f 
 
I 
 
"f r'. */VvVu<2>rt 
 
 THE ATONEMENT: 
 
 OK, 
 
 THE DEATH OF CHRIST THE REDEMPTION OF 
 HIS PEOPLE. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/atonementordeathOOmars 
 
THE ATONEMENT: 
 
 OR, 
 
 THE DEATH OE CHRIST THE REDEMPTION 
 OE HIS PEOPLE. 
 
 Jl gflsthumous treatise. 
 
 BY THE LATE 
 
 ANDREW MARSHALL, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 KIRKINTILLOCH. 
 
 EDITED BY 
 
 JOHN FORBES, D.D., LL.D., 
 
 free st. Paul's, Glasgow. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 THOMAS MURRAY AND SON. 
 
 EDINBURGH: J. MENZIES AND CO. 
 
 LONDON: JAMES NISBET AND CO. 
 
 1868. 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 ON THE ORIGIN AND SUCCESSIVE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE TENET 
 OF UNIVERSAL REDEMPTION. 
 
 The following Treatise, although posthumous, is exempt from a 
 disadvantage frequently incident to works of that class, inasmuch 
 as it was left in a completed state by its venerated author. The 
 circumstance that he employed the evening of his life in its com- 
 position, and devoted to the vindication and defence of the truth 
 which it sets forth his matured attainments as a theologian, and 
 his eminent Christian experience, entitles it to be regarded in the 
 light of a dying testimony which he felt himself bound in con- 
 science to bear in behalf of a vital portion of "the faith delivered 
 to the saints." Although he had been called in Providence to 
 contend earnestly both in Church Courts and by his printed 
 publications for the doctrine which he advocates in this Treatise, 
 it was with no desire to renew and perpetuate personal and party 
 contests that he resumed the discussion in his latter years, as the 
 tone and tenor of the Treatise sufficiently demonstrate, but with 
 the more noble intention for which the apostle has commended the 
 disciples in Berea, viz., that of investigating the Scriptures, with a 
 view to ascertain the mind of God, both for his own edification and 
 that of others, and likewise to provide an antidote for misapprehen- 
 sions and prejudices which he knew to prevail, and which derived 
 no small amount of countenance and currency from some, who, in 
 other respects and upon other subjects, were distinguished for their 
 ability, and estimable for their writings as Christian authors. 
 The Treatise constitutes an argumentative, not a controversial disqui- 
 sition ; it elucidates the Scripture evidence in behalf of the doc- 
 trine of "particular redemption;" and it is only incidentally that 
 
VI PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 the untenable views and theories of certain individuals in support 
 of "universal redemption" are animadverted upon and refuted; 
 hut this is intended only to render the investigation of the doctrine 
 more thorough, and its vindication more complete, and with no 
 view to disparage either the talents or characters of the parties 
 referred to. The large and judicious induction of texts of Scrip- 
 ture brought forward in sujfport of the doctrine advocated by the 
 author cannot fail to be a recommendation of the Treatise to every 
 enlightened Christian reader; and the exegetical learning and 
 acumen applied to the elucidation and exposition of several impor- 
 tant texts, with a view to show their bearing upon the argument, 
 will no doubt be appreciated by those who are conversant with 
 Biblical literature and criticism. 
 
 As it may contribute to the interest of the subject to give a 
 succinct account of the origin and successive development of the 
 tenet of universal redemption, and shew the relation in which the 
 present Treatise stands to the general question, we submit the 
 following brief outline of the more prominent incidents connected 
 with this branch of ecclesiastical history. It is generally known 
 that the tenet in question formed one of the distinctive peculiarities 
 of Pelagianism, a system which derived its name and its origin 
 'from Pelagius, a British monk. For a length of time he dissemi- 
 nated his opinions covertly, but commenced to propagate them 
 avowedly and publicly, according to Jansenius, A.D. 404, when 
 he had arrived at an advanced age. He had for his leading 
 disciple and coadjutor Celestius, who has been described by 
 Augustine as a person of acute intellect, not unskilled in philo- 
 sophy, and dexterous in the use of scholastic logic. Not 
 only did Pelagius deny the doctrine both of original sin and of 
 regeneration by the Holy Spirit, but he maintained that mankind 
 were competent to secure their salvation by their own efforts; and 
 that, in point of fact, they were saved prior to the law by the light 
 of nature (per naturam), under the law (per legem), and subse- 
 quent to the law by Christ (per Christum). These sentiments 
 were so glaringly contrary to Scripture, that they were modified 
 by a large class of his adherents, who were termed, from that 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. VU 
 
 circumstance, semi-Pelagians. They maintained that the work 
 of redemption Avas the exclusive ground of salvation from 
 the earliest period of human history. At the same time, they 
 ascribed to it an indiscriminate universality of efficacy, which 
 extended alike to every human being, Avhatever his spiritual condi- 
 tion or moral character; and by this Antinomian element, they 
 nullified its power for good, and " turned the grace of our God 
 into lasciviousness." This heresy was zealously opposed by Jerome 
 and Augustine from its first commencement, the former of whom 
 warned the latter against it in the following terms, when Pelagius 
 pretended to retract some of his opinions: — "Let us make the 
 utmost exertion that this most pernicious heresy be cast out of the 
 churches, which always feigns penitence, with a view to have the 
 privilege of teaching in the churches, lest if it should betray itself 
 in open light, it should be driven out of doors and die."* Prosper, 
 the contemporary of Augustine, and his zealous auxiliary in the 
 controversy against the semi-Pelagians, confirms what has been 
 stated with regard to the thorough Antinomianism of their theory, 
 in the following passage of a letter to Augustine : — " This is their 
 distinctive profession, that our Lord Jesus Christ died for the 
 universal race of mankind, and that no one is absolutely excepted 
 from redemption by His blood, even should he pass his entire life 
 in the most extreme alienation of mind from Him (etiamsi omnem 
 banc vitam, alienissima ab eo mente pertranseat), since the sacra- 
 ment of divine mercy pertains to all men." 
 
 A distinguished theologian of the seventeenth century has 
 adduced evidence from the earliest Christian writings extant, as, 
 for instance, the epistle of the Church of Smyrna, respecting the 
 martyrdom of Polycarp, that the tenet of universal redemption 
 originated with the Pelagians ; and this view of the subject has 
 been confirmed by subsequent authors, who have proved from the 
 writings of Polycarp, Clement of Eome, and Justin Martyr, that the 
 doctrine of the primitive church was that of " particular redemp- 
 tion." 
 
 That the controversy was not confined to councils and theolo- 
 * Jansenius de Hseresi Pelagiana. 
 
Vlll PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 gical schools, but exercised a decided influence upon the character 
 of the age, and largely pervaded the teaching of the clergy and 
 the minds and sentiments of the laity, is proved by the following 
 passage from Gibbon's History (vol. ii., p. 251). After describing 
 the irruption of the Northern barbarians into the Roman Empire, 
 and the unparalleled calamities which they produced, the author 
 adds — " The ecclesiastics, to whom we are indebted for the vague 
 description of the public calamities, embraced the opportunity of 
 exhorting the Christians to repent of the sins which had provoked 
 the Divine Justice, and to renounce the perishable goods of a 
 wretched and deceitful world. But as the Pelagian controversy, 
 which attempts to sound the abyss of grace and predestination, 
 became the serious employment of the Latin clergy, the Providence 
 which had decreed, or foreseen, or permitted such a train of moral 
 and natural evils, was rashly weighed in the imperfect and falla- 
 cious balance of reason. The crimes and misfortunes of the suffer- 
 ing people were presumptuously compared with those of their 
 ancestors; and they arraigned the Divine Justice which did not 
 exempt from the common destruction the feeble, the guiltless, the 
 infant portion of the human race." 
 
 The Pelagian heresy was condemned by the Council of Carthage, 
 A.D. 416, and the sentence pronounced regarding it was adhered 
 to by Zozimus, the Head of the Church of Rome, and by his imme- 
 diate successors Boniface and Ccelestine, the latter of whom evinced 
 his deep interest in the subject, and his appreciation of the labours 
 of Augustine, by vindicating his character and writings from the 
 imputations cast upon them by the semi-Pelagians after his death. 
 
 In process of time, as the Church of Rome became more degene- 
 rate, the tenet of universal redemption was adopted by it with par- 
 ticular favour; and the Jesuits constituted themselves its zealous 
 asserters and defenders in opposition to the Jansenists, who 
 adhered to the views of Augustine, and maintained the doctrine 
 of particular redemption. The controversy excited great dis- 
 cussions upon the Continent, and especially in France, where 
 it threatened to rend the Popish Church in pieces; and the 
 excitement was immensely increased in consequence of the pub- 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. IX 
 
 lication of a translation into French of the New Testament, by 
 M. Quesnel, a Jansenist, accompanied with moral reflections. In 
 this work, although leavened with much of the Popish element, two 
 doctrines were prominently and powerfully advocated, viz., the 
 right and duty of the Christian people to study the Scriptures in 
 the vernacular tongue, and the exclusive interest of the elect in 
 the work of redemption. With a view to gratify the Jesuits, 
 settle the differences which had ensued from the controversy with 
 the Jansenists, and ratify definitively the dogma of the Papal 
 creed on the subject, Clement XL issued the Bull Unigenitus in 
 1713. It recites no fewer than 101 propositions from Quesnel's 
 work, which it denounces as heretical, among which the following 
 are a specimen : — 
 
 Luke xi. 33, " To prevent Christians from reading the Scrip- 
 tures, and in particular the Gospel, is to prohibit the light to the 
 chddren of light, ami to make them suffer a kind of excom- 
 munication." 
 
 Gal. iv. 4, " Jesus Christ delivered Himself up to death, that 
 He might deliver for ever by His blood the First-born, that is to 
 say, the elect, from the hand of the destroying angel." 
 
 2 Thess. i. 1, " What is the Church but an assembly of the 
 chddren of God, dwelling in its bosom, adopted in Jesus Christ, 
 subsisting in His person, redeemed by His blood, living by His 
 Spirit, acting by His grace, and waiting for the peace of the life to 
 come?" 
 
