Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

all for whom the atonement is made must reap its fruits. It is no atonement without this. That any of those for whom Christ died should fail to enjoy the benefits of his death, is, in this way, utterly inconceivable. It is not more at variance with the purpose of God, or the equity of the divine character, or the tenor of the covenant of grace, than with the very nature of the Saviour's work, His work is an atonement, that is, a reconciliation; and to talk of his making atonement for such as are never reconciled, is a contradiction in terms it is to say he makes atonement and yet no atonement, in the case of the same individuals. The same conclusion follows from other descriptions of the work of Christ. He is said to give satisfaction for sin; but how can he have given satisfaction for the sins of those on whom the law is to take satisfaction eternally? He is said to appease divine justice; but can the justice of God be appeased, in the case of those against whom its flaming sword shall awake for ever and ever? He is said to expiate our offences; but how can those sins for which the guilty perpetrators are to suffer everlastingly have been expiated? He is said to redeem from the curse of the law; but how can those who are to be kept in eternal thraldom have redemption through his blood? He is spoken of as propitiating the wrath of God; but how can those be interested in his propitiation who are to be the objects of Jehovah's unceasing displeasure? He is described, in fine, as procuring by his death grace and glory; but how can this apply to the case of those who continue under the power of corruption here, and sink hereafter into never-ending perdition? We appeal, then, to the very nature of atonement; we revert to the terms of our definition, in proof of the definite object of Christ's death. Any other view is directly at variance with these terms, and this we should conceive as sufficient in itself to determine the controversy. All views of an indefinite extent are at once put to flight by this question, What is the atonement?

What renders the present argument more emphatic is, that, previous to the atonement being actually made, multitudes had been placed beyond the reach of ever being benefited by it. Before Christ died many of the human race had gone to the place of woe, where God has forgotten to be gracious, and where his mercy is clean gone. But, according to the opinion we are combating, the eternal salvation of these was included in the designed extent of the atonement. And what have we here? Why, the supposition, not merely that Christ made atonement on Calvary for many who should

afterwards, through unbelief, come short of an actual participation in the benefits of his death, but that he made atonement for thousands who, long before he did so, had gone down to irretrievable perdition, and were on this account, at the very time, placed beyond the possibility of ever receiving from his death a single benefit. Such are the palpable inconsistencies, nay, the monstrous absurdities, which the error in question compels men to adopt.

5. The connexion of the death of Christ with his resurrection and his intercession, and with the gift of the Spirit, is here deserving of attention.

[ocr errors]

The death and resurrection of the Saviour bear a close relation to each other. In whatever character he died, in the same character he rose from the dead. If he laid down his life as Head of the church, and Surety of his people, and Mediator of the covenant, in the same capacities did he take it up again. The persons interested in the one event and in the other, are the same. 'Christ died for our sins, and rose again for our justification.' (Rom. iv. 25.) He died for none, for whose sake he did not rise. And for whom did he rise? Who are they who are benefited by his resurrection? Those, surely, who shall come forth unto the resurrection of life.' 'Now Christ is risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept.' (1 Cor. xv. 20.) The sleep here is not the sleep of death merely, which all undergo, but that refreshing rest to which the death of the righteous is compared, and which is called, by the same apostle, in another of his writings, sleeping in Jesus:-Them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.' (1 Thess. iv. 14.) Then he adds, in language fully corroborative of the restricted extent of those who profit by his resurrection, 'Every man in his own order; Christ the first-fruits; afterwards they that are Christ's at his coming.' (1 Cor. xv. 23.) Those, then, to whom Christ in his resurrection stood in the relation of the first-fruits, are they who sleep in Christ, they who are Christ's, and not the whole race of mankind. And, from the connexion subsisting between his resurrection and his death, for these only can he be held to have died.

A similar relation subsists betwixt the death and the intercession of Christ. Such is the economy of our salvation, that his intercession is necessary to a participation of the fruits of his death. No one can ever partake of the latter without the former. Of course, he cannot be supposed to have died for any for whom he does not intercede, as he cannot be supposed to intercede for any for whom he has not

died. And for whom does he make intercession? For all, or only some of the human race? Let us see. " I PRAY

[ocr errors]

NOT FOR THE WORLD, BUT FOR THEM WHICH THOU HAST GIVEN ME. Father, I will that THEY WHOM THOU HAST GIVEN ME, be with me where I am.' (John xvii, 9. 24.) If he died for all, how comes it that he prays only for some? Are there any for whom he died, for whom he neglects or refuses to pray? The thing is incredible, impossible, on every view that can be taken of the Redeemer's character and work. If he died for all, he must pray for all; and, if he prays for all, all must be saved, for him the Father heareth always. But the intercession of Christ is manifestly special and restricted, as respects the persons who are the subjects of it. Whence, we feel warranted to conclude, that a similar restriction attended his death.

