satisfaction; he should also intercede; and not make
atonement for those who will never have a place in his intercession.
The object of his propitiation and of his appearance in the presence
of God must be one; since the Apostles Paul and John represent their
connection as indissoluble; (1 John 2:1€"2: Romans 8:34). That he
does not intercede for all; but only for those who are given him by
the Father; Christ himself expressly declares: "I pray not for the
world; but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world;"
(John 17:9). When it is so much more easy to pray for any one than
to lay down life for them; will any one say that Christ would die for
those for whom he would not pray? Will they say that at the very
moment before his death he would refuse his prayers on behalf of
those for whom he is just about to shed his blood?
The objection which the Remonstrants or Arminians offer is
frivolous: "that there is a two-fold intercession of Christ: one
universal; which is made for the whole world; of which intercession
Isaiah speaks; (Isaiah 53:12); and agreeably to which he is said to
have prayed for his murderers; (Luke 23:34): another particular;
which is made for believers only; which is spoken of in John 9 and
Romans 8." The objection rests not on any foundation; either in
Scripture or reason. As Christ is always heard and answered by the
Father; (John 11:42); if he prays for all; all will be saved. The
doctrine of universal intercession is not taught by the Prophet Isaiah;
where he says; "he made intercession for the transgressors;" (Isaiah
53:12); for it is not said that he made intercession for all; but for
many whose character is delineated by the prophet; in a preceding
verse; as those who shall be justified by Christ. It is not said; Luke
23:34; that he prayed for all those who crucified him; but for those
who knew not what they did: and we are assured that these obtained
pardon; no doubt the fruit of the prayer which Christ offered up on
the cross to the Father; (Acts 2; 3). Nor if Christ; through the impulse
of humane affections of love; prayed for those who perished; is it to
be considered that the intercessory prayers; which he offered as
Mediator and in the discharge of his special office; are to be extended
to others than the elect given him by the Father. To the elect Christ
himself restricts his intercessory prayers.
This argument will not be weakened by objecting that it is the world
of unbelievers only; who are excluded from the prayers of Christ;
those who are guilty of rejecting the Gospel; and hate believers;
(John 17:14); but not the world chosen by God; for the redemption of
which he has sent his Son; (John 3:16). The object of Christ's
intercessory prayers is to obtain for believers perseverance in grace.
The world; for which Christ says he does not pray; is opposed to
those given him by his Father in the decree of election: the world;
then; of which he speaks must embrace all the reprobate who were
not given to Christ; and this antecedently to their rejection of the
offered salvation. They were passed by as sinners; whether their sins
were want of faith in the Gospel; or merely violations of the law of
nature. As the act of God by which he chose to pass by a certain
number of men and not appoint them to salvation; was done from
eternity; there never existed a period when they; the world for whom
Christ does not pray; were viewed in any other light; than as
excluded from the benefits of his mediation and intercession. It
forms no objection to this; that God is said "to have so loved the
world; that he gave his only-begotten Son; that whosoever believeth
on him should not perish:" because; as will be made to appear in the
proper place; this does not extend to all men of all nations; but to the
elect of every nation. Though he prays for the apostles who were then
believers; and asks for them perseverance; yet it does not follow that
he prays for them as believers only; and in consequence of their
faith: for Christ; (John 17:19;23); prays for all who should afterwards
believe; "That they may be sanctified through the truth and made
perfect in one." Now; as this sanctification and attainment to
perfection could not be effected without the instrumentality of faith;
Christ must have prayed for faith to be given them. Hence; even that
faith by which the Gospel is embraced; is given to believers in
consequence of Christ's intercessory prayers. Further; as Christ
declares that he sanctifies himself for those who are the objects of
that intercessory prayer; that they may be sanctified through the
truth: and as none are thus sanctified but the elect; the conclusion is
irresistible; that Christ's intercessory prayers are extended to the
elect only; those who shall be saved with an everlasting salvation.
IV. The inseparable connection between the gift of Christ and the gift
of the Holy Spirit bears testimony the most conclusive to the definite
atonement. As these two gifts; the most excellent which God has
bestowed on us; are always in Scripture joined together as cause and
effect; (John 16:7: Galatians 4:4;6: Romans 8:9: 1 John 3:24); they
must be of equal extent and go together: so that the Son is not given
to acquire salvation for any others than those to whom the Spirit was
given to apply the salvation procured. No reason can be assigned why
the gift of the Son should be more extensive than the gift of the Holy
Spirit. It is plain that the Holy Spirit is given to none but the elect.
Hence; if there be any harmony between the work of the Son and
that of the Holy Spirit; in the economy of salvation; Christ was given
to die for the elect; and for them only. Pertinent to this purpose is the
argument of the Apostle Paul; in which; from the giving of Christ; he
infers the communication of every blessing. "He that spared not his
own Son; but freely delivered him up for us all; how shall he not with
him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8:32). The apostle
reasons from the greater to the less. Surely he who gave his Son;
which incontrovertibly was the greater gift; will not refuse to give us
faith and all other saving blessings; which are the less: and this the
rather; because; as we shall presently prove; Christ; by delivering
himself up; has merited for us; together with salvation; all those
gifts. Whence the conclusion is inevitable: either all those blessings
shall be given to the reprobate; if Christ died for them: or if they are
not given them; which is granted by all; then Christ did not die for
them; i.e.; he did not die for all. This is not answered by alleging that
the apostle speaks of Christ's being given in a special manner to the
believers. For; as was said above; the supposition of a universal
giving is gratuitous; and nowhere countenanced in Scripture: and
since faith is a fruit of Christ's death; it cannot be a condition
antecedent to his death. Further; since; according to the order which
is laid down by our learned opponents themselves; the decree
concerning Christ's death was antecedent to the decree relative to
bestowing faith: it is inconceivable how at one and the same time;
and in the self-same simple act; Christ could be delivered up for all;
and for some only.
V. Another argument is; the superlative love of Christ towards those
for whom he died. He loved them with the most ardent affection.
Greater love has no one; than that one should lay down his life for his
friend; (John 15:13). In the same exalted strain does the Apostle Paul
extol the love of Christ: - he speaks of it as truly wonderful and
unheard of among men. "Scarcely for a righteous man will one die;
yet peradventure for a good man some would dare even to die. But
God commendeth his love towards us; in that; while we were yet
sinners; Christ died for us;" (Romans 5:7€"8). But this cannot be
said of all men; and every man: for I presume that all men are
agreed; that Christ loved Peter more than Judas. It is inconceivable
how Christ could love with ineffable ardour of affection those whom;
as an inexorable judge; he had already consigned; or had resolved by
an irrevocable decree to consign; to mansions of endless woe and
despair. It cannot with any colour of propriety be said that Christ and
his apostle are treating of external acts of love. For; besides that
external acts of love presuppose those which are internal: if Christ
exercises to each and to all external acts of love so great that none
can be greater; it follows that he has done; and still does so much for
those who perish; that it is impossible for him to do more for the
elect who shall be saved: than which nothing can be more absurd.
Nor; if he loves some of the elect more than others; so far as regards
the internal gifts of his Spirit; a diversity of which is necessary to the
perfection of his mystical body; does it follow from this; that the
disposition of his soul towards each of them as to the promotion of
their good; is not supremely tender and affectionate.
VI. The same doctrine is inferred from the nature of Christ's
suretyship. For it imports the substitution of Christ in our room; so
that he died not only for our good; but in our place; as was said
before; and proved against the disciples of Socinus. Hence; from the
nature of his suretyship; he must assume to himself all the debt of
those whose persons he sustains: and liquidate it as perfectly as if
they themselves had done it in their own persons. Can it be
conceived that those for whom he died and satisfied in this manner;
may yet be subjected to eternal vengeance; and bound to suffer again
deserved punishment? This question must be answered in the
affirmative by all those who assert that Christ died for many who
shall not be saved by his death: and yet to say so is to impeach the
justice and veracity of God. For if; in consequence of his suretyship;
the debt has been transferred to Christ and by him discharged; every
one must see that it has been taken away from the primary debtors;
so that payment cannot be demanded from them. They must forever
afterwards remain free; absolved from all obligation to punishment.