 The Papal denunciation runs in the following thundering terms : 
 — " We condemn and reprobate all and every one of the proposi- 
 tions above mentioned, as being respectively false, captious, harsh, 
 capable of wounding pious ears, scandalous, pernicious, injurious 
 to the church and its customs," etc., etc. 
 
 In modern times the theory of the universality of redemption, 
 in the unqualified form in which it was maintained by the semi- 
 Pelagians of the fifth century, is only held by the sect commonly 
 called Universalists. They teach that future punishment is a 
 mediatorial work inflicted with a view to subdue, convert, and at 
 
 length reconcile the wicked to God through Jesus Christ; so that 
 
 b 
 
X PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 when the Saviour shall deliver up His mediatorial kingdom to the 
 Father, it shall embrace the whole race of mankind without excep- 
 tion. This theory is in such direct contrariety to the whole tenor 
 of Scripture doctrine, so nullifies the threatenings implied in the 
 expressions, " everlasting punishment," Matt. xxv. 46, " uncpiench- 
 able fire," Luke iii. 17, and others of similar import, and has such 
 a direct and obvious tendency to lull the unconverted into a state 
 of false and fatal security, that it has obtained little countenance 
 amongst those who reverence the divine authority of the Word of 
 God. 
 
 The theory of universal redemption broached and propagated 
 by James Arminius, differs from the former in two important 
 particulars. First, in that it affirms the necessity of faith in order 
 to salvation; and second, in that it limits the season of grace to 
 the present life, and rejects as unscriptural and dangerous the 
 tenet of the limited duration of future punishment. Its sup- 
 porters are termed Hypothetical Universalists, to distinguish them 
 from Absolute and Unconditional Universalists, inasmuch as whilst 
 they believe that God has provided mercy for all mankind by the 
 death of Christ, they do so on the hypothesis that the mercy pro- 
 vided is embraced and improved by faith. The theory is thus 
 described by Dr Whitby in his Discourse on the Five Points, 
 p. 78: — "When we say Christ died for all, we do not mean that 
 He hath purchased actual pardon, or reconciliation, or life for all; 
 this being in effect to say, that He procured an actual remission of 
 sins to unbelievers, and actually reconciled to God the impenitent 
 and unbelieving, which is impossible. He only by His death hath 
 put all men in a capacity of being justified and pardoned, and so 
 of being reconciled to and having peace with God, upon their 
 turning to God and having faith in our Lord Jesus Christ; the 
 death of Christ having rendered it consistent with the justice 
 and wisdom of God, with the honour of His majesty, and with the 
 ends of His government, to pardon the penitent believer." 
 
 The theory of Arminius eliminates from the redemption of 
 Christ its most essential and precious attribute, viz., its efficacy as 
 an atoning sacrifice, whereby the Lord Jesus Christ has made full 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XI 
 
 and complete expiation of the sins of His people, and, as their 
 Surety and Substitute, has provided for them perfect righteousness, 
 in order that being imputed to them, and received by faith, it 
 should constitue the ground of their justification. So absolutely 
 is this the case, that Dr Whitby, in the work already referred to, 
 does not hesitate to maintain that all who either have perished, or 
 shall perish, in their guilt, had the same benefit from the Saviour's 
 death with the redeemed saints who now inherit, or shall yet 
 inherit, the heavenly rest. His words are: " It hath been repre- 
 sented as a great absurdity to think that Christ died equally for 
 Judas and for Peter, but without any show of reason that I can 
 discern; for did not the soul of Judas as much proceed from the 
 Father of Spirits as the soul of Peter % "Was it not equally made 
 after God's image 1 Did it come out of His hands more unworthy 
 of mercy than the soul of Peter 1 ? Were not both born in equal 
 circumstances as to God's favour, in equal need of a Saviour, and 
 equally capable of redemption 1 Why, therefore, antecedently to 
 any good or evil they had done, should the Saviour die more, or 
 rather for the one than for the other 1 ?" 
 
 These observations evince that Arminians place greater stress 
 upon vague speculations than upon the sure testimony of the inspired 
 Scriptures. Arguments a priori savour of presumption, even in 
 questions of philosophy; but they are peculiarly inappropriate and 
 misleading upon this subject, inasmuch as we possess no grounds for 
 determining a priori whether the Most High would ordain redemp- 
 tion for sinners of mankind at all, or of what nature it should be, 
 or upon what foundation it should be bestowed. Scripture testi- 
 mony, as shown in the following Treatise, conclusively establishes 
 that the death of Christ stands in a special relation to the justifica- 
 tion of His people ; and that, important as their sanctification most 
 unquestionably is, it does not constitute the immediate effect of His 
 death, but is only the product of faith savingly exercised on that 
 stupendous expiation, and upon the motives which it supplies 
 for hating sin, loving the Saviour, and keeping His commandments. 
 But as Arminians eliminate from the atonement, according to their 
 theory, any intention on the part of Christ to provide a righteous- 
 
XU PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 ness, by His obedience and sufferings, for the justification of 
 believers, they are necessitated to conclude that the ethical 
 element constitutes not only the primary, but the exclusive 
 characteristic of the atonement; and that both in the purpose of 
 God, and in its actual efficacy, it becomes a source of salvation 
 only by means of its sanctifying operation upon the heart and 
 character of believers. Now, as a divine exhibition of doctrinal 
 truth, the gospel is intended for all men, and, in this point of view, 
 its benefit is unrestricted; and if the Arminian tenet were con- 
 ceded, that mankind possess a self-determining power over their 
 volitions, and are capable of believing and obeying God's re- 
 vealed word, apart from the gracious work of the Holy Spirit, 
 enlighteuing their understandings, renewing then* wills, and in- 
 clining their hearts to what is good, it might be admitted, as held 
 by them, that the whole race of mankind have been placed by the 
 gospel in a salvable condition, and that the efficacy of Christ's 
 death, equally extends to that class of which Judas is the type, as 
 to the other of which Peter is the representative. 
 
 The theory of the Arminians became a fruitful source of So- 
 cinianism and Popery, in consequence of eliminating the doctrine 
 of Christ's substitution from the atonement. One class of persons 
 reasoned from it in the following manner: — If the sole end of 
 Christ's death be, to supply motives for leading a virtuous and 
 religious life, is not this attained by contemplating Christ as a 
 Prophet and Martyr; and, if it be, why complicate Christianity 
 with the mysterious doctrine of the Trinity; for when a sufficient 
 cause has been assigned for any effect, it is neither philosophical 
 nor beneficial to assign an additional one. Grotius, with a view 
 to defend the theory from the conclusions of the Socinians, became 
 the originator of what has been termed the Governmental Scheme; 
 in which he contended that the death of Christ stood in such a 
 relation to the moral government of the universe as to require that 
 Christ should be a divine person, in order that the ends of public 
 justice might be sufficiently maintained in connection with the 
 exercise of pardon to those who believed the gospel, and made it 
 promotive of their spiritual and moral benefit. 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. Xlll 
 
 Owing to the same cause, another class of persons — in conse- 
 quence of being taught that the death of Christ availed to the salva- 
 tion of those who believe, only to the extent they should improve it 
 by leading holy or virtuous lives — were unable to find peace to 
 their souls, under the apprehension that they had not done so 
 sufficiently ; and hence they fell into the snare of Popery, which 
 encouraged them to supply their conscious deficiences of merit by 
 penances, masses, absolutions, oblations, and pilgrimages to the 
 shrines of saints — with a view to obtain their intercession — and 
 other unscriptural and soul-destroying superstitions. 
 
 Arminius cherished the idea that his theory would produce 
 union amongst the Protestants, and remove or reconcile differences, 
 but the result was the very opposite, and should serve as a warn- 
 ing to those who would sacrifice revealed truth, or any portion of 
 it, with a view to concdiate those who entertain essentially differ- 
 ent sentiments. In his last will, made a little before his death, 
 Mosheim states that he " plainly and positively declared that the 
 great object he had in view in all his theological and ministerial 
 labours was to unite in one community, cemented by the bond of 
 fraternal charity, all sects and denominations of Christians, the 
 Papists excepted." Arminius was born A.D. 1560, the year in 
 which Popery was rejected and the Eeformation sanctioned by 
 the Scottish Parliament; he died A.D. 1609; and, even prior to his 
 death, he witnessed to some extent the disastrous results of his 
 theory, and the embroilments to which it gave rise both in the 
 church and the commonwealth. His party was countenanced by 
 many high in office in the States-General; and, to concdiate the 
 favour of these persons, they drew up a remonstrance (libellum) 
 A.D. 1610, from which they were called Remonstrants.* "In this 
 they placed before (the States-General) the doctrines of the 
 Reformed Churches concerning predestination and the persever- 
 ance of the saints, unfaithfully (mala fide) and not without open 
 and atrocious slanders, that by this means they might render them 
 odious to the illustrious orders." The excitement became increased 
 by the effort of the Arminian or Remonstrant party to appoint 
 
 * The Articles of the Synod of Dort, by Rev. Thomas Scott, vol. v., chap. iii. 
 
XIV PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 Conrad Vorstius, for many years justly suspected of Socinianisra, 
 to be the successor of Arminius in the Professorship of Theology 
 at Leyden, a measure at first delayed and at length fallen from, 
 owing in good measure to the dissuasion of King James VI., through 
 his ambassador. It was still further embittered by the violent 
 proceedings of the Remonstrant party, who became so outrageous 
 that they brought the nation to the brink of civil war, in their 
 zeal to crush their opponents. The following extract from the 
 speech of Sir Dudley Carleton, the ambassador of James VI., 
 delivered in the presence of the States -General in 1617, and pub- 
 lished by authority in London the year after, will indicate the 
 convulsed state of affairs at that period, and the party who origi- 
 nated it: — "Out of the ashes and cinders of Arminius are sprung 
 certain others who have wedded his particular opinions during his 
 life, have gone about to introduce them by cunning force into the 
 public churches after his death, and, not able to effectuate their 
 purpose by the ordinary way of the Classes (Presbyteries) and 
 Synodal Congregations, they directed themselves to my Lords, 
 the Estates of the Province." 
 