The work of Christ and that of the Holy Spirit are also closely connected, and bear an exact correspondence the one to the other. It is not our object to trace this correspondence extensively. The fact, however, is abundantly evident. This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.' (1 John v. 6.) The ancient ceremony of the two birds, one of which was to be killed in an earthen vessel over running water, and the other to be dipt alive in the blood of the slain bird, significantly prefigured this connexion. Nor do the writers of the New Testament fail to call our attention to the circumstance. That the blessings of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.' (Gal. iii. 14.) God's having sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law,' bears a distinct relation to His sending forth the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father.' (Gal. iv. 4—6.) How appropriate and expressive, in this view, was the act of the divine Saviour, when, just after his resurrection from the dead, he breathed on the disciples, and said unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.' (John xx. 22.) In the economy of redemption, they bear so close a relation to one another, as to induce the belief that they must necessarily be coextensive as regards those who are their objects. The connexion is, indeed, inseparable. If the atonement opens the door of the heavenly sanctuary, the Spirit's work is necessarily to fit for inhabiting the holy place; and it were of no avail that the one of these were secured for any without the other. If

6

the atonement of Christ lays the foundation, the Spirit by his work rears the superstructure of grace; but it were a reflection alike on the wisdom and goodness of our covenant God, to suppose that there are any who possess the former of these blessings without the latter, which is necessary to its perfection and utility. The question, then, comes to be, do all receive the gift of the Spirit? Are all actually regenerated, sanctified, and put in possession of eternal life? If not, we have no ground for supposing that all are interested in the atoning virtue of Christ's precious blood; for, as we have seen, the work of Christ and the fruits of the Spirit have a corresponding extent. "He who spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things." This is good reasoning, but it is fatal to the opinion we are combating, as it infallibly establishes that all for whom God delivered up his own Son shall certainly come to the enjoyment of every fruit of his purchase.

6. Some weight is deserving of being attached to the limited application and even revelation of the atonement.

The argument from the limited application, is substantially involved in what we have already said respecting the nature of atonement, and its inseparable connexion with the work of the Spirit. Of the designed extent of Christ's atonement, we may judge from that of its influence. Is the effect or application of the atonement universal or restricted? Restricted, as we have already seen is acknowledged on all hands. But as the omnipotent and omniscient God cannot fail in any of his designs, the actual effect lets us know the extent of the designed effect. Betwixt these there can never exist any proper disagreement. And as the effects of atonement, namely, redemption, reconciliation, sanctification, and glory, extend but to some, we are bound to apply to the atonement itself a similar restriction in the designed extent of its subjects.

6

Even the limited extent to which the atonement has been revealed, would seem to point to the same conclusion. A knowledge of the fact is, according to the plan of our salvation, necessary, in the case of adults, to a participation in its fruits. Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved:' but faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;' and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard, and how shall they hear without a preacher ?' It seems to follow from this, that all, for whom the remedy revealed in the gospel is designed, must be put

in possession of the gospel. They must believe, that they may be saved; they must know, that they may believe; and they must hear, that they may know. Many, for whose ultimate benefit the remedy itself is not designed, may possess the revelation of it, but all, for whom it is so designed, must. Now, in connexion with this, consider the limited diffusion of the gospel. In every age of the world, the revelation of mercy has been, in fact, restricted to a few. In ancient times, the Almighty showed his word to Jacob, and his judgments to Israel, while the nations at large sat in darkness. In later times, although the diffusion has been more wide, and the command has been, that the gospel should be preached to every creature, it has actually been greatly limited, compared with the population of the world. To this hour, there are hundreds of millions of our race who remain unvisited by the day-spring from on high. And if we suppose that for these the atonement which the gospel reveals was as much designed as for the others, we shall be led to the most unworthy views of the divine character. God could have made it known to all, and yet it seems he has not. It is vain to plead the remissness of those whose duty it was to diffuse the benefit of gospel light among their benighted fellow men; for as they were completely under his sovereign controul, this, although it leaves them inexcusable, leaves the fact wholly unexplained as regards the purpose and design of God. The thing has happened under his superintending providence, and must, therefore, be in harmony with the secret counsels of his will. It is, of course, utterly irreconcilable with the notion that the atonement of Jesus Christ was designed for all. What would men think of the prince, who, designing to emancipate all the inhabitants of a rebellious province of his empire, should provide a sufficient ground of escape for all, but should communicate the knowledge of this merciful provision only to a few, while the greater number were allowed to continue in perpetual durance, in consequence of their unhappy ignorance? Or, what would men think of the physician, who should benevolently devise and prepare a medicine designed to cure a disease of universal prevalence, and yet suffer multitudes for whom it was so designed, to remain ignorant of its existence, thus rendering it impossible for them to avail themselves of its healing virtues? Such things might occur among men, with whom generosity, and humanity, and consistency, and wisdom, are but rare qualities, but that any thing analogous should ever occur in the arrangements of Him whose understanding is infinite, whose nature is love,

« AnteriorContinua »