Pertinent to this purpose are all those passages of Scripture which
assert that our sins were so laid upon Christ; that the chastisement of
our peace was upon him; and that by his stripes we are healed;
(Isaiah 53:5€"6); and those which declare that he was made a curse
for us that we might be made the righteousness and blessing of God
in him; (2 Corinthians 5:21: Galatians 3:13).
VII. Christ died for those only for whom he procured and to whom he
applies salvation. As he procured and applies salvation to the elect
only; hence for them only he died. That Christ did not die for any but
those for whom he procured salvation; and to whom he will apply it;
appears; first; from the divinely appointed object of his death; which
was to procure salvation for us: and; secondly; from the fact that the
procuring cannot be separated from the application: what other end
can there be in procuring a thing; but that it may be applied? A thing
is procured in vain; which is never applied. Hence it follows; that if
salvation is procured for all; it will and must be applied to all. If it be
not applied to all; but to the elect only; then it was not procured for
all; but for the elect only. In vain it is objected; "that Christ's death
was not intended so much to procure salvation; as to remove all the
obstacles which justice threw in the way to prevent God from
thinking of our salvation." From this view of the subject; Christ
rather procured for us the possibility of being saved than salvation
itself; and placed it in the power of the Father to enter into a new
covenant with man: an Arminian error long since condemned by the
Synod of Dort as an injury to Christ's cross and to the efficacy of his
mediation. How can Christ be said to have given himself a ransom; a
price of redemption for us; to obtain for us eternal salvation; to
redeem us from all iniquity; and other things of the same kind; which
denote not the possibility; but actual procuring of salvation; if; after
all; he only rendered it possible that we might be saved?
Another objection equally futile is; that "redemption was procured
for all with a design that it should be applied to all; provided they
would not reject it." This cannot be asserted with respect to an
innumerable number; to whom Christ has never been offered; and
who do not know him even in name. If it be alleged that Christ
proposed to himself an object so vain and fruitless as a thing which
was never to happen; and which could not happen without his gift;
which he determined not to give; what an indignity is offered to his
wisdom! It represents Christ as saying; I wish to obtain salvation for
all; to the end that it may be applied to them; will they but believe:
however; I am resolved not to reveal this redemption to all; and to
refuse to innumerable multitudes to whom it is revealed; that
condition which is the only means by which it can be applied to
them. Shall men make the infinitely wise and holy Jesus say; I desire
that to come to pass; which I know neither will nor can take place:
and I am even unwilling that it should; for I refuse to communicate
the only means by which it can ever be brought to pass; and the
granting of this means depends upon myself alone? What a shameful
indignity does this offer to the wisdom of Immanuel! It would be an
insult to the understanding of frail man. Nor will the matter be
amended by saying that the failure of the application is not to be
attributed to Christ; but to the wickedness and unbelief of man. This
is not less injurious to the honour of Christ; for it represents him
either as not foreseeing; or as not capable of preventing those
impediments; which obstruct the application of the salvation he
obtained; and thus make it fruitless. They indeed allege that it was
not in vain; though it fails of success: because; however men treat the
salvation offered them; Christ will not miss the prime object which
he had in view in his death: that is; to provide pardon and salvation
for every man if he will only believe and repent - a thing which before
was prevented by the inexorable rigour of divine justice. All this does
not remove the absurdity. The object in procuring salvation could be
none other than its application: and it cannot but be in vain; if it fails
to accomplish this object. Christ needed to die for men; not to
procure for them pardon and salvation under a condition which it is
impossible for them to comply with; but to obtain for them actual
pardon and redemption.
This is confirmed from the manner in which Christ procured
salvation: for if the procuring extended to all; it must be either
absolute or conditional. The former will not be asserted; for then all
men; universally; would be saved. The latter is equally inadmissible:
for; 1st: What is procured conditionally; is not; properly speaking;
procured at all; but only a mere possibility of its being procured;
provided the condition is complied with. 2nd: Christ has procured
the condition itself either for all; or for some only. If he has acquired
the condition for all; then all will assuredly be saved: for this
condition could be obtained for them in no other way than
absolutely: unless; indeed; they would say that there is a condition of
a condition; which is absurd; as tending to stretch out into an endless
chain of conditions: yet even then all these conditional conditions
will be; on the present supposition; purchased by Christ. If the
condition; by which the salvation is to be obtained; has been
procured for some only; then the salvation has not been fully
procured for all. The procuring has been partial and defective in the
most essential point. In this view; vain and delusive has been the act
by which salvation is said to have been provided: for the condition
annexed to it is one with which the sinner is utterly unable to
comply; which will never be performed; and which God not only
foresaw would never be complied with; but also decreed not to give
the power to fulfil; while he alone is able to give it. Finally; this
subterfuge represents Christ as having had a double intention in his
atonement: one conditional; in favour of all: the other absolute; in
favour of the elect: a representation unsupported by revelation; and
irreconcilable with the unity and simplicity of the decree which
appointed the death of Christ.
VIII. Another argument is found in the fact that Christ did not
purchase faith for all men. Christ suffered death for those only; for
whom he merited salvation; and with salvation all the means
necessary to put them in possession of it; especially faith and
repentance; and the Holy Spirit; the author of both: without which
salvation is unattainable. That he purchased faith; repentance; and
the graces of the Holy Spirit; for all men universally; cannot be said:
for then all men would necessarily be saved by his death. He
procured them for the elect only: therefore for the elect only he died.
This argument is irresistible; unless it is denied that Christ
purchased those means of salvation. But that Christ purchased faith
for man; is proved by abundant scriptural testimony. 1. He is said to
be; (Hebrews 12:2: Acts 5:31); "the author and finisher of our faith."
If he is the author of our faith; he must be its purchaser; for he
bestows nothing on us; which he has not procured for us by his
merits. 2. Christ is the meritorious cause of salvation. To him and his
merits we are therefore indebted for every part of it; for everything
which contributes to our salvation. But faith and spiritual life which
he works and implants in us; are the chief part of our salvation. 3.
Christ is the cause and foundation of all spiritual blessings;
(Ephesians 1:3): "Who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in
Christ." And of these faith is one of the greatest. Hence it is
elsewhere said; (Philippians 1:29); "It is given you on the part of
Christ not only to believe on him; but also to suffer for his sake." In
what other sense can faith be said to be given us for Christ's sake; but
because he purchased it for us? 4. Christ promised to send the Spirit:
who therefore is poured out or distributed by him. Hence the Spirit is
spoken of as one of the fruits of Christ's death; (John 16:7). All the
gifts of the Spirit; especially faith; are therefore the fruits of Christ's
purchase. Here we are not to distinguish between the Spirit as
sanctifying and comforting; and the Spirit as imparting spiritual
illumination: as if Christ had merited the former only; and not the
latter. For as all the graces of the heart proceed from the same Spirit;
he who acquired for us the Spirit; the author of these graces; must
also have acquired with him all his gifts: and as faith is the principle
and root of our sanctification; he who purchased the Spirit who
sanctifies; must also have purchased "faith; which purifieth the
heart." 5. Christ could not be a full and perfect Saviour; unless he had
procured for us faith; without which it is impossible to be made
partakers of salvation. This doctrine has been uniformly taught in the
Reformed Church. They maintained that Christ had not less
procured for us faith; than salvation; and that he is the cause of all
the gifts which the Father bestows upon us. Hence the venerable
divines of the Synod of Dort; in their exhibition of the doctrines of
truth; say; (Thesis 8); "Christ; by his death; purchased for us faith
and all the other saving graces of the Spirit." And to the same
purpose; in their "Rejection of Errors;" (Thesis 3) they condemn
"those who teach that Christ; by his satisfaction; did not merit
salvation for any definite number; and also that faith by which his
satisfaction is efficaciously applied for salvation; but that he
purchased no more than a power and entire willingness for the
Father to enter into a new covenant with man; and to prescribe
whatever conditions he might think fit: compliance with which
conditions depended upon the free will of man: so that either all; or
none might fulfil them. Such teachers think too meanly of the death
of Christ; are ignorant of its glorious fruits and blessings; and recall
from hell the Pelagian heresy."