 " After that followed the change of an Arminian into a Remon- 
 strant. His opponent, who maintained the doctrine of the "Word 
 in its ancient purity, adopted the name of Counter-Remonstrant. 
 The crafty subtleties of the said Remonstrant at last gains his cause 
 against the poor Counter-Remonstrant, gets in his favour a resolu- 
 tion of my Lords the Estates of Holland by a plurality of voices, 
 against the liking and advice of many good and great towns, 
 triumpheth over him in concionibm, and, under colour of the Five 
 Points, insinuates many others amongst the people, frames invec- 
 tives against the reformed religion, and the most famous and 
 reverend teachers thereof, in many places changeth the pastors 
 and ancients (elders) to set in their rooms such others as might be 
 at his devotion ; proceeds with such rigour in the towns and coun- 
 tries, as to give occasion to revive in the provinces the hateful 
 name of the Inquisition ; covereth himself always with the title of 
 the Authority-Public, and giveth the Counter-Remonstrant the 
 reproach of schismatic, and one mutinous and tumultuary. 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XV 
 
 " Thus you have in few words the beginning and progress of 
 our evils. The present state of it is actual separation, if not a 
 schism in the church; jealousy, not to call it faction, in the State; 
 animosities and altercation between the magistrates; sourness and 
 hatred between the people; contempt of the ordinances of the 
 sovereign courts of justice;* confusion among the soldiers being 
 bound by diverse oaths ; rumours and tumults between the people 
 and the soldiers, newly levied and ill-disciplined, which is come 
 already even to the shedding of innocent blood : and of that there 
 hath followed fear and great amazement. All this within the 
 country. From abroad, all we understand of it are the mockeries 
 and scoffs of our enemies (the Papists), and the displeasure and 
 extreme sorrow of our friends" (the Protestant Kingdoms). 
 
 The speech, of which the above is an extract, was delivered the 
 6th October, 1618, and the Synod of Dort assembled on the 13th 
 November following, with a view to compose the religious 
 differences which had created so great evils, and remove the 
 controversies which had originated them. It consisted of re- 
 presentatives of the Reformed Belgic Churches, with whom were 
 associated many theologians of the Reformed Churches of Great 
 Britain, Germany, and France. The deliverance of the Synod on 
 the article relating to the subject of the present Treatise, the 
 
 * The soldiers here referred to, were raised by the Arminians in the inrovinces 
 in which they predominated, and were called attendant soldiers, because thev 
 were enlisted, and sworn to attend and obey the orders of the magistrates of the 
 particular province which had raised them, and not the orders of the States- 
 General or of the Stadtholder, Prince Maurice. Three statesmen of the Arminian 
 partj', who sanctioned this measure, were impeached of treason, and found 
 guilty, viz., Barneveldt, Grotius, and Hoogerbetz. The first of these was 
 executed in his 72d year. The other two were sentenced to imprisonment 
 during life. We have no fm-ther particulars to state concerning Hoogerbetz, 
 but the escape of Grotius from durance is interesting, both from its romance, 
 as well as from his celebrity as a scholar and jurist. His health having given 
 way owing to his confinement, his wife informed the governor of the prison that 
 she intended to remove his books that he might discontinue his studies. Under 
 this pretext she introduced a large chest into his apartment, and, after much 
 persuasion, got his consent to be inclosed in it, due attention being paid to 
 secure the possibility of breathing by means of apertures ; and in this manner he 
 obtained his liberty, 22d March, 1621, in his 36th year. — Butler's Life of Grotius. 
 
XVI PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 Doctrine of the Death of Christ, and through it the Redemption of 
 Men, is contained in the following propositions : — 
 
 I. God is not only supremely merciful, hut also supremely just, 
 and His justice requires (according as He hath revealed in His 
 Word) that our sins committed against His infinite Majesty should 
 be punished not only with temporal but also with eternal suffer- 
 ings of the soul as well as of the body, which punishment we 
 cannot escape unless the justice of God be satisfied. 
 
 II. But as we cannot satisfy it and deliver ourselves from the 
 wrath of God, He of His infinite mercy gave to us His only be- 
 gotten Son for a Surety, who, that He might make satisfaction for 
 us, was made sin and a curse for us, and in our stead, on the cross. 
 
 III. This death of the Son of God is a single and most perfect 
 sacrifice and satisfaction for sins, of infinite value and price, 
 abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world. 
 
 IV. This death is of so much value and price, because the 
 person who endured it is not only truly and perfectly a holy Man, 
 but is also the only-begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and 
 infinite essence with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for this it 
 behoved our Saviour to be; and finally, because His death was 
 conjoined with the enduring of the wrath and curse of God, 
 which, by our sins, we had deserved. 
 
 V. The promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in 
 Christ crucified, shall not perish but have everlasting life; which 
 promise ought to be announced and proposed, promiscuously and 
 indiscriminately to all nations and men, to whom God in His good 
 pleasure hath sent the gospel, with the command to repent and 
 believe. 
 
 VI. Although many who are called by the gospel do not repent 
 nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief, this doth not arise 
 from defect or insufficiency of the sacrifice offered by Christ upon 
 the cross, but from their own unbelief. 
 
 VII. To as many as truly believe, and through the death of 
 Christ are delivered and saved from sin and condemnation, this 
 benefit comes solely from the grace of God, which He owes to no 
 man, given to them in Christ from eternity. 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. Xvii 
 
 VIII. This was the most free counsel and gracious will and 
 intention of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving effi- 
 cacy of the most precious death of His own Son should exert its '.If 
 in all the elect, in order to give unto them only, justifying faith, 
 and thereby to lead them to eternal life; that is, God willed that 
 Christ, through the blood of the cross (whereby he confirmed the 
 new covenant) should efficaciously redeem all those, and those only, 
 out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, who Avere from 
 eternity chosen to salvation, and given to Him by the Father, that 
 He should confer upon them the gift of faith (which, as well as 
 other gifts of the Holy Spirit, He obtained by His death) ; that 
 He should cleanse them by His own blood from all sins, both 
 original and actual, committed after, as well as before faith; that 
 He should preserve them faithfully to the end ; and at length pre- 
 sent them glorious before Himself, without spot or blemish. 
 
 IX. This counsel having proceeded from eternal love to the 
 elect, has been powerfully fulfilled from the beginning of the world 
 to the present time (the gates of hell striving in vain against it), 
 and will continue also to be fulfilled henceforth, so that the elect 
 may, in their time, lie gathered together in one, and there may 
 always be a church founded in the blood of Christ, consisting of 
 believers, who shall constantly love the Saviour, who, as the bride- 
 groom, gave up His soul for her His bride, upon the cross, and who 
 shall perseveringly worship and celebrate Him both in this life and 
 to all eternity. 
 
 The close affinity between Arminianism and Popery caused Arch- 
 bishop Laud to exert his influence to favour and promote the one in 
 the Church of England, as a step to the return of the other. To this 
 effect is the account which has been given by Mosheim, vol. v., 
 chap, ii., sec. 12: — " In England the face of religion changed con- 
 siderably in a very little time after the famous Synod of Dort; 
 and this change, which was entirely in favour of Arminianism, was 
 principally effected by the counsels and influence of William Laud. 
 Archbishop of Canterbury. This revolution gave new courage to 
 the Arminians; and from that period to the present time they 
 have had the pleasure of witnessing the decisions and doctrines of 
 
XVJ 11 PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 the Synod of Dort, relating to the points in debate between them 
 and the Calvinists, treated in England with something more than 
 mere indifference, beheld by some with aversion, and by others 
 with contempt." In Scotland the very reverse was the case. The 
 decisions of the Synod of Dort were accepted with cordial approval 
 on the part of the Presbyterian community, which embraced then, 
 as it does still, nearly the entire Protestant population. Two 
 causes may be assigned for this. First, the general intelligence of 
 the people on religious subjects, arising from the faithful preaching 
 of the gospel and the conscientious care devoted to Bible instruc- 
 tion, on the part of parents and teachers, in families and schools, 
 at that period; and second, the circumstance that the doctrines of 
 the Word of God relating to particular redemption and justifica- 
 tion by faith had been cordially embraced and maintained by the 
 ministers and leading individuals at the period of the Reformation; 
 had proved, through the divine blessing, a source of consolation 
 and support to martyrs and confessors under their sufferings, and 
 had been uniformly cherished by the pious and intelligent of every 
 rank of society, as most vital and essential doctrines of inspired 
 truth. It is instructive to remark that the same doctrine, which it 
 is the object of this Treatise to establish and defend, formed the 
 subject of a Treatise entitled, " On Justification and the Conversati< >n 
 and Works of a justified man," which Sir Henry Balneaves 
 wrote in 1548, when a prisoner, for the truth's sake, at Rouen, in the 
 Old Palace, and which John Knox, then also a prisoner at Rouen, 
 lying in irons, and sore troubled by corporal infirmities on board 
 the galley, named Notre Dame, prepared for publication, and 
 recommended to the people of Scotland, stating that he had 
 perused it " to the great comfort and consolation of his spirit," 
 and that he gave "his confession of the article of justification 
 therein contained." 
 
 Dr M'Crie appends the following Note (entitled K) in the first 
 edition of the Life of Knox, published 1812, in reference to the 
 circumstances now mentioned : — 
 
 "In reading the writings of the first Reformers, there are two 
 tilings which must strike our minds. The first is the exact con- 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. xix 
 
 formity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the 
 justification of sinners and that of the apostles. The second is the 
 surprising harmony which subsisted among the Keformers as to 
 this doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments and 
 the external worship and government of the church they differed ; 
 but upon the article of free justification, Luther and Zuinglius, 
 Melancthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox, spoke the very same 
 language. This was not owing to their having read each other's 
 writings, but because they copied from the same divine original. 
 The clearness with which they understood and explained this great 
 truth is also very observable. More learned and able defences of 
 it have since appeared; but I question if ever it has been stated 
 in more scriptural, unequivocal, decided language, than it was in 
 the writings of the early Keformers. Some of their successors, by 
 giving way to speculations, gradually lost sight of this distinguish- 
 ing badge of the Reformation, and landed at last in Arminianism, 
 which is nothing else but the Popish doctrine in a Protestant dress. 
 Knox has informed us, that his design in preparing for the press 
 the Treatise written by Sir Henry Balneaves, was to give, along 
 with the author, his ' confession of the article of justification therein 
 contained.' I cannot therefore lay before the reader a more cor- 
 rect view of his sentiments upon this fundamental article of faith, 
 than by quoting from a book which was revised and approved by 
 him." 
 
