Man disobeying, He with his whole posterity must die: The rigid satisfaction, death for death." The law made no such Abstractly considered, this is true; but it is not expressive of what was the revealed law of innocence. condition, or provision; nor was it indifferent to the lawgiver who should suffer, the sinner, or another on his behalf. The language of the law to the transgressor was not thou shalt die, or some one on thy behalf; but simply thou shalt die and had it literally taken its course, every child of man must have perished. The sufferings of Christ in our stead, therefore, are not a punishment inflicted in the ordinary course of distributive justice; but an extraordinary interposition of infinite wisdom and love: not contrary to, but rather above the law, deviating from the letter, but more than preserving the spirit of it. Such, brethren, as well as I am able to explain them, are my views of the substitution of Christ. Peter. The objection of our so stating the substitution of Christ, as to leave no room for the free pardon of sin, has been often made by those who avowedly reject his satisfaction; but for any who really consider his death as an atonement for sin, and as essential to the ground of a sinner's hope, to employ the objection against us, is very extraordinary, and must, I presume, proceed from inadvertency. James. If it be so, I do not perceive it. objection have been stated as clearly and as state them. The grounds of the fully as I am able to John. What are your ideas, Brother James, with respect to the persons for whom Christ died as a substitute? Do you consider them as the elect only, or mankind in general? James. Were I asked concerning the gospel when it is introdu ced into a country, For whom was it sent? if I had respect only to the revealed will of God, I should answer, It is sent for men, not as elect, or non-elect, but as sinners. It is written and preached "that they might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they might have life through his name.' But if I had respect to the appointment of God, with regard to its application, I should say, If the divine conduct in this instance acoord with what it has been in other instances, he hath visited that country, to "take out of them a people for his name." In like manner, concerning the death of Christ, if I speak of it irrespective of the purpose of the Father and the Son as to the objects who should be saved by it; referring merely to what it is in itself sufficient for, and declared in the gospel to be adapted to, I should think I answered the question in a scriptural way in saying, It was for sinners as sinners. But if I have respect to the purpose of the Father in giving his Son to die, and to the design of Christ in laying down his life, I should answer, It was for his elect only. In the first of these views, I find the apostles and primitive ministers (leaving the consideration of God's secret purpose as a matter belonging to himself, not to them,) addressing themselves to sinners without distinction, and holding forth the sacrifice of Christ as a ground of faith to all men. On this principle, the servants. sent forth to bid guests to the marriage-supper, were directed to invite them, saying, Come FOR all things are ready. On this principle the ambassadors of Christ besought sinners to be reconciled to God; FOR, said they, he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. In the last view, I find the apostles ascribing to the purpose and discriminating grace of God all their success: as many as were ordained to eternal life believed; teaching believers also to ascribe every thing that they were, or hoped to be, to the same cause; addressing them as having been before the foundation of the world beloved and chosen of God; the children or sons, whom it was the design of Christ, in becoming incarnate, to bring to glory; the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood, and for which he gave himself, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. If the substitution of Christ consist in his dying for or instead of others, that they should not die, this, as comprehending the designed end to be answered by his death, is strictly applicable to none but the elect: for, whatever ground there is for sinners, as sinners, to believe and be saved, it never was the purpose or design of Christ to impart faith to any other than those who were given him of the Father. He therefore did not die with the intent that any others should not die. Whether I can perfectly reconcile these statements with each other, or not, I embrace them as being both plainly taught in the scriptures. I confess, however, I do not at present perceive their inconsistency. If I be not greatly mistaken, what apparent contradiction may attend them arises chiefly from that which has been already mentioned; namely, the considering of Christ's substitution as an affair between a creditor and a debtor, or carrying the metaphor to an extreme. In that view, the sufferings of Christ would require to be exactly proportioned to the nature and number of the sins which were laid upon him; and if more sinners had been saved, or those who are saved had been greater sinners than they are, he must have borne a proportionable increase of suffering. To correspond with pecuniary satisfactions this must undoubtedly be the case. I do not know that any writer has so stated things; but am persuaded that such ideas are at