It is a vain distinction which some make here respecting the decree.
They say that "we must distinguish between the decree to deliver
Christ up to death;" and his death itself; which took place in time:
that "the decree to deliver Christ up to die for sinners was antecedent
to the election of a definite number; but his death procured the
decree of special election." Amyraut; (De Prædesti; page 77);
speaking of Christ's death in time; says; "Redemption ought to be
equal; that it may respect all; as the creatures of God equally sinful;"
etc. He elsewhere says; that "the nature of the thing proves this; for
seeing the affection of the Son must be the same with that of the
Father for all men as his children: so the death of Christ in time;
must be conformed to the eternal decree of the Father; as he would
not make an atonement; unless according to the command of his
Father. Therefore; since the decree of the Father respecting Christ's
death proceeded from equal fatherly affection towards all; before any
were elected to faith: Christ; in his death; could have no other end
and intention than to execute his counsel." Even in this view of the
subject; Christ; in his death; must have considered some as elect;
and others as reprobate: for since there can be no election without
reprobation; it was impossible for Christ to think of some as elected;
without; at the same time; viewing others as passed by or
reprobated. If; then; he willed to die for those whom he knew to have
been elected; and that with a special affection for them as elected
ones: he must; according to Amyraut; have been willing to die with
the same affection for those whom he knew to be reprobates; and
that as reprobates: for Amyraut says; "he died to fulfil the decree of
the Father; which proceeded from an equal love to all." Hence; this
monstrous absurdity will follow; that Christ; out of the most ardent
affection for those who he knew would never be saved; died with an
intention and desire to save them: while both he and his Father had
decreed that they should not be saved! It will not avail to free our
opponents from this absurdity; to say; that he did not die for the
reprobate formally as reprobate; but that he died for those as men;
who at another time had been passed by; and thus excluded from
salvation. Besides that; it is inconceivable how such abstractions can
belong to a unique and simple decree: it would follow that Christ did
not die for the elect as such. Here we reason by the rule of contraries.
If Christ did not die for the reprobate as reprobate; we infer the same
with respect to the elect. It appears inexplicable how Christ; in his
death; could have respect to a first and a fourth decree; respecting
the elect - that is; should have died for them; considered formally as
elect; and materially as men: while as to the reprobate; he dealt
abstractly; and viewed them only as men; and not as reprobate. For
election and reprobation go hand in hand; and mutually imply each
other.
But certain learned men; being aware that their hypothesis; which
makes faith no fruit of Christ's death; but a gift of the Father; leads to
great absurdities; offers indignity to Christ; and is injurious to
salvation; have invented some other curious; intricate distinctions to
escape these difficulties. Sometimes they teach; "that Christ did
procure faith and repentance for all: conditionally; however." Again
they say; "that he did not procure them in the way of satisfaction or
meritoriously: but in the way of final cause; that faith might be given
to the elect to bring them to Christ." But neither of these can be
affirmed with truth. The former supposition is inadmissible: for how
could faith be procured for us conditionally; when it is itself a
condition? Although faith is usually represented as a condition;
required to interest us in Christ: yet it is also held forth as one of the
blessings of the new covenant; a blessing which Christ has purchased
for us. Whence Christ is to be viewed as having procured for us not
only salvation if we believe; but also faith that we may believe. The
latter supposition is equally without foundation. In the schools of
theology; no one ever before heard of a procuring; in the way of final
cause; and not in the way of meritorious cause or satisfaction. The
procuring of salvation and all things connected with it; is founded in
the atonement and merits of the person who procures it. Then; if
Christ did not procure for us faith in the way of meritorious cause; he
did not merit faith. It cannot be said that Christ; in the way of final
cause; procured faith for a limited number: for; on the hypothesis of
those who make this distinction; there were none elected when God
decreed that procurement; which Christ was to effect by his death.
Again; either faith was procured in the way of final cause; for all
those for whom salvation has been procured; or it was not. If the
former be said; then; as they maintain that salvation has been
procured for all; all will be saved. If the latter be said; then to what
purpose has salvation been procured by the atonement for those who
have not had procured for them; in the way of final cause; that faith;
without which; they can never be made partakers of the salvation?
Again; faith has been procured either for all in the way of final cause;
or for the elect only. If for all; then all shall obtain it; which our
opponents do not maintain. If for the elect only; then Christ; in and
by his death; must have done more for the elect than for those who
were not elected: while yet our opponents declare that; in passing the
decree that Christ should die; which decree appointed and defined
the objects of his death; God respected all men equally. Thus; in
whatever light we examine this hypothesis; contradictions and
absurdities grow out of it. Faith has been equally procured for all; but
all will not be made partakers of it: or if it has not been procured for
all; how vain and delusive is that procuring of salvation; which is
made only on the condition of faith; which he; who procured the
salvation; knew it was morally impossible for the sinner to exercise;
without special grace: and yet God; who alone can; has refused to
give it! Hence; then; we arrive at this conclusion: either faith is
completely in the power of the natural man; as Pelagius held; or it
must have been procured by Christ in the atonement; and in
consequence thereof given us by the Father.
To free themselves from all these difficulties; our adversaries
sometimes attempt to illustrate their view of the subject; by a
comparison instituted between Christ; and a prince who pays the
price of redemption for all his subjects; who are taken captive by the
enemy: though he does not effect by it the liberation of all: because
some of them are unwilling to be set free. This comparison fails in
one all-important circumstance. The prince is not able to give to
those captives; who choose to remain in bondage; the will to avail
themselves of the price of redemption; which has been paid. But
Christ is able. Were there a prince; who could not only pay the
ransom for his captive subjects; but could also give them the will to
avail themselves of it: nay; further; suppose that the prince knew that
they had not and could not have this will unless he bestowed it upon
them; which he yet would not do: could any one say; that he really
wished them to be liberated; and had paid the ransom with a serious
intention to emancipate them? Again; if this comparison be urged;
its force may be easily retorted. The corporeal liberation of a captive
cannot be effected by the mere payment of a ransom: the chains and
fetters which bind him in the prison must be broken asunder;
otherwise the payment of the ransom will be ineffectual. In the same
manner; in order to emancipate the soul from the spiritual bondage
of sin; it is not enough that a ransom is paid to justice: the chains of
sin and unbelief; which bind the prisoner so that he is both unable
and unwilling to enjoy his liberty; must be burst asunder by the hand
of the Almighty.
IX. Again; if Christ died for all; then he made expiation for all their
sins. He therefore must have made atonement for the sins of unbelief
and final impenitence; which prevent man from applying to himself
the redemption provided for him: and thus they will no longer stand
in the way of such an application: for on the supposition of
satisfaction having been made for them; they must be pardoned. To
this it cannot rationally be objected; that the blessing will be applied;
if the condition on which redemption has been procured be complied
with. It implies a contradiction to talk of the condition's being
complied with; when the unbelief and impenitence are supposed to
be final. It is as absurd to pretend that Christ died to atone for man's
unbelief; provided he would not be unbelieving; but believe: as to say
I have found out an infallible remedy for the healing of a blind or
leprous man which shall be applied on this condition; that he will not
be blind nor leprous. Further; a failure in fulfilling the condition
cannot prevent the application of redemption to unbelievers: for it is
supposed that Christ by his death has made satisfaction for unbelief;
and thus has atoned for this very failure. But; since every one must
see that this cannot be affirmed of those who will not be saved; or of
the reprobate: the conclusion is irresistible; that Christ did not die
for them
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2024 23:35:41 GMT -5
X. The last argument on this subject is; the absurdities that flow from
the doctrine of universal atonement. If Christ died for all men
universally; it will follow: -
1. That he died; on condition they would
believe; for multitudes innumerable; to whom his death has never
been made known: and hence it was impossible that they could
believe.