 Dr M'Crie then presents to his readers a synopsis of the 
 Treatise; but our limits restrict us to quote only the following 
 passage : — 
 
 " In this article of justification, ye must either exclude all 
 works, or else exclude Christ from you and make yourselves just 
 (righteous), the which is impossible to do. Christ is the end of 
 the law (unto righteousness) to all that believe; that is, Christ is 
 the consummation and fulfilling of the law, and that justice 
 (righteousness) which the law requireth; and all they who believe 
 in Him are just, by imputation through faith, and for His sake 
 are repute and accepted as just. This is the justice of faith of 
 which the apostle speaketh, Rom. x., Therefore if ye will be just, 
 
XX PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 seek Christ and not the law, nor your invented works, which are 
 less than the law. Christ will have no mixtion with the law, nor 
 works thereof, in this article of justification, because the law is as 
 contrary to the office of Christ as darkness to light, and is as far 
 different as heaven and earth; for the office of the law is to accuse 
 the wicked, fear (alarm) them, and condemn them as transgres- 
 sors of the same; the office of Christ is to preach mercy, remission 
 of sins, through faith in His blood, give consolation and save 
 sinners; for He came not into this world to call them who are 
 just, or think themselves just, but to call sinners to repentance," 
 p. 128. 
 
 Previous to passing from the views and sentiments entertained 
 in Scotland with reference to the doctrines sanctioned by the 
 Synod of Dort, it may be proper to state that the same views were 
 also generally, or almost universally, entertained by the Presby- 
 terians of England, and by a very considerable portion of the 
 ministers and members of the Episcopalian communion. Accord- 
 ingly, in the Westminster Assembly, which commenced its sittings 
 1st July, 1643, and which embraced, in the lists of its members, 
 Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents; in short, the repre- 
 sentatives of the various Christian communities in England, along 
 with four commissioners from the Church of Scotland, the follow- 
 ing Articles were adopted and made part of the Confession of 
 Faith, relative to the redemption effected by the Lord Jesus 
 Christ : — 
 
 Chap, iii., sec. 6, "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, 
 so hath He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, fore- 
 ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are 
 elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ; are effectu- 
 ally called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due 
 season; are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power 
 through faith unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by 
 Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, 
 but the elect only." 
 
 Chap, viii., sec. 5, " The Lord Jesus, by His perfect obedience 
 and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit once 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XXI 
 
 offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of His Father, 
 and purchased, not only reconcdiation, but an everlasting inherit- 
 ance in the kingdom of heaven for all those whom the Father hath 
 given auto Him." 
 
 Sec. 8, " To all those for whom Christ hath purchased redemp- 
 tion, He doth certainly and effectually apply and communicate the 
 same, making intercession for them; and revealing unto them, in 
 and by the word, the mysteries of salvation, effectually persuading 
 them by His Spirit to believe and obey, and governing their 
 hearts by His word and Spirit; overcoming all their enemies by 
 His almighty power and wisdom, in such manner and ways as 
 are most consonant to His wonderful and unsearchable dispensa- 
 tion." 
 
 Chap, xi, sec. 4, " God did, from all eternity, decree to justify 
 all the elect, and Christ did in the fulness of time die for their 
 sins and rise again for their justification, nevertheless they are 
 not justified until the Holy Spirit doth in due time actually 
 apply Christ unto them." 
 
 The doctrines of the Confession of Faith generally, and those 
 contained in the propositions now quoted, were firmly adhered to 
 by the fathers of the Secession Church, who testified against 
 Arrninianism in the most decided manner, and excluded Mr Mair, 
 minister of Orwell, from their communion, in 1757, as noticed in 
 the following treatise,* and more minutely detailed in the follow- 
 ing extract from an authorised document upon the grounds therein 
 stated: — " Attempts were made about this time to introduce a 
 doctrine which seemed to favour a scheme of universal redemption. 
 It was taught that Christ died in some sense for all mankind, and 
 that this was one ground of the unlimited call of the gospel, and 
 of the offer made of Christ, and of salvation through Him, to all 
 who hear. As the Synod saw that some in their connection were 
 in danger of being ensnared by it, they considered it to be their 
 duty to give them warning. Therefore, in the year 1754, they 
 passed an Act asserting these important truths — that Christ, in 
 the new covenant, became Surety for the elect only; that the 
 
 * Narrative, Agreed and Enacted by the General Associate Synod, Part II. 
 
XX11 PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 blessings of His purchase cannot be divided either from Himself 
 or from each other, but are all enjoyed by union to His person; 
 that His intercession is of equal extent with His satisfaction; and 
 that there is an inseparable connection between the death of 
 Christ and the complete salvation of those for whom He died. 
 They at the same time asserted the unlimited extent of the gospel 
 call, as reaching to all who have access to hear it, and declared 
 that there is the most perfect harmony between this and the 
 doctrine of particular redemption; inasmuch as the call of the 
 gospel is not founded on the objective destination of the death of 
 Christ, but on its intrinsic merit and sufficiency, together Avith the 
 gracious promise of eternal life directed to all who hear the gospel, 
 and to be accomplished to all who believe on Christ." 
 
 "Mr Thomas Mair, a member of Synod, entered his dissent 
 from this declaration of the truth, and keenly contended that 
 Christ died in some sense for all mankind, or shed His blood for 
 them. The Synod were unwilling to proceed against him with 
 censure, especially as his manner of expression seemed to flow 
 rather from confusion of ideas than from a fixed principle of error. 
 All that they urged was, that he would abstain from teaching this 
 doctrine, but on no consideration would he comply with this pro- 
 posal. On the contrary, he expressed himself in still stronger 
 terms, asserting that Christ, as a Surety-Priest, died in some sense 
 for reprobates — for Judas as well as for Peter. Therefore, after 
 they had dealt with him three years without effect, they, in April, 
 1757, found it necessary, for preserving the purity of doctrine 
 among them, to depose him from the ministry, and to suspend 
 him from communion with the church in her sealing ordinances." 
 
 The testimony of the United Associate Synod of 1827 may be 
 referred to as a further evidence that the doctrine of " particular 
 redemption " was held as a fundamental and vital portion of 
 saving truth by that church. In Part II., chap, ii., sec. 7, " On 
 the Extent of Salvation," they set forth the doctrine of Scripture, 
 as stated in their standards, in the following terms: — " That all 
 the individuals of the human race will not be finally saved; that 
 the wicked shall be consigned to everlasting punishment in hell; 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XX1U 
 
 and that those only who are sanctified in time, being the elect 
 of God, for whom Christ died, shall be rendered eternally happy 
 in heaven." 
 
 With a view to render their sentiments more indubitably 
 evident, they refer to the three following forms, in which the 
 doctrine above stated has been opposed, and express their disap- 
 probation of them severally :— 
 
 I. The widest departure from the truth is the opinion that the 
 whole human race shall, either at the last day, or after a period of 
 suffering in hell, be admitted to the benefit of Christ's sacrifice, and 
 thus be eventually saved. 
 
 II. It is also a deviation from the truth to hold that, although 
 all men shall not be saved, yet Christ, according to the purpose of 
 the Father, and His own intention, died for all men, actually 
 expiating the guilt even of those who eventually perish. 
 
 III. The third, and apparently the least erroneous form of 
 holding the doctrine of universal redemption, but still inaccurate 
 in its terms, and, as usually explained, inconsistent with Scripture, 
 is, " That Christ, by His death, placed all men in a salvable 
 state." 
 
 The tenet of universal redemption was held by Arminians, 
 in connection with the further tenet, that moral suasion is 
 sufficient to induce mankind to believe and obey the gospel ; and 
 that the operation of the Holy Spirit is objective, not subjective, 
 and consists exclusively in these two results; first, in representing 
 divine truths more clearly to our understanding, that we may have 
 a fuller evidence, a stronger conviction and assurance of them; 
 and, second, in bringing these truths to our remembrance, that 
 they may be present with us, whenever this is requisite, to enable 
 us to resist temptations, and to encourage us to the performance 
 of duty. * Some who were favourably disposed to the tenet of 
 universal redemption, because its tendency was esteemed by 
 them to enhance the mercy of God, found themselves incapable of 
 reconciling with the Scripture doctrine of man's sinful state by 
 nature the flattering view which the theory of Arminius taught 
 
 * Dr Whitby, Discourse on the Five Points, p. 162. 
 
XXIV PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 upon this subject. Accordingly they adopted a theory which 
 combined the tenet of universal redemption with the necessity of 
 the work of regeneration, and the saving application of Christ 
 and His benefits to believers, effected by the Holy Spirit. In 
 consequence of this they termed themselves Calvinistic Arminians; 
 and although it has been the practice of some, either intentionally 
 or otherwise, to represent this theory as a modern improvement 
 in theology, it has been described and criticised by Turretin, in 
 the edition 1G82, as held by some at that early period. His 
 words are,t " To this opinion, viz., that of the Remonstrants, some 
 amongst ourselves approach, if not altogether, yet in a great 
 degree, who defend universal grace. As they maintain that the 
 philanthropy and love of God towards the human race is uni- 
 versal, so also do they deem that Christ was sent by the Father 
 into the world to be a universal remedy, to procure for one and all 
 salvation, under the condition of faith, and that Christ died for all 
 with that intention and under the same condition, although the 
 efficacy and fruit of His death belong to the few only, to whom 
 God has ordained to give faith by a special decree. In this way 
 they proceed to maintain that the decree relative to Christ's death 
 preceded the decree of election, and that God in sending Christ 
 had no respect to these (the elect) more than those (the non-elect), 
 but equally destined Christ to be a Saviour to all; or, more pre- 
 cisely, that He did not intend so much that salvation should be 
 provided by Him, as the possibility of salvation, viz., the removal 
 of the bar or hindrance which justice placed in the way of 
 their salvation, by the satisfaction rendered to Him, by the inter- 
 vention of which the door of salvation is opened to them, so that 
 God being appeased, is able to constitute with them the new 
 covenant, justice not obstructing, and to bestow upon them 
 salvation. For which end He has taken care that Christ, thus 
 given and dead for all, should be offered to one and 'all by a 
 universal call. But because He indeed foresaw that none would 
 believe on account of the innate wickedness of the heart, they are 
 agreed that God had ordained, by a special decree, to confer faith 
 
 t Turretini Institutio, vol. ii.- — Locus 14, Quest. 14, sec 6. 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XXV 
 
 on some, whereby they should believe in Christ and become 
 certainly participants of salvation; the rest continuing in unbelief, 
 and, on that account, being most justly condemned. In this 
 particular they properly dissent from the Arminians: all wliich is 
 collected, not obscurely, from their -writings." To this passage 
 Turretin subjoins corroborative testimony from the writings of 
 Camero, Testardus, and Amyraldus. 
 