the foundation of a large part of the reasonings on that side of the subject. In atonement, or satisfaction for crime, things do not proceed on this calculating principle. It is true there was a designation of the sacrifices offered up by Hezekiah: they were offered, not only for Judah, but for those that remained of the ten tribes for so the king commanded, that the burnt-offering and the sin-offering should be made FOR ALL ISRAEL. But the sacrifices themselves were the same for both. as they would have been for one, and re quired to be the same for one, as they were for both. It was their designation only that made the difference. Thus I conceive it is in respect of the sacrifice of Christ. If fewer had been saved than are saved, to be consistent with justice it required to be by the same perfect atonement; and if more had been saved than are, even the whole human race, there needed VOL. IV. 13 no other. But if the satisfaction of Christ was in itself sufficient for the whole world, there is no farther propriety in asking, "Whose sins were imputed to Christ? or, For whom did he die as a substitute?" than as it is thereby inquired, Who were the persons whom he intended finally to save ? That which is equally necessary for few as for many, must, in its own nature, be equally sufficient for many as for few; and could not proceed upon the principle of the sins of some being laid on Christ rather than on others, any otherwise than as it was the design of the Father and the Son, through one all-sufficient medium, to pardon the elect, while the rest are, notwithstanding, left to perish in their sins. It seems to me as consonant with truth to say that a certain num] ber of Christ's acts of obedience become ours, as that a certain number of our sins become his. In the.former case his one undivided obedience, stamped as it is with divinity, affords a ground of justification to any number of believers in the latter, his one atonement, stamped also as it is with divinity is sufficient for the pardon of any number of sins, or sinners. Yet as Christ laid not his life down but by covenant; as the elect were given him to be the purchase of his blood, or the fruit of the travail of his soul, he had respect, in all he did and suffered, to this recompense of reward. Their salvation was the joy that was set before him. It was for the covering of their transgressions that he became obedient unto death. To them his substitution was the same in effect as if their sins had by number and measure been literally imparted to him. I am not aware that any principle which I imbibe is inconsistent with Christ's laying down his life by covenant, or with his being the Surety of that covenant, pledging himself for the certain accomplishment of whatever he undertook; as that all that were given him should come to him, should not be lost, but raised up at the last day, and be presented without spot, and blameless. All this I consider as included in the design of the Father and the Son, with respect to the application of the atonement. John. I have heard it objected to your views of the sufficiency of the atonement, to this effect-"How does this principle afford a ground for general invitations, if the design was confined to his elect people? If the benefits of his death were never intended for the non-elect, is it not just as inconsistent to invite them to partake of them, as if there were a want of sufficiency? This explanation therefore seems only to be shifting the difficulty." James. Pharoah was exhorted to let Israel go; and had he complied, he had saved his own life, and that of a great number of his people; yet, all things considered, it was not God's intention to save Pharoah's life, nor that of the Egyptians. And is there no difference between this, and his being exhorted under a promise in which the object promised had no existence ? It is a fact that the scriptures rest the general invitations of the gospel upon the atonement of Christ. But if there were not a sufficiency in the atonement for the salvation of sinners without distinction, how could the ambassadors of Christ beseech them to be reconciled to God, and that from the consideration of his having been made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him? What would you think of the fallen angels being invited to be reconciled to God, from the consideration of an atonement having been made for fallen men? You would say, It is inviting them to partake of a benefit which has no existence, the obtaining of which, therefore, is naturally impossible. Upon the supposition of the atonement being insufficient for the salvation of any more than are actually saved by it, the non-elect, with respect to a being reconciled to God through it, are in the same state as the fallen angels; that is, the thing is not only morally, but naturally impossible. But if there be an objective fulness in the atonement of Christ, sufficient for any number of sinners, were they to believe in him; there is no other impossibility in the way of any man's salvation to whom the gospel comes, at least, than what arises from the state of his own mind. The intention of God not to remove this impossibility, and so not to save him, is a purpose to withhold not only that which he was not obliged to bestow, but that which is never represented in the scriptures a snecessary to the consistency of exhortations or invitations. * 2 Cor. v. 19-21. Matt. xxii. 4. John iii. 16. 505996 |