2. That he died for those whom he knew to be children of
perdition; whom God had passed by; and who would never; to all
eternity; enjoy any of the fruits of his death: and so exercised
ineffable love towards those whom both he and the Father will cause
to suffer eternally under the effects of their wrath.
3. That he died for those; who previously to his death were actually condemned without
all hope of reprieve; and were in hell suffering his avenging wrath;
and that as their surety he suffered punishment in the place of those
who were suffering punishment for themselves; and must suffer it
without end.
4. That Christ is the Saviour and Redeemer of those
who not only never will be; but never can be saved or redeemed. Or
otherwise he must be an imperfect Saviour; having obtained a
salvation which he never applies: for he indeed cannot be properly
called a Saviour of any but those whom he makes to be partakers of
salvation; and who are actually saved.
I proceed to answer objections. Christ is nowhere in Scripture said to
have died for all; unless some limitation is added: from which it may
be inferred that these Scriptures do not teach that he suffered for all
men of all nations; but that the object of his death is restricted
according to circumstances. Sometimes it is limited to the multitude
of the elect; which has a universality peculiar to itself. When it is
said; (2 Corinthians 5:15); "that Christ died for all;" it is not to be
understood of all those "who are dead" in sin: for the object of the
Apostle; in this chapter; is not to demonstrate the general depravity
of men; but to show how great the obligations are which bind
believers to the performance of duty; both on account of their
justification through the imputation of the merits of Christ's death;
which delivers them as fully as if they had made satisfaction in their
own persons: and on account of their sanctification through the
crucifixion of the old man with his affections and lusts; by the
efficacy of the cross of Christ. Those are understood; who live not
unto themselves; but unto Christ: for whom Christ not only died; but
also rose again: and whom the love of Christ constraineth. These
phrases limit the all of the Apostle. As if the Apostle had said; Christ
died for all who are described by these characteristics. They agree to
none but the elect; to whom alone it belongs to die in Christ; and
with him; as the Apostle elsewhere declares; (Romans 6:6;8). When
the Apostle; in 2 Corinthians 5:19; says; "that God was in Christ
reconciling the world to himself; not imputing their trespasses to
them;" he must be understood as treating of the world of those
actually reconciled; "to whom he does not impute their sins." It is
plain that this agrees to none but to the elect. To all others he does
impute the sins which they commit. The Psalmist says; (Psalm
32:1€"2); they are blessed to whom the Lord does not impute sin.
Surely this cannot be affirmed of those who will never be saved. In
the sense in which the Psalmist speaks; and in which the Apostle
speaks in Romans 6; we are to understand the words of the Apostle
found in Romans 5:18€"19: "By the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men to justification of life: for as by one man's
disobedience many were made sinners: so by the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous." The all men who receive
"justification of life;" are those; "who receive abundance of grace and
of the gift of righteousness:" and they can be none other than those
who are actually justified. Who are they that actually obtain
justification? They are believers; and believers alone: the elect; and
the elect alone; who belong to the body of Christ; which is composed
of all its members; and who are the all of which the apostle speaks.
As Adam is opposed to Christ; Head to Head: as sin and death have
passed upon all who descend from Adam: in like manner; all who
pertain to Christ the second Adam obtain justification and life. The
apostle elsewhere expresses this by the phrases dying; and being
made alive; (1 Corinthians 15:22). "As in Adam all die:" that is; as all
who die; die in Adam; and on account of his sin: "so in Christ shall all
be made alive:" that is; all who will be "made alive" in grace and
glory; will be made alive in Christ and on his account. All those for
whom Christ is said; (Hebrews 2:9: Romans 10:11); to have "tasted
death;" are sons; who are either brought or to be brought to glory;
the captain of whose salvation is Christ; whom Christ calls brethren;
and whom God has given him. Will any one say that all these things
can be affirmed of the reprobate? When the objector is prepared to
say so; then; and not till then; let him quote this text; in proof of
universal atonement.
Sometimes the sacred writers use the word all to exclude all
distinctions of nation; age; sex; condition; character; and other
particulars; by which men are distinguished from one another: and
not with a view to comprehend every individual. Thus Paul says; "For
the Scripture saith; whosoever believeth on him shall not be
ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and Greek: for
the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him;" (Hebrews
2:9: Romans 10:11). To the same effect he speaks elsewhere. "In him
there is neither Jew nor Greek; circumcision nor uncircumcision;
barbarian; Scythian; bond nor free: but Christ is all; and in all;"
(Colossians 3:11). As if the apostle should say; no difference of nation
or condition; either promotes or hinders salvation: but Christ is all;
i.e.; bestows all things necessary for salvation upon all who believe;
without any regard to nation or condition. This is explained by John
in the Apocalypse: "And they sung a new song; saying; Thou art
worthy to take the book; and open the seals thereof: for thou wast
slain; and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood; out of every
kindred; and tongue; and people; and nation;" (Revelation 5:9). That
is; from all the tribes of Israel; and from men of all nations; whether
civilized or barbarous; hast thou redeemed us.
The passage so often in the mouths of our opponents; (1 Timothy
2:6); "Who gave himself a ransom for all; to be testified in due time;"
teaches the doctrine which is illustrated in the foregoing section; and
none other: 1. The all here spoken of; are those in whose place Christ
substituted himself to bear their punishment and to pay the price of
their redemption. This is the import of the word αντιλυτρον; as all
the orthodox have maintained against Socinus and his disciples. This
he cannot be said to have done for all: for then none could be
condemned to suffer for his own sins. 2. Paul speaks of all those for
whom Christ is Mediator by intercession as well as by satisfaction;
for we have shown above that these two functions of his priestly
office are inseparable. But the Arminians themselves admit that
Christ does not intercede for all men. 3. The objects of the apostle's
discourse are such as God "wills to be saved and to come to the
knowledge of the truth." Experience teaches us that he does not so
will with respect to all men universally. This we have proved at large
under a former head; where the subject of God's desire to save all
men is minutely examined.
We there remarked; that if God desires to save men who are not
saved; his power must be limited; and who will dare say so? Besides;
can we conceive that a being desires to accomplish an object and is
unable to effect it; without also conceiving that being to be in some
measure unhappy? At least we must suppose he would have been
more happy had he gained his object: and who will dare to attribute
imperfection of happiness to God? Doubtless he who asserts that
God earnestly desires the salvation of those whom he cannot save;
must assert; that he is deficient both in power and happiness.
Further; if there are men whom God desires to save and cannot; his
not being able to effect their salvation must proceed from one of two
causes: either the impossibility of making an atonement for their
sins: or the obstinacy of their depravity is so great that he cannot
vanquish it. The former of these cannot be said by our adversaries;
for they assert that Christ made atonement for the sins of all men
without any exception. The latter ground is untenable. From the
great transgressors who have been made illustrious trophies of
divine grace; we may and do safely conclude that the greatest and
most obdurate sinners are equally; with the least guilty; in the power
of grace. If sin be in some instances so potent as to be beyond the
power of God to arrest and destroy it: who can say but that sin may
so fortify itself in the dominions of God as to brave the utmost power
of Jehovah's arm; and extend its ravages even to the throne of God?
Hence the word all; used by the apostle in his letter to Timothy; must
be understood in a restricted sense. That it is in some measure
restricted must be admitted: for otherwise it would embrace fallen
angels. How do we know that it does not extend to them? The
Scripture assures us that he took not on him the nature of angels;
and that there is no redemption for them. In the same way we learn
from other portions of Scripture; which we have before adduced; that
Christ did not die for all the posterity of Adam: without any exception.
The apostle is here; (1 Timothy 2:6);to be understood as speaking of
individuals of all nations; and not of all the individuals of every
nation. Beza translates τους παντας, by a Latin word which signifies
all kinds; some of all nations; states; and conditions. That this is the
true sense of the phrase Calvin has proved by very solid reasoning.