 This theory has been revived in recent times, under the sanction 
 of the late Rev. Robert Hall of Leicester, and the late Rev. Dr 
 Balmer of Berwick-upon-Tweed, one of the Professors of Divinity 
 of the United Associate Synod, now combined with the United 
 Presbyterian Church. Dr Balmer candidly admits that he im- 
 bibed the theory from Mr Hall; and in his statement in presence 
 of the Synod, whilst he grants that it constituted a departure 
 from the views entertained by his church, he defends himself upon 
 the ground that he was not singular in that respect, but that a 
 simultaneous change had taken place on the sentiments of the 
 whole body. His language is: " It has been objected that I assert 
 a great change to have taken place in our sentiments and language 
 on the extent of the atonement, within the last two years, while, 
 in point of fact, there has been no change whatever. To those 
 who deny peremptorily that there has been any change, however 
 slight, I would say, contrast the language of the Synod in 1830 
 with its language in 1842. In the ' Admonition ' issued at the 
 former period, the doctrine that Christ made atonement for all 
 men is unequivocally condemned, and not a word is said respecting 
 the general or universal relation of His sacrifice; in the document 
 adopted at the latter, it is conceded that the atonement has a 
 general reference, and opens the door of mercy to all. To those 
 who meet the assertion that there has been some change with an 
 unqualified contradiction, I would say further, examine carefully 
 the language very generally employed in our oral discussions, and 
 say if the tone of it has not become gradually more moderate and 
 tolerant. And, finally, compare the views given of the question 
 by those who wrote prior to the present discussion, with the views 
 
 given in the latest and ablest publications on the subject. In the 
 
 d 
 
XXVI PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 lectures of Dr Dick, and in the able and luminous sermons of Mr 
 Fraser of Alloa, which will be allowed to contain an accurate 
 exhibition of what ivas the recognised doctrine of the denomination, 
 it is maintained peremptorily that Christ died and that He made 
 atonement only for the elect; and the doctrine that in any sense 
 He died for all, or that in any respect He made atonement for all, 
 seems never to have occurred to either of these authors." 
 
 The unqualified tenor of this passage shows that Dr Balmer not 
 only maintained, but gloried in maintaining, the tenet of uni- 
 versal redemption. His views received the sanction of the Synod, 
 inasmuch as they stated in their Deliverance, " that, in particular, 
 on the two aspects of the atonement there was entire harmony, 
 namely, that in making the atonement the Saviour bore special 
 covenant relations to the elect, had a special love to them, and 
 infallibly secured their everlasting salvation; and that His obedi- 
 ence unto death afforded such satisfaction to the justice of God, 
 as that, on the ground of it, and in consistency with His character 
 and law, the door of mercy is opened to all men, and a free and 
 full salvation is presented for their acceptance." 
 
 It is not necessary to enter into further details respecting the 
 proceedings, at the period referred to, in the United Associate 
 Synod, as a summary of them has recently been published in an 
 excellent compend by my friend, Dr Wood of Dumfries, entitled 
 " The Question of Doctrine, in connection with the Negotiations 
 for Union between the Free and United Presbyterian Churches: a 
 Tract for the circumstances." It may, however, be mentioned, 
 that the finding of the Synod failed in satisfying the church to a 
 great extent; for, in 1845, no fewer than forty-seven memorials 
 were sent up to the Sjaiod, calling for the reconsideration of the 
 subject. 
 
 Although the United Presbyterian Church, consisting of the 
 United Secession Church and the Kelief Church, has laid aside 
 the testimonies which formed part of the subordinate standards of 
 these two bodies respectively previous to their Union, and can 
 exonerate itself of the proceedings and statements connected with 
 either church at that period, as incompetent now to be urged 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XXvii 
 
 either for or against it, this only renders it the more necessary 
 that, in prosecuting the inquiries on the subject of union between 
 that church and the Free Church, the utmost anxiety should be 
 felt in order to ascertain whether the two churches understand 
 and adopt the Confession of Faith in the same sense and to the 
 same effect; it being at present the only subordinate standard, 
 along with the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, which they hold 
 in common. That there is occasion for this, the preceding narra- 
 tive should convince every impartial reader; for although the 
 United Presbyterian Church be not identical with the church of 
 Dr Balmer, it consists to a great extent of ministers and office- 
 bearers who took part in the proceedings and decisions of the 
 United Associate Synod at the period when the question respect- 
 ing the extent of the atonement was discussed; and, according to 
 Dr Balmer's own showing, his sentiments did not coincide with 
 the doctrine of the Confession of Faith on that subject, neither 
 did the sentiments of the majority of his fathers and brethren, at 
 least in his estimation of what their views were. We have already 
 shown, from the Confession of Faith, that it teaches the doctrine 
 of particular redemption in explicit and repeated terms, and it has 
 been recognised as teaching this doctrine by the office-bearers of 
 the Free Church, both prior and subsequent to the Disruption; 
 and they have adhibited their signatures to it in that respect, in 
 terms of the following formula:- — " I do hereby declare that I do 
 sincerely own and believe the whole doctrine contained in the 
 Confession of Faith, approven by former General Assemblies of 
 this church, to be the truths of God, and I do own the same as 
 the Confession of my Faith." No union between the churches 
 could be regarded as justifiable, or could be expected to be 
 honoured with the blessing of the Divine Head of the church, 
 which was formed upon a compromise with regard to a doctrine 
 so closely relating to His own glory, and the edification and com- 
 fort of His people, as that of the atonement. At the same time, 
 we cannot suppress our apprehensions, from what has already 
 taken place, that the intense eagerness for union which has 
 been evinced in some quarters, and which has no doubt been 
 
XXV1U PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 encouraged by the votes of approving majorities in the General 
 Assembly, may involve the sacrifice of the distinct and unqualified 
 testimony which has hitherto been given to the doctrine of par- 
 ticular redemption. Mosheim states that Arminius was encour- 
 aged to prosecute his enterprise and propagate his opinions, as 
 the founder of the theory of universal redemption, by two con- 
 siderations, viz., " that he was persuaded, on the one hand, that 
 there were many persons besides himself, and, amongst these, 
 some of the first rank and dignity, that were highly disgusted at 
 the doctrine of absolute decrees; and, on the other, he knew that 
 the Belgic doctors were neither obliged by their Confession of 
 Faith, nor by any other public law, to adopt and propagate the 
 principles of Calvin." We are bound in charity to give credit to 
 the friends of union, and we do so most readily, for being actuated 
 by higher and worthier views than to please men, whether of high 
 or low degree, in reference to that object, or of being prepared to 
 tamper with the Confession of Faith any more, under present 
 circumstances, than they would do if they still continued to hold 
 their livings by adhering to it and maintaining it in its integrity. 
 At the same time, we are compelled to witness the, to us, inexpli- 
 cable phenomenon on the part of some of showing " a due regard 
 to the principles of the Free Church," as required by the General 
 Assembly in appointing the Committee on Union, by denying 
 that to be a principle at all, or that Christ has authorised it "to 
 be a bond of communion," which the Confession of Faith teaches, 
 chap, xxiii., and which they themselves notably contended for 
 during the ten years' conflict as a vital portion of divine worth, 
 viz., the principle of an Establishment: — " That the civil magistrate 
 hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and 
 peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept 
 pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, 
 all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or 
 reformed, and all ordinances of God duly settled, administered, 
 and observed. For the better settling whereof he hath power to 
 call Synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever 
 is transacted in them be according to the mind of God." 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. Xxix 
 
 Nor can we conclude without referring to another circumstance, 
 which may involve results seriously affecting the peace and 
 stability of the church, and the purity of doctrine hitherto main- 
 tained. At last General Assembly, it was laid down by two 
 speakers, that the statements of the Confession of Faith alone 
 possess binding authority, to the exclusion of inferences, although 
 deduced by good and necessary consequence, and that the church 
 had no power to demand from its office-bearers mqre than 
 adherence to that standard in its strict literality. To do justice 
 to their sentiments, we shall state them in their own language. 
 One of them, as reported in the blue book, said, " Terms of com- 
 munion, if they exist at all, in a church's formularies, must be 
 found there in the shape of distinct and intelligible proposi- 
 tions. It is not constructively that a church imposes upon the 
 conscience of its office-bearers particular articles of faith. It takes 
 them bound to statements, not to inferences." The other speaker 
 followed to the same effect, in these terms—" We cannot be held 
 bound down by inferences from the statements of the Confession 
 of Faith, but only by the statements themselves; and this is the 
 capital distinction between an inspired and an uninspired docu- 
 ment." We might animadvert upon these expressions, " a church 
 imposes upon the conscience of its office-bearers," " we cannot be 
 bound down," as being derogatory both to the church and the 
 Confession of Faith, inasmuch as the church accepts only of the 
 spontaneous adherence of office-bearers to its standards, and would 
 deem it a sin and a snare to do otherwise; and, further, it allows 
 any individual, upon finding that his views have changed with 
 regard to any doctrine contained in the standards, to withdraw his 
 adherence and retire from the communion of the church. 
 
 We may further remark, that there was no apparent call for 
 these observations in connection with the subject under discussion, 
 viz., the question of the duty of magistrates and civil rulers to 
 Christ and His church, for there is no lack of statements, and no 
 necessity for inferences, under that head of doctrine, in the Con- 
 fession of Faith; where, on the contrary, it is set forth in the 
 clearest, fullest, and most explicit terms. 
 