"The apostle simply means that no nation or order of men is
excluded from salvation; which God offers to all without exception
who hear the Gospel." "The universality here mentioned must be
referred to kinds of men; and not to persons: as if he had said; not to
Jews only; but Gentiles also: not peasants only; but princes too; are
redeemed by Christ."
The world; for which Christ is said by the Evangelist John; (John
3:16"17: 4:42: 6:33); to have died; and to which he was sent; cannot
be extended without limitation to the whole human family: for
innumerable multitudes of the world which it composes; perish: but
it denotes; either the universality of the elect; or some of all people
indiscriminately; Jews and Gentiles. The evangelist alludes to the
promise made to Abraham; that "in his seed [i.e.; Christ] all families
of the earth should be blessed;" (Genesis 12:3: 22:18: 26:4). In this
promise given to the ancient patriarch; there are blessings held out
to all nations; who have Abraham for their father; (Romans 4:16).
But this blessing belongs; not to all men universally; who are in the
world; but to all the promised seed; without distinction of nation: as
appears both from this; that all are not justified and saved by faith;
which is the condition of the promise; as its blessing is explained by
Paul; (Galatians 3:8;16): and that the same apostle limits it to those
who are the seed of Abraham through faith; (Romans 4:16). Again;
the apostle quotes this passage from Genesis; "In Isaac shall thy seed
be called;" (Romans 9:7); and thus limits the promise to a definite
number. Hence the world for whom Christ gave his flesh to death;
(John 6:5); is none other than the world to which he is said; (John
6:33); to give life. "The bread of God is he which cometh down from
heaven; and giveth life to the world;" which cannot extend to the
whole human family. For the giving of life imports its application and
communication: which belong to the elect only. It is in this sense that
Christ says he gives life to his sheep; (John 10:28). It is absurd to say
that life is given to one when it is only obtained for him or offered to
him; but never actually imparted. When Christ is said to be the
"Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world;" (John 1:29); the
elect world is meant. The word which is here translated
"taketh away;" signifies to remove entirely. How can Christ be said to
remove entirely the sins of the reprobate; which remain against them
for condemnation? No other world can be meant in these passages
but the world of the elect; made up out of Jews and Gentiles; without
regard to nation or condition: the world of those whose sins Christ is
said to have borne in his own body on the tree; that they; being dead
to sin; might live unto righteousness; (1 Peter 2:24); and who are
said to be blessed; on account of the taking away of their sins; (Psalm
32:1).
When it is said that "Christ is a propitiation for our sins; and not for
ours only; but for the sins of the whole world;" it is not meant to
extend the propitiation to all collectively and severally; but to those
only who can comfort themselves by the intercession of Christ; and
the pardon which they have obtained through him. They are the elect
only. Christ is a propitiation for those alone; whose cause he pleads
as intercessor with the Father: for these are joined together by the
apostle as equal and inseparable. Our learned opponents confess; in
their explanation of John 17:9; that Christ is not an advocate for all.
Besides; the Father must be actually propitiated and reconciled to all
those for whom Christ made propitiation; unless we maintain that
Christ missed his aim and shed his blood in vain; contrary to the
apostle's assertion that no one for whom Christ died can be
condemned; (Romans 8:34); which plainly cannot be said of those
who are shut out from the covenant and have the wrath of God
abiding upon them. Finally; the scope of the apostle; which is; to
comfort believers against the remains of sin; proves that he does not
intend every one of the posterity of Adam. For what comfort can a
believer take from that grace which is common to the elect and the
reprobate? What comfort if he knows that Christ in his death has
done nothing more for him than for unbelievers? Therefore; the
phrase of John has respect not to all men of all nations; but to the
believing inhabitants of the whole world: or; as Calvin says; "the sons
of God dispersed through the whole world." Lest any one should
think that the blessing of Christ's atonement was confined to the
apostles alone; or to those believers to whom this Epistle was
directed: John says that it was much more extensive; embracing men
of all nations; and belonging to believers redeemed out of every tribe;
tongue; kindred; and people of the whole world. It is of little moment
whether by the phrase our sins; are understood those of the apostles;
or those of believing Jews of the dispersion; then living; (to whom;
without doubt; this Epistle was directed; as well as the Epistles of
Peter and James; all which are called catholic; because not inscribed
to any particular city or person); as distinguished from those who
either had believed before Christ appeared in the flesh; or who would
afterwards believe to the end of the world. The question still comes
to the same point. It is sufficient that the world here mentioned
cannot embrace universally all men: as John and those to whom he
writes were distinguished from it: while yet they are included in that
universality; which embraces the whole of the human race. This was
the opinion of Calvin. "Not for our sins only is added by way of
amplification; that believers might be firmly persuaded that the
propitiation extended to all who would embrace Christ by faith:" and
again; "The object of John was none other than to make known that
the blessing of which he discourses is common to the whole Church:
therefore; under all he does not comprehend the reprobate; but
designates them who would afterwards believe from among those
who were scattered over every clime. Then truly with the greatest
propriety the grace of Christ is illustrated; when he is preached as the
only salvation of the world."
Though Christ came "to save that which was lost;" (Matthew 18:11);
and saves none others; yet it is not necessary that he should save all
those who are lost sinners. So far from this; Christ himself clearly
testifies; that he came to call not those lost sinners who are both
utterly ignorant of their lost state and swollen with an exalted
opinion of their own righteousness; but those only who labour and
are heavy laden with the burden of their sin; (Matthew 11:28).
Whence he says; he came to save that which was lost; in order to
mark the character andcondition of those who will be saved; but not
all that which was lost. He designates the quality; not the number; of
those whom he would save.
It is one thing to perish in reality and finally; another to receive from
a brother an occasion by which he might; and; if left to himself;
would perish. When the Apostle Paul speaks; (Romans 14:15: 1
Corinthians 8:10€"11); concerning the perishing of a brother for
whom Christ died; he does not intend actual perdition; as if one for
whom Christ died might perish in reality; for none can snatch
Christ's sheep out of his hand; (John 10:28): nor can any one of
those perish whom the Father has given him to be redeemed; (John
17:12): because they "are kept by the power of God through faith;" (1
Peter 1:5). Especially since it is a brother who is here spoken of: he
may be weak in faith; yet God is able to make him stand; (Romans
14:1;4). The apostle intends to develop the mischievous
consequences of an improper and preposterous use of liberty in
things which are in themselves indifferent; and show how it wounds
and offends the conscience of a weak brother; and thus exposes him;
as far as we can expose him; to the danger of perishing. The
Scriptures often use words which naturally signify effects and
actions; when nothing more is intended than to point out those
occasions or motives which may lead to the effects and actions
mentioned. Thus he is said to be guilty; as far as in his power; of
adultery; who only looks upon the wife of another man to lust after
her; (Matthew 5:28). He is said to "make God a liar; who believes not
the record which God has given of his Son;" (1 John 5:10). That is; he
does it; so far as in him lies. No one will say that he does so in reality.
In this way a weak brother is said to perish by our knowledge; when
we do nothing to preserve him: as it is expressed in Romans 14:15:
"Destroy him not by thy meat."
When heretical; apostate teachers are said "to deny the Lord that
bought them;" (2 Peter 2:1); we are not to understand the buying to
mean a literal atonement redeeming the sinner from the wrath and
curse of God; and from eternal death. No one is so redeemed; but
those who were given by the Father to Christ to be redeemed; and
who consequently will be kept by Christ and saved with an
everlasting salvation; as the members of his body and his peculiar
treasure. It is deliverance from error and idolatry of which Peter here
speaks: a deliverance effected by an outward exhibition of the
Gospel; and a setting apart to the ministry; for which these false
teachers were in a certain respect bought by Christ as Lord of the
Church. Christ had acquired a peculiar title to them; as his own; by
calling them into his Church; the house which he owns; as masters
formerly bought servants for the discharge of domestic duties. That
this is the intention of Peter is collected from the following
considerations: -
1. He uses the word ‚; which signifies a master or an owner rather than a Saviour;
to whom redemption properly so called belongs. which the apostle here employs is generally used to express that kind of buying which is practiced in markets; and often denotes simple deliverance.