XXX PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 But the scope of the dicta, so authoritatively laid down, bears 
 very directly, and, we apprehend, most injuriously, upon the vital 
 doctrine which is the subject of the following Treatise. And 
 here it is necessary to remark, that, so far as we know, the 
 term "Atonement" does not once occur in any single state- 
 ment of the Confession of Faith, nor in any one of the 
 passages of Scripture appended to it as proofs. Apply the 
 principle, that " we cannot be held bound down by inferences 
 from the statements of the Confession of Faith, but only by the 
 statements themselves," and what follows? Where we have no 
 statement, we are under no binding obligation to hold one view 
 regarding the atonement more than another. The doctrine of 
 the atonement, as some would express it, is " outside" of the 
 Confession, and allows this central doctrine of Christianity to be 
 held in any manner whatever, Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, 
 universal, or particular, according to the personal views of every 
 individual. This surely is a "reductio ad absurdum," but not, by 
 any means, a " reductio absurda," from the premises which the 
 dicta above quoted supply. The consequence which Ave infer 
 therefore is, that said dicta must bear the charge of the absurdity. 
 We admit that "inferences" from the Confession of Faith are not 
 necessarily, nor in all cases of authority; and that in every case 
 they should be carefully examined, and shown to be consistent 
 with Scripture; and that it is only when this has been ascertained 
 that they are admissible as of binding authority. But the dicta 
 referred to express no such limiting condition; on the contrary, 
 they brand any inference whatever, however fairly deducible from 
 the Confession of Faith, and however approven by Scripture, to be 
 of no weight or authority whatever. There are three terms in the 
 Greek language, which are employed in Scripture, as nearly if not 
 entirely synonymous: (Xvrpwcns) redemption; (KaTa\\dy v ) atonement 
 or reconciliation; (LW/x6s) propitiation. The first refers to the 
 price which has been paid for our redemption, viz., the precious 
 blood of Christ; the other two to the efficacy or benefits of 
 redemption, the one God-ward and the other man- ward; God 
 being reconciled and sin expiated. Now, the following inference 
 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XXXI 
 
 deducible from these two premises, we deem to be incontestably 
 valid : — 
 
 The Scriptures employ the terms redemption and atonement as 
 equivalent and interchangeable. 
 
 The Confession of Faith affirms the doctrine of particular 
 redemption. 
 
 Therefore, the Confession of Faith affirms the doctrine of par- 
 ticular atonement. 
 
 But still further. Some terms, both in the Scriptures and in 
 the Confession of Faith, admit of a more extended or of a more 
 restricted signification; and their precise import in every case 
 requires to be ascertained in the way of inference from the context 
 and scope of the passage. We have high authority for including 
 the term " redemption " in this category. Jonathan Edwards has 
 the following observations regarding its import: — " Here it may 
 be observed that the work of redemption is sometimes understood, 
 in a more limited sense, for the purchase of salvation; for the 
 word strictly signifies a purchase of deliverance. But sometimes 
 the work of redemption is taken more largely, as including all 
 that God accomplishes tending to this end; not only the purchase 
 itself, but all God's works that were properly preparatory to the 
 purchase, and accomplishing the success of it. So that the whole 
 dispensation (of grace), as it includes the preparation and purchase, 
 the application and success of Christ's redemption, is called the 
 work of redemption." 
 
 Now this circumstance raises the question, in many cases, which 
 is the statement, and which the inference; whether the proposition 
 in the Confession, as understood by those who hold the doctrine 
 of particular redemption, be the statement, or the same proposition 
 as understood by those who hold the tenet of universal redemp- 
 tion] Nothing appears clearer or more conclusive than that the 
 proposition in chap, hi., § 6, of the Confession, is a statement which 
 affirms the doctrine of particular redemption; but we question 
 whether the defenders of universal redemption would admit that 
 to be the case, and would not charge it with being an inference, 
 and an untenable one. They would explain its meaning in this 
 
XXX11 PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 manner: all are redeemed by Christ, but they who are elected, 
 are, in addition to that, effectually called unto faith in Christ by 
 His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, and 
 sanctified, and kept by His power unto salvation. And to a 
 similar effect they would also explain the last clause of the 
 proposition, in the following manner: — Neither are any other 
 redeemed by Christ; and, in addition to that, effectually called, 
 justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. From 
 this, then, it is manifest that the question regarding what 
 is the statement and what the inference, is not to be deter- 
 mined without careful inquiry; and that if subscription to the 
 Confession of Faith is only to pledge those who give it to the 
 literalities of that standard, and not to bind them to inferences, 
 there is a door opened to the most diverse interpretations and the 
 most opposite views. 
 
 That these observations are justified by the existing diversity of 
 sentiment, between those who maintain the doctrine of particular 
 redemption, and those who are termed Calvinistic Universalists, 
 and who, at the same time, profess to adhere to the Confession of 
 Faith, is corroborated by the following passage from the Treatise 
 of Dr Hodge on the Atonement : — " There has been, in this 
 generation, a very uncandid attempt made by some who profess to 
 receive this Confession (the Westminster) ex animo, as the fit expres- 
 sion of their faith, to show that it does not explicitly affirm a specific 
 and personal redemption of the elect, to the exclusion of a general 
 redemption for all. These parties admit that the Confession may 
 be chargeable with the sin of omission, in respect to the failure to 
 affirm that redemption is general and indefinite, but they deny 
 that it affirms the contrary. It is said that the Confession is very 
 careful to trace out the relation of Christ's work to the elect, while 
 it leaves the way open to all, to indulge what opinions they please 
 as to its relations to the non-elect. This is obviously a mistake. 
 Our Confession, explicitly and precisely, — in those forms of state- 
 ment most significant and emphatic, when viewed in connec- 
 tion with the state of the controversy on this question at 
 that time, — affirms that the redemption work of Christ was 
 
PRELIMINARY ESSAY. XXXlll 
 
 personal and definite, and therefore not impersonal and in- 
 definite." 
 
 It will be observed that this respectable and learned theologian 
 has recourse to inference; inference derived from the state of 
 theological discussion in the seventeenth century, when he decides 
 that the import of the statements contained in the Confession is 
 emphatically and decisively in favour of the doctrine of particular 
 redemption. But we can appeal from the subordinate to the 
 supreme standard, from the Confession to the Word of God, in 
 support of the same conclusion, viz., that the doctrine of particular 
 redemption is what the Confession was intended to teach, and 
 does in effect teach. The Act, 1 754, passed by the Associate Synod, 
 declares it to be a scriptural truth, " that the blessings of Christ's 
 purchase cannot be divided either from Himself or from each 
 other." And is not this abundantly warranted by Eom. viii. 32 — 
 " He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us 
 all,* how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things ? 
 "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect 1 It is God 
 that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth ? It is Christ that 
 died, yea rather, that is risen again, avIio is even at the right hand 
 of God, who also maketh intercession for us." It is submitted, 
 that an interest in the Saviour's death is exhibited in this passage 
 as the sure foundation of all saving benefits, and that the redeemed 
 are here taught that the grace of God in ordaining Christ to be 
 their Eedeemer, and in subjecting Him to the penal sufferings 
 essential to the expiation of their sins, warrants them to conclude 
 
 * " Tor us all,' that is, for all to whom the apostle is writing, whom he had 
 addressed as beloved of God, called saints (Eom. i. 7), and among whom he 
 ranks himself. But as these epistles to the churches equally apply to all 
 believers to the end of time, so this expression includes all the elect of God, all 
 who have been given to Jesus, all on whose behalf He addressed the Father in 
 His intercessory prayer. That those to whom Paul here refers, when he says, 
 'for us all,' applies to none but believers, is evident; first, because, in the 
 preceding and following verses, the apostle speaks of those who love God, and 
 who are the called according to His purpose ; second, because he says, in express 
 terms, that He will freely give us all things, which implies that we have faith, 
 by which we receive Jesus Christ. This absolute gift, then, concerns only those 
 who, being elected by God, believe in Him."— Exposition of the Epistle to the 
 Romans, by Robert Ualdane. 
 
XXXIV PRELIMINARY ESSAY. 
 
 that, having provided for their redemption by such an amazing 
 substitution, it shall, a fortiori, confer upon them, together with 
 redemption, the other constituent benefits of the covenant of 
 redemption. If all men were redeemed by the death of Christ, 
 the unavoidable inference from this passage would be, that all 
 men shall be justified, adopted, sanctified, and glorified; but as 
 this inference is rejected, except by absolute Universalists, the 
 tenet must also be rejected that the passage refers to all men, 
 or teaches that Christ died for any except elect believers. 
 
 We sincerely trust that the present volume, with others on 
 the same subject, may conduce, under the blessing of God, to pro- 
 duce unity of sentiment upon the great doctrine of the atonement, 
 and lead the watchmen of Zion "to see eye to eye," in order that the 
 blessings promised in connection with this may be enjoyed by the 
 churches and people of our beloved country, as in former days; 
 and that there may be occasion for the jubilant proclamation — 
 " Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: 
 for the Lord hath comforted His people, He hath redeemed 
 Jerusalem!" 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Preface, - 1 
 
 Introductory Note, 9 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Presumptive Arguments that Christ did not Die to Eedeem all Men. 
 
 Sect. I. — All Men shall not be finally Saved, 11 
 
 Sect. II. — Christ foreknew that all would not be Saved, - - - 13 
 Sect. III. — Christ came to Redeem a select number who had been chosen 
 
 to Life, 14 
 
 Sect. IV. — Multitudes had already gone down into Perdition before 
 
 Christ died, - - - - 15 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Modes op Evading the foregoing Reasoning. 
 
 Sect. I. — First Evasion Answered, 19 
 
 Sect. II. — Second Evasion Answered, ------- 27 
 
 Sect. III. — The Argument against the Universality of the Atonement 
 derived from multitudes having gone down into Perdition 
 before Christ died, incapable of being Evaded, - - 34 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Special Relations which the Saviour sustained to His People 
 in Dying. 
 
 Sect. I. — The Saviour in dying sustained the relation of a Shepherd, 36 
 
 Sect. II. — The Saviour in dying sustained the relation of a Husband, 40 
 
 Sect. III. — The Saviour in dying sustained the relation of a Surety - 44 
 
 Sect. IV. — The Saviour in dying sustained the relation of a Substitute, 60 
 
 Sect. V. — The Saviour died as a Propitiatory Sacrifice, - - - 62 
 
 Sect. VI. — The Saviour in dying gave Himself as a Ransom, - - 72 
 
 Sect. VII. — The Saviour laid down His Life for those who are Sanctified, 81 
 
XXXVI CONTENTS. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The Necessity of the Atonement. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sect. I. — The Holiness of God, 91 
 
 Sect. II. — The Justice of God, 95 
 
 Sect. III.— The Truth of God, 113 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 The Order of the Divine Decrees Farther Considered, - - 121 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Texts which represent the Atonement as of a General 
 Nature — How to be Interpreted. 
 
 Sect. I. — Preliminary Statement, 135 
 
 Sect. II — Principle of Interpretation, - - - - - 137 
 
 Sect. III. — Application of the Principle, 1 42 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The Call of the Gospel. 
 
 Sect. I. — General Statement, 1G8 
 
 Sect. II. — The Universality of the Call not founded on the Univer- 
 sality of the Atonement, - - - - - -171 
 
 Sect. III. — Is the ground of the Universal Call the Infinite Sufficiency ? 172 
 
 Sect. IV. — What is the true basis of the Gospel Call ? - - - 1 79 
 
 Sect. V. — Farther thoughts respecting the Divine Call, - - - 190 
 
 Sect. VI. — Additional Testimonies, 200 
 
 Sect. VII. — Views of Mr Scott, Author of the Commentary, and of 
 
 Archbirfhop Usher, 212 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 Answers to Miscellaneous Objections, 21S 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Summary of Principles that have been Established, - - - 244 
 
 Appendix, 265 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Against such discussions as are to be found in the following 
 pages there is a pretty strong prejudice, even in the minds of some 
 good men. There may, perhaps, be reason to suspect that, in 
 some cases, it is more affected than real; arising more from 
 thoughtlessness than from any other cause; but that it exists 
 there can be no doubt. " Many of my hearers," says John 
 Xewton, " need not be told what fierce and voluminous disputes 
 have been maintained concerning the extent of the death of 
 Christ. I am afraid the advantage of such controversies has not 
 been answerable to the zeal of the disputants. For myself, I 
 wish to be known by no name but that of a Christian, and 
 implicitly to adopt no system but that of the Bible." * This, 
 under the appearance of an amiable candour, and of more than 
 ordinary meekness of spirit, is actually pronouncing a reckless 
 censure — a censure not less severe than it is undeserved. It is 
 representing those men as fierce and bigoted disputants whose 
 only fault was that they had examined the " Bible " a little more 
 carefully than he had done, and had pointed out a little more 
 clearly and logically than perhaps suited his taste, the grounds of 
 those opinions which he himself believed, but from the defence of 
 which he shrank. 
 
 Newton, it is well known, held the same, or nearly the same, 
 principles with the majority of those on whom he here attempts 
 to fix a stigma, and that he did so he gives abundant proof in 
 almost the very next sentence. " If, because the death of Christ 
 is said to take away the sin of the world — or, as this evangelist 
 expresses it in another place, of the whole world, 1 John ii. 2 — it 
 be inferred that He actually designed and intended the salvation 
 
 * Sermon on Isaiah liii. 3. 
 A 
 
2 PREFACE. 
 
 of all men, such an inference would be contradicted by fact, for it 
 is certain that all men will not be saved, Matt. vii. 13, 14. It is 
 to be feared that the greater part of those to whom the word of 
 His salvation is sent perish in their sins. If, therefore, He 
 cannot be disappointed of His purpose, since many do perish, it 
 could not be His fixed design that all men should be finally and 
 absolutely saved." * What is this but avowing all that has been 
 avowed by the " disputants" at whom he sneers, at least by such 
 of them as are entitled to much regard 1 And is it candid, is it 
 honourable in good men like Newton — and he is one of a class — 
 to tlirow out invectives against their own friends, who, if judged 
 impartially, must be allowed to deserve much better of what has 
 been called the "cause of God and truth" than they do 
 themselves 1 ? 
 
 The same worthy person goes on to say, " The extent of the 
 atonement is frequently represented as if a calculation had been 
 made how much suffering was necessary for the surety to endure, 
 in order exactly to expiate the aggregate number of all the sins of 
 all the elect — that is, so much precisely, and no more — and that 
 when this requisition was completely answered, He said, It is 
 finished, and bowed His head and gave up the ghost." Such a 
 representation, indeed, has been sometimes given, but never has 
 it been given except from the grossest ignorance. Those who 
 indulge in such speculations only show that their views of the 
 atonement are crude in the extreme. The simplest, and, one 
 would say, the most natural view of the atonement is, that it is 
 the fulfilling of the Divine law. Sin is the transgression of the 
 law. The transgression of the law is necessarily followed by the 
 sentence of condemnation. What can the atonement be, or what 
 ought it to be, but the removal of that sentence, and how can that 
 sentence be removed, except in one way, namely, by its being 
 endured? 
 
 Now, will not good men like Newton allow that such mistakes 
 ought to be corrected, and that their being corrected is of essential 
 importance, not only to the misguided individuals themselves, but 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
PREFACE. 3 
 
 to the general interests of truth and godliness] Nor are such 
 mistakes to he regarded as the worst or the most offensive that 
 are found to prevail among us, and that of course require correc- 
 tion. That the atonement consists in incarnation rather than in 
 suffering; that the Son of God saves us, not so much hy bearing 
 our sin, as hy assuming our flesh; that the law of God, once 
 broken, can never be fulfilled either by the sinner or by the surety, 
 and that, instead of being fulfilled, it is set aside; that the Saviour 
 did not love sinners and give Himself for them, but that He died 
 in a general way, without any fixed purpose, died for sin in the 
 abstract, died for God, and that His loving sinners, or determining 
 to save them, is a subsequent arrangement; that the atonement 
 has no reference to justice in the ordinary sense, but only to 
 public justice, in other words, to utility, or the general good; that 
 it is a talismanic something not oj^erating according to any prin- 
 ciples of law or justice in the Divine government, but after the 
 manner of magic; that it is not the punishment of sin in order 
 that the sinner may be saved in consistency with the holiness and 
 truth of God, but only a display for the purpose of producing an 
 impression on the universe; that the Saviour, by obeying and 
 suffering, did not work out a righteousness on the ground of which 
 sinners are justified, but only did something — it is not easy to say 
 what — which disposes God to show them mercy; that believing 
 sinners, although expressly said in the Scriptures to be justified, are 
 not justified in fact, which, in the nature of things, they never can be, 
 but are only passed by; and that throughout eternity they remain 
 under the evil desert of sin, from which even the blood of Christ 
 cannot deliver them, although they are admitted into heaven, 
 although they mingle with the angels who never fell, although the 
 Captain of Salvation has brought them to glory, although they 
 constitute a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any 
 such thing, and although God the Lord dwells among them, who 
 is of purer eyes than to behold evil ! 
 
 Do not these and such like opinions with which the religious 
 world is overrun, require to be corrected and exposed; and how 
 is this to be done without entering; more or less into those " dis- 
 
4 PREFACE. 
 
 putes" which the excellent Newton, and thousands besides not 
 worthy to be named with him, affect to regard with so much 
 squeamishness 1 ? Of all things in the world the most valuable is 
 truth ; if we stand up for anything, it must be for truth ; and of 
 all truth the most precious beyond comparison is the truth which 
 saves us. The man who is concerned for his own salvation, or for 
 the salvation of others, will deem himself bound to assert that 
 truth and to defend it under every obloquy, and, if necessary, even 
 in the face of intimidation. The man who, under the pretence of 
 disliking controversy, or under any other pretence, stands aloof 
 and keeps silence when that truth is assailed or is trampled under- 
 foot — of such a man what shall we say 1 ? To say that he is in- 
 different, that he is lukewarm, that he has no real love to the 
 truth, is saying far too little. He exposes himself to a much more 
 serious charge. 
 
 The prevailing aversion to religious controversy — that is, to 
 argumentative discussion about points of faith — leads to the ' 
 suspicion that, with a considerable portion of the religious world, 
 what they call their creed is much more a matter of speculative 
 opinion than of fixed belief. What is argumentative discussion 
 about points of faith] What but a comparing of opinions with a 
 view to ascertain which is true and which is false, which is taught 
 and which not taught in the Holy Scriptures 1 And why should 
 men be averse to this, except from an unwillingness to decide 
 between the false and the true 1 ? They feel, perhaps, that it is 
 somewhat difficult, that it requires from them an effort of thought, 
 and they would rather not be troubled. Nay, so much do they 
 dislike the trouble, that they allow themselves to remain day after 
 day in a state of suspense, vibrating between opposite probabilities, 
 ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the 
 truth, and, of all things in the world, resembling a wave of the 
 sea, driven of the wind and tossed. 
 
 It is a question surely of serious import, of what value is the 
 faith of such persons'? Is it possible that such faith can save 
 them? They may pass, indeed, as the world goes, for very good 
 Christians; they may be members of churches, perhaps office- 
 
PREFACE. 5 
 
 bearers; they may push themselves into notice in various ways, 
 may be subscribers to charities, may take part in missionary 
 schemes and other schemes of benevolence, may court and obtain 
 a measure of popularity; yet all the while, with regard to what 
 constitutes the essentials of Christianity, what justifies men before 
 God, and gives them the well-founded hope of eternal life, they 
 have nothing like a sure persuasion. They know, indeed, that 
 Christ has done something for sinners, they know that He has 
 died for them, but in what sense He has died for them, or in what 
 way His death saves them, they have never been able, or never 
 taken the pains, to make up their minds. 
 