3. The kind of buying here contemplated; is that through
which those bought are said "to have escaped the corruptions that
are in the world; through the knowledge of God our Saviour;" by
which "they have known the way of righteousness." All these belong
to deliverance from pagan errors and idolatries; and to a calling to
the knowledge of the truth; from which; through apostasy and the
introduction of most pernicious heresies; they make defection.
Hence they are said to deny their Master who bought them and
called them to the work of the ministry.
4. The denying of the Lord here mentioned; is a sin which is spoken of as peculiarly aggravated:
and that which constitutes the peculiar aggravation is; that they deny
their Master who bought them. But if Peter intends by the purchase
here mentioned; that atonement which Christ in his death made for
sin; then there was nothing in the conduct of these teachers
peculiarly wicked: the same thing might be affirmed of every man;
upon the hypothesis of our opponents: for they maintain that he
bought every man. On the supposition; however; that the buying
here intended is the calling of these false teachers out of the darkness
of heathen superstitions; to a knowledge of the glorious Gospel of
God; and making them teachers of that Gospel: then their denial of a
Master who had done such great things for them; was a crime
aggravated by the foulest ingratitude. - Translator]
Sanctification by the blood of the covenant may be understood in a
two-fold sense. One internal; spiritual and real; which belongs to
those who are actually redeemed and regenerated by the blood of
Christ: another external and apparent only; which consists in a
profession of the truth. The former necessarily presupposes that
Christ died for those who are thus sanctified. The latter kind of
sanctification does not presuppose this at all. Many hypocrites obtain
that external sanctification; by an external calling to membership in
the Church; and the enjoyment of its privileges; especially baptism
and the Lord's Supper: to whom; notwithstanding; Christ with his
saving benefits does not belong: because they are destitute of
justifying faith. When Paul speaks of those who profane the blood of
the covenant wherewith they had been sanctified; (Hebrews 10:29);
we cannot suppose (upon the hypothesis of the Reformed churches)
that he intends the internal and real sanctification of which we have
spoken. We must understand him to mean external sanctification;
such as belongs to those who profess their adherence to the Church
and enjoy its ordinances; especially baptism; in which they are
sanctified or set apart from the world by the sprinkling of water
which represents the blood of the covenant; and who renounce it by
denying Christ and apostatizing from his Gospel. In this manner;
those who eat and drink unworthily; at the sacrament of the Supper;
are said to be guilty of the body and blood of Christ; (1 Corinthians
11:27;29). Besides; the apostle speaks hypothetically; not absolutely.
He points out the connection between an antecedent and
consequent. He shows what they who thus transgress are to expect.
He asserts nothing more respecting those who are really redeemed
and true believers; than what is elsewhere asserted respecting
himself and angels from heaven; (Galatians 1:8). "Though we or an
angel from heaven preach any other doctrine; let him be accursed."
But no one will infer from this; that the apostle or an angel from
heaven will be accursed.
What every one is bound to believe absolutely and simply; directly
and immediately; without anything previously supposed; we grant is
true. But the case is different in relation to those things which one is
bound to believe mediately; and in consequence of some acts
supposed to be previously done. It is false; however; that all men are
bound to believe that Christ died for them simply and absolutely. In
the first place; those to whom the Gospel has never been preached; to
whom Christ has never been made known; are not surely bound to
believe that Christ died for them. This can be affirmed of those only
who are called in the Gospel. "How can they believe in him of whom
they have not heard; and how can they hear without a preacher?"
(Romans 10:14).
Secondly; even all those who hear the Gospel are
not bound to believe directly and immediately; that Christ died for
them; but mediately. The acts of faith and repentance are
presupposed: they must precede a belief that Christ died for one's
self: for Christ's death belongs to those only who believe and repent.
So far is it from being true that unbelievers are bound to believe that
Christ died for them; that he who persuades them so to believe
miserably mocks them: since the wrath of God abides on them; and
they are bound to believe themselves condemned already; (John
3:36). Nor; if they are bound to believe that Christ has died for them;
provided they repent and fly to him; does it follow that this is simply
and absolutely true whether they believe or not. Hence those who are
bound to believe that Christ died for them; are not simply and
absolutely all men: it is all those only who are weary and heavy laden
with their sins; (Matthew 11:28): who thirst and sensibly feel their
need of drink; (Isaiah 61:1): or who are penitent and feel their misery.
It will not avail here to object; that "faith in Christ is demanded of all
who hear the Gospel; and that not an undefined faith; but a faith true
and justifying; which it cannot be unless it terminates on Christ as
dying for them." For; although faith in Christ is so demanded; and
that a true and justifying faith; yet we may not infer that it is
required that all its acts are immediately and at the same time to be
exercised: and especially its ultimate and special act; that of believing
in Christ as having died for me. For; although this is included in the
acts of justifying faith; yet it is not its first act which is immediately
and in the first instance demanded of the person called in the
Gospel: it is its last; and presupposes others preceding it. That this
remark may be well understood; I shall proceed to distinguish
various acts of faith. First; one act of faith is direct; which has for its
object the offer of the Gospel. By this act I fly to Christ and embrace
his promises. Another act is reflex; and has for its object the direct
act of faith. By this act I discover that I have indeed believed; and
that the promises of the Gospel belong to me. Again; the direct act of
faith is two-fold. One of its operations consists in the assent which it
gives to the Word of God and the promises of the Gospel; as true in
relation to the giving of salvation to all who repent and by a living
faith fly to Christ and embrace him. Another operation of saving faith
is its taking refuge and trusting in Christ; acknowledging him as the
only sufficient Saviour. It is by this we fly to him; rest in him; and
from him obtain pardon of our sins and salvation. Now; that faith
which is commanded in the Gospel is commanded as to the first and
second acts which are direct; before it is commanded as to the third
act which is the reflex; and which necessarily supposes the two
former: as it cannot exist unless preceded by them. Hence we are
enabled clearly to detect the fallacy of the above objection. When the
objection speaks of the faith commanded; it refers to that act by
which the sinner lays hold of Christ: but when it speaks of the thing
believed; then it refers to the last; by which we believe from the
evidence furnished by the direct act in our souls; that Christ died for
us. Christ is not revealed in the Gospel as having died for me in
particular: but only as having died in general for those who believe
and repent. Hence I reason from that faith and repentance which I
find actually to exist in my heart; that Christ has; indeed; died for me
in particular. I know that he died for all who fly to him: I find that I
have fled to him: hence I can and should infer that he died for me.
That the faith commanded in the Gospel is not a direct and
immediate belief that Christ died for me; appears from this
consideration: that when it is enjoined either by Christ or his
apostles; no mention is made of its being applied to this or that man;
in particular. It is set forth only in a general relation to duty; or to
blessings promised to those who believe: as in Matthew 16:16. Peter;
in his celebrated declaration of faith; professes no more than this:
that he believes Jesus to be the Christ; the Son of the living God.
John 6:69: "We believe and are sure; that thou art that Christ; the
Son of the living God." Paul demands no more of those who believe
unto salvation; than "to confess with the mouth the Lord Jesus; and
to believe with the heart that God raised him from the dead;"
(Romans 10:9). Thus; when the saints are commanded to believe in
the Son of God; they are bound indeed to believe that Christ is the
true Messiah; and to fly to him as the only author of salvation; to
those who; through faith and repentance; betake themselves to him:
and these acts must take place before they are bound to believe that
Christ died for them.
Hence it appears; that the command to believe in Christ; embraces
many things before we come to the last consolatory act; by which we
believe that he died for us. First; we are to believe what the Scripture
reveals to us; relative to our miserable condition by nature and our
utter inability to effect our own salvation. Whence arises a salutary
despair of our own exertions; and a knowledge of the necessity of a
remedy. Secondly; those who thus despair of themselves; are
commanded to believe that Christ; the Son of God; is the alone all sufficient Saviour;
given by God to men - that in him alone; they can
obtain perfect salvation and remission of sin; who sincerely fly to
him and repent with genuine repentance.
Thirdly; those who are thus
contrite and penitent and despairing in themselves; are commanded
to fly to Christ as the rock of salvation: to embrace his merit as all sufficient:
to fall upon and sweetly rest upon it: and through it alone
to expect remission of sin; righteousness and salvation. Fourthly and
finally; those who perceive that they do repent; fly to Christ; and
repose in him all their hopes of salvation; are bound to believe that
Christ died for them; and that on account of his death their sins are
pardoned. From all which; it is abundantly plain; that faith in Christ
presupposes an afflicting sense of misery and a desire of deliverance:
and that the command to believe does not respect all
indiscriminately; but only all who feel their misery and desire
deliverance from it; who hunger and thirst; who labour and are
heavy laden; who are broken in spirit and contrite in heart; (Matthew
11:28: Isaiah 61:1). Further; it appears that this Gospel command
does not immediately and in the first instance; demand of us that act
of faith; by which we believe that Christ died for us; but that by
which we fly to Christ; embrace him; and rest on him; which is
nothing else than the one by which the penitent sinner; dejected
under a sense of his misery and awakened by the call of the Gospel;
renouncing every other hope; flies to Christ as the rock of salvation;
and with his whole heart desires and seeks the grace offered in the
Gospel. To express it in a word; the faith which the Gospel demands
of those who hear it is; the flying of the sinner for refuge to God as
the fountain of grace; and to Christ as the ark of safety which is
opened in the Gospel. If I am conscious to myself that I have done
this; which is the formal act of faith; then I can and ought to exercise
the other act by which I believe; that for me; who repent and fly to
him; Christ hath died. This is sometimes called the consequent act of
faith; because it follows the direct act of faith; by which I believe in
Christ and fly to him as the only and perfect Saviour. It is also called
the consolatoryact; because it pours into the soul of the believer
unspeakable joy and consolation. Since; therefore; no one can have
this special reflex act of faith; unless the other acts together with
repentance are presupposed as going before it: we infer; that all are
not bound to believe that Christ died for them; but only believers and
penitents; or all who; through the knowledge of sin and a sense of the
divine wrath; are contrite in heart; and fly to him; and from him seek
pardon of sin; and rely on his merits alone for salvation.
In vain will any one reply;
(1.) "That the command to believe in
Christ calls for a faith embracing all its acts; and among them the
last; by which we believe that Christ died for us; and that this is
required of all who hear the command to believe." The nature and
dependence of these acts upon one another is such; that the last
cannot exist without both the former: the third cannot exist without
the second; nor the second without the first. When; therefore; the
command to believe is announced; the first act is demanded of the
sinner: not that he may halt there; but that; having performed it; he
may go on to the second. But in case he has not performed the first;
he is by no means required to go on to the second. He cannot; nay he
ought not to believe; that Christ is his Redeemer; who does not
believe that Christ is the Son of God and the Redeemer of men: nor
should a man believe that Christ redeems him; while yet he does not
believe that Christ is a Redeemer at all. But; when a man finds in
himself the preceding acts; which are the foundation of the last;
then; and not till then; let him go on to exercise that last one also.
Equally vain is the objection;
(2.) "That as many as are commanded
to believe in Christ; are commanded to have justifying faith; as no
other can be saving: but justifying faith necessarily imports that we
believe not only that Christ died in common for men; but for us in
particular: that otherwise; this faith would not differ from the mere
historical faith of reprobates: nay; it would not differ from the faith
of devils; who can believe the same thing." To this I reply; that the
justifying faith which is commanded in the Gospel; does indeed
embrace the various acts of which we have spoken; but every one in
its own order. First; the direct and formal act; which consists in the
last judgement of the intellect; (or that by which the will is
immediately impelled to volition); concerning Christ; that he is the
sole and perfect Redeemer of all those who believe; repent; and
seriously fly to him. This is called justifying faith. In it the light let
into the understanding powerfully impels the will; and the whole
soul flies for refuge to Christ and finds rest.
Secondly; the reflex and
consolatory act; which follows of itself; when the first is performed.
From the time that I feel myself powerfully persuaded by the Gospel
call and promises; seriously to fly to Christ; and expect life and
righteousness from him alone; from that moment I can and should
infer; that Christ has died for me: because; from the Gospel I learn;
that he has died for all who believe and repent. Hence the answer is
easy to the argument: Whosoever is bound to have justifying faith; is
bound to believe that Christ died for him. I deny that this is true of
the first act of faith. Of the second reflex act; I admit it to be true.
Presuppose the first; then we are bound to believe that Christ died
for us: exclude it; then I deny that any man is so bound. Nor is;
therefore; the faith of believers like that of reprobates and devils.
For; although reprobates may believe theoretically that Christ is the
Son of God and Saviour of men; yet they are never so truly persuaded
by a fiducial assent to the Word of God; that they fly to him and rest
upon him for salvation. If they were truly persuaded that Christ is the
only and perfect Saviour of all who believe and repent; and that out
of him there is no salvation; it would be impossible for them not to
fly to him and embrace him for salvation with their whole heart. This
necessity arises from the will's always obeying the last dictate of the
understanding; and from all creatures seeking their own happiness.
Hence also it appears; that the faith of devils has nothing in common
with that of the elect. For the devils know that Christ is offered to
men alone; and that they have no interest in him: and it is impossible
for them to place any fiducial reliance upon him.
Again; it is objected;
(3.) "That no one can place his trust and
reliance upon Christ; unless he knows that Christ has died for him
and is his Saviour. For man always is anxious about his salvation;
until he knows the intention of God and the will of Christ; and that
by the purpose of God the death of Christ was destined for him." To
this I reply; that there are two acts or parts in the fiducial reliance of
the Christian. The one consists in his receiving and taking refuge in
Christ: the other; in the rest and consolation which arise from a
sense of having fled to and received Christ. The former is the act of
faith; by which we fly to Christ as the only Saviour; cleave to him;
and appropriate him to ourselves for salvation. The latter is the act
by which; flying to Christ and resting on him; we trust that we have;
and to eternity will have; communion with him in his death and its
benefits: and joyfully repose in the firm persuasion that he died for
us; and by his death reconciled us to God. Some divines call the
former faith on Christ; and the latter faith respecting Christ. This
respects Christ as having died for us: not so the former: for no one
can know that Christ has died for him; unless he has first believed on
him. As Christ is promised to those only who believe and repent; I
must first fly to him and embrace his merits with genuine
repentance; before I can on good grounds decide that the death of
Christ belongs to me by the decree of God and the intention of Christ.
My faith; however; does not cause that Christ died for me: for his
death was antecedent to any regard had to faith as its meritorious
cause; and the grace of faith is a fruit and effect of the death of
Christ. But it is an evidence in all those who possess it; that Christ
died for them. We infer the existence of the cause from the effect.
And though I cannot yet assure myself that Christ has died for me; it
does not follow that I must always remain in a state of doubt and
anxiety; and that my faith must be weak and unstable. My faith may
firmly rest upon the general promises of the Gospel to every
believing and penitent sinner. Hence by certain consequence; when I
find that I possess faith and repentance; I may assure myself that
these promises belong to me.
Another objection is;
(4.) "That; by our hypothesis; the foundation of
the sinner's consolation is taken away; as we reason from a particular
to a universal: thus; Christ died for some: therefore; he died for me.
But by the rules of good reasoning; we should proceed from a
universal to a particular: Christ died for each and every man:
therefore; he died for me." But it is gratuitous to say that we reason
in this way; which everyone sees to be absurd. On the contrary; we
reason from a universal to a particular; but in a certain order. Christ
died for all who believe and repent: but I believe and repent:
therefore; he died for me. Besides; it is false that any ground of
consolation can be drawn from the absolute universality of Christ's
death: for that which is common to the godly and ungodly; to those
who shall be saved and the multitudes who have been or shall be
damned; can surely afford no solid comfort to any one. If it be
supposed that Christ died for Judas and Pharaoh; who have perished
notwithstanding; how can this free me from the fear of damnation? If
you reply; that this fear may be taken away by faith; you admit that
the atonement is not for all men; but for all believers. Your argument
is: Christ died for all who believe: but I believe: therefore he died for
me; and I shall be saved: "for whosoever believeth on the Son shall
not perish; but have everlasting life." This is exactly our mode of
reasoning. Further; no solid peace can be extracted from that which
is insufficient for salvation; which avails not; and of itself cannot
avail; to prevent damnation. And such is that universal grace for
which our opponents contend; a grace which is never effectually
applied to the sinner. What will it avail the sinner to know that Christ
died for all; while it is certain that; without faith; no one will ever
become a partaker of the fruits of his death? Since faith is not given
to all; will he not be always anxious to know whether he belongs to
the number of those to whom it will be given? May not the same
difficulties and scruples which can be urged against special grace and
a special atonement; be also urged against a special decree of
bestowing faith? If it be necessary to solid peace of conscience to
hold that the mercy of the Father is to all and the redemption of the
Son for all; it is equally necessary to hold that all are actually called
and all experience the grace of the Spirit. If the sinner anxiously say;
who knows whether Christ; since he has not died for all; has died for
me? May he not also say; who knows whether God will give me faith;
and whether I am of the number of the elect or of the reprobate?
Besides; all such scruples originate from a desire to know what it is
not given to man to know; at least; not in the way in which these
people seek to know it. It becomes no mortal to institute a scrutiny; Ã
priori; into the secrets of the divine decree; relative to election and
reprobation. In such inquiries a man should proceed à posteriori; by
examining himself; in order to discover whether he has truly
repented of his sins or not. If he has; he may; and ought to assure
himself of the grace of God and his own election. If he has not; he
ought; without delay; to apply himself to the use of the means which
God has appointed: he ought to hear; and read and ponder the Word;
and pour out ardent prayers to God for the gift of faith and
repentance. Nor can any scruples occur on this subject; which our
learned opponents are not as much bound to remove as we: unless;
with the Arminians; they maintain that every man has of himself;
through the universal grace of God; sufficient power to believe and
repent. But those against whom we have reasoned in this chapter;
have; through the grace of God; always thus far professed to reject
this dogma; as evidently Pelagian. The foundation of consolation;
therefore; is to be sought; not from the universality of the
atonement; but from the universality of the promises to all who
believe and repent.
Although the reprobates who do not believe the Gospel will be
deservedly condemned for their unbelief; yet it does not follow that
they were commanded to believe that Christ died for them. There are
various kinds of unbelief besides that of not believing that the
atonement was made for them: such as; not believing that Jesus is
the Son of God; and the Messiah sent by God; but that he was a false
prophet and an impostor: or the not believing that faith in him is a
condition necessary to salvation. All these are acts of unbelief; and
that of a very criminal nature; though those who are guilty of them
may never have thought of Christ's dying for them. That faith which
Christ so often demands; and for the want of which he so severely
reprehends the Jews; embraces in itself many things which must
have preceded their belief that Christ is their Saviour and Redeemer.
This; indeed; is not a thing which the Jew was immediately to
believe. He must first have believed that salvation is not to be
obtained by the law; either in its ceremonies or legal works: that it is
to be sought only in the Messiah promised in the prophets: that
Jesus of Nazareth is that Messiah: and that all will be saved who
believe in him. All these general acts of faith must have preceded the
belief that Christ had died for him. Nor can it be replied; that all
these acts; and; above all; the special; appropriating act; are
comprehended in the command to believe on Christ. As we have said
above; though all these are commanded; yet it is in a certain order;
and the latter are not commanded in any other way than as preceded
by the former: and; on the supposition of the first acts not having
been performed; it is impossible that the latter should be.
Though God; by the preaching of the Gospel; offers Christ to sinners;
it does not follow that he must have died for all those to whom he is
thus offered; or else the offer cannot be sincere. Because the offer is
not absolute and simple; but it is made under the condition of faith
and repentance. It is true; not in the way of an accurate historical
statement; which; whether believed or not; always remains true: but
in the way of promise; the truth of which is ascertained when its
condition is complied with; as Camerus declared. It does not say to
the sinner; Christ has died for you; and you shall be saved on account
of this death; whether you believe or not. But it informs him that
salvation is procured by the death of Christ: that it is for all who
believe: and that; by embracing it in faith; the sinner will find this to
be a consolatory truth. From which it follows; that there is an
indissoluble connection between faith and salvation: and that all who
wish to enjoy Christ and his benefits; and who are called by the
Gospel; are bound to exercise faith. But from this Gospel call; we by
no means rightly infer that God; by his eternal and immutable
decree; has destined Christ to be the Saviour of all who are called; or
that he intended that Christ; by his death; should acquire salvation
for each and every man. For the Gospel which is preached to those
who are called; does not declare that; in the eternal decree of God; it
has been ordained that in Christ redemption has been procured for
each and every man. It rather announces to sinners a divine
command; with a promise annexed; and teaches what is the duty of
those who wish to be made partakers of salvation. We must not
suppose hence; that such an offer as this is adverse to the divine
decree. Because; though it does not answer to the decree of election;
yet it answers to the decree respecting the means of saving those who
are elected. In the decree (de personis) of election; God ordained
Christ as the Saviour of the elect; and his death as the price of their
redemption: and determined to bestow upon them that faith which
should enable them to embrace the salvation procured by this death.
Of this decree; the internal; saving operations of the Spirit are the
expression and execution. In the decree (de rebus) respecting the
means of salvation; God was pleased to connect Christ and faith
together; and to offer Christ to the hearers of the Gospel. The
preaching of the Gospel corresponds with; and is the execution of;
this decree. It is of this decree that Christ speaks; when he says; "And
this is the will of him that sent me; that every one who seeth the Son
and believeth on him; may have everlasting life;" (John 6:40).
Promises thus conditional; made to those who believe and repent;
unfold the connection which God has established between faith and
salvation: and make known that those hearers only of the Gospel
shall be saved who believe and repent. They; however; no more show
that Christ died for all the hearers of the Gospel; than that they shall
all believe and obtain pardon of sin. From the remission which they
obtain who believe and repent; it is proved that Christ died for them:
and it would also be true; if others believed and repented; that Christ
had died for them. But he who argues from this that Christ has died
for all; on the condition that they would believe; reasons falsely: for;
from hypothetical premises; he draws an absolute conclusion;
contrary to all good rules of reasoning.
------
Here let me crown this chapter by adding the judgement of Deodatus
and Tronchin; the celebrated theologians deputed to the Synod of
Dort; who; in the name of the whole Genevan Church; presented this
to the venerable Synod; as the common faith of the Church; never to
be given up.; Cap. II "Christ; out of the mere
good pleasure of his Father; was appointed and given to be the
Mediator and Head of a certain number; who; by the election of God;
were constituted his mystical body." - (Thesis 1) "For these; Christ;
fully aware of the divine purpose; willed and decreed to die; and to
add to the infinite merit of his death a special intention to render it
efficacious." - (Thesis 2) "The universal propositions which are found
in Scripture; do not mean that Christ; according to his Father's
purpose and his own intention; died and made satisfaction for all
and singular of the race. But they are to be restricted to the totality of
Christ's body: or else to be referred to that feature of the new
Covenant; by which the Son receives for his inheritance all nations;
without regard to external distinctions: that is; at his pleasure sends
the ministry of the Word to all tribes and races indiscriminately; and
out of them gathers his Church. This is the foundation of the general
call of the Gospel." - (Thesis 6)
|
|