 By persons of this description the doctrines advocated in the 
 following treatise are apt to be regarded as matters of doubtful 
 disputation, and though perhaps they will not go so far as to 
 affirm they are not true, they are exceedingly unwilling that they 
 should be taught or believed. Some time ago, when the discus- 
 sions respecting the atonement were going on in the United 
 Secession Church — a church which has now dwindled away all to 
 a fraction, the great body of it being mixed up with another party 
 and called by another name — when these discussions were going 
 on, a constant cry set up by the innovating faction was that the 
 question was merely a "minister's question," and that it concerned 
 ministers alone. In the month of May, 1845, a meeting was held 
 in Eose Street Chapel, Edinburgh, understood to be got up by the 
 instigation of the ministers, but called a " Meeting of the Elders 
 of the United Secession Church," at which certain resolutions were 
 passed purporting that the discussions which then agitated the 
 body related only to things which were " hard to be understood," 
 and which " involved distinctions and subtleties with which the 
 great bulk of the elders and of the people had no sympathy." 
 Now let it be observed who the persons were who expressed 
 themselves in such terms, and what the doctrines were which they 
 so characterized. The persons were elders, that is, office-bearers 
 of churches, and the doctrines were the leading doctrines of the 
 Reformation — the leading doctrines taught in the Westminster 
 Confession — in the Confession of the Church of Scotland — in the 
 
6 PREFACE. 
 
 Confession of the Free Church — in the Confession of other respect- 
 able churches — and, what is still more wonderful, in the Confes- 
 sion of these very elders themselves. Every one of them, at the 
 time he took office, had solemnly subscribed this Confession, 
 avowing before God and man that it was " the confession of his 
 faith " — that very confession with regard to which he now declared 
 that the most essential things contained in it were things with 
 which he had " no sympathy ! " 
 
 It does not indeed surprise us much to find persons who are 
 inclined to deny certain points of faith representing them as points 
 of small moment. This is natural enough, and has often been 
 exemplified. The points, for instance, which were disputed in the 
 Council of Nice, it will generally be allowed, were none of the 
 least important. By most of those who bear the Christian name, 
 they are regarded as of all points the most essential, yet in what 
 light were they regarded by some of that period. In the celebrated 
 letter of Constantine, the Emperor, to Alexander and Arius, the 
 great champions for and against our Lord's divinity, these two 
 individuals are given to understand that they were contending 
 about matters of the most trifling moment' — Vwep /MKpwv /ecu eXax^T^v 
 — de rebus parvis atque levissimis ! The letter, indeed, is under- 
 stood to have been the work, not of Constantine, but of Eusebius, 
 yet to whichever of the two the authorship might belong, the 
 production may be regarded as a noted instance of the artifice we 
 refer to. If Constantine, the Emperor, or if even Eusebius, might, 
 in order to serve a purpose, speak of our Lord's supreme Godhead 
 as a matter of trifling moment, it can hardly be thought wonderful 
 that the elders of the Secession Church, assembled in conclave, 
 should, under the influence of a similar bias, express themselves in 
 similar terms with regard to His atoning death. 
 
 Does not this, however, especially when taken in connection 
 with much of the procedure of these elders and of their ministers 
 with regard to the atonement controversy — does it not force upon 
 us the unpleasant conviction that much of the faith which exists 
 in certain quarters, particularly where what is called the new 
 theology prevails, is faith of that vague and indefinite description 
 
PREFACE. 7 
 
 of which we have been speaking] It is a faith which plays round 
 the head, but comes not near the heart. Properly speaking, it 
 takes no hold either of the heart or of the understanding. It 
 exists only, as an apostle says, in " word and in tongue," not " in 
 deed and in truth;" and can we help remarking that this is one 
 point, among many others, in which the new theology comes into 
 close contact with popery] In more places than one of the fol- 
 lowing volume it is shown that these two systems have a strong 
 affinity, so much so, that whoever is thoroughly imbued with the 
 one may be pronounced not far from embracing the other. The 
 doctrine of universal atonement leads directly to the doctrine of 
 universal grace, and more remotely to that of sacramental efficacy 
 through the mere opus operatum* The doctrine of the saints 
 dying and entering the eternal world under the desert of sin, 
 opens a wide door for the doctrine of purgatory; and who does 
 not see that the dreamy, uncertain faith which seems to obtain 
 so generally among the abettors of the new theology, is but too 
 nearly akin to what our forefathers were wont to call the " doubt- 
 some faith of the Papists," and what others have called, by way of 
 derision, the fides carbonaria — that is, a species of faith where the 
 name is retained, but the thing itself is wanting, f 
 
 * Popery in the full Corn, the Ear, and the Blade; or the Doctrine of 
 Baptism in Popish, Episcopalian, and Congregational Churches. Edin- 
 burgh, 1852. 
 
 •f " Religion, the Christian religion in particular, has always been understood 
 to require faith in its principles, and faith in its principles requires some degree 
 of knowledge or apprehension of those principles. If total ignorance should 
 prevail, how could men be said to believe that of which they knew nothing ? 
 The school-men have devised an excellent succedaneum to supply the place of 
 real belief, which necessarily implies that the tiling believed is in some sort 
 apprehended by the understanding. This succedaneum they have denomi- 
 nated implicit fa ith — an ingenious method of reconciling things incompatible, 
 to believe everything, and to know nothing, not so much as the terms of the 
 propositions which are believed. Implicit faith has been sometimes ludicrously 
 styled fides carbonaria, from the noted story of one who, examining an ignorant 
 collier on his religious principles, asked him what it was he believed. He 
 answered, ' I believe what the church believes.' The other rejoined, ' What, 
 then, does the church believe?' He replied readily, ' The church believes what 
 I believe.' The other, desirous, if possible, to bring him to particulars, once 
 more resumes his inquiry, ' Tell me, then, I pray you, what it is that you and 
 the church both believe ? ' The only answer which the collier could give was, 
 'Why, truly, sir, the church and I both believe — the same thing.'" — Lectures 
 on Ecclesiastical History. By Dr Campbell of Aberdeen. Lecture xxiii., 
 pp. 382-385. 
 
8 PREFACE. 
 
 Another proof that the faith in the atonement which prevails 
 among this class of persons is a sort of faith nearly allied to the 
 carbonarian, is, that their leading men are accustomed to speak of 
 the great truths relating to the atonement, not as realities, but 
 only as shams or resemblances. Christ, they say, is not the 
 Surety of sinners, He is only, as it were, a Surety; believers are 
 not actually justified before God, they are only justified, as it were, 
 that is, as they seem to explain it, they are forgiven without being 
 freed from their ill desert! What can the faith of such persons 
 be called but the carbonarian faith 1 ? 
 
 The author of the following work persuades himself that he 
 believes the doctrines it advocates. If he believed them not, he 
 would look upon himself as, of all men, the most miserable, and 
 the great argument with him for giving the treatise again to the 
 world is, that others may be induced to believe them too. This 
 is his chief motive for the re-publication, and he deems it unnec- 
 cessary to assign any other. The first edition appeared as long 
 ago as 1842. What is now called a second edition is so much 
 altered and enlarged as to be almost a new work. In 1844, as 
 many of his readers must be aware, he emitted another volume 
 on the same subject, having for title, " The Catholic Doctrine of 
 Redemption Vindicated." At first it was intended to combine the 
 two, leaving out some portions of each, and by the help of some 
 additions, forming out of both a more improved treatise; but 
 upon more mature consideration the design was given up. 
 
 It is hoped that the friends of what was once the doctrine of 
 the Reformed Churches, and what is still the doctrine of the 
 more respectable among them, will be disposed to look with a 
 favourable eye on an humble but well meant endeavour to vindi- 
 cate from misconception, and to place in a just and scriptural 
 light, what they cannot but regard as " the faith once delivered 
 to the saints." 
 
 Kirkintilloch. 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 Two questions have been mooted respecting the work of Christ; 
 its nature and its extent. First, for whom did He die — for some, 
 or for all] Second, in what sense, or under what relation, did He 
 die for those on whose account He died] It matters not much in 
 what order these questions be discussed, or whether in the discus- 
 sion they be kept distinct. They naturally run into each other, 
 and whatever throws light on either throws light on both. It is 
 of greater importance to remark, that although they may not seem 
 to differ very widely, they are yet found to lead to very different 
 results; in point of fact, they give rise to what may almost be 
 regarded as two opposite religions. The advocates for definite, 
 and those for indefinite, atonement, are in reality " two manner of 
 people," distinguished from each other by a line scarcely, perhaps, 
 less rigid or less clearly defined than that which distinguished the 
 twin sons of Rebekah, Jacob and Esau, with their respective 
 descendants. It is this that gives to the subject its vast im- 
 portance. I begin with the first question. 
 
THE DEATH OF CHRIST 
 
 REDEMPTION OE HIS PEOPLE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENTS THAT CHRIST DID NOT DIE TO REDEEM 
 
 ALL MEN. 
 
 Section I.— <p ^m sfjalt not hi fittallg sakfc. 
 
 That all men shall not be finally saved is an acknowledged fact — 
 acknowledged by the whole Christian world, with the exception 
 of the class called Universalists, and with that class I have at 
 present no dispute. Those to whom I address myself are not 
 Universalists. They admit that some men shall perish for ever. 
 They admit that the gate of destruction is a " wide " gate, and 
 that those who enter in by it are " many." They admit that, at 
 the last day, a distinction shall be made between the righteous 
 and the wicked — those who serve God, and those who serve Him 
 not — that they shall be separated one from the other, as a shep- 
 herd divideth his sheep from the goats — that a sentence shall be 
 pronounced on each according to their works, and that, while the 
 one party go away into everlasting life, the other shall go away 
 into everlasting punishment. Xow, what follows from this admis- 
 sion — follows from it unavoidably 1 The one or the other of two 
 
12 PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENTS THAT CHRIST 
 
 things — either that Christ did not die for all, or that His inten- 
 tion in dying shall be frustrated. That His intention in dying 
 should be frustrated is, however, impossible, because He is divine. 
 He has power to accomplish whatever He intends. Nay, we are 
 warranted to say He does accomplish whatever He intends. Who 
 has at any time resisted His will] His counsel stands, and all 
 His pleasure is fulfilled. Of course, the other alternative is unde- 
 niable — He did not die to redeem all men. 
 
 This argument is not affected, one way or other, by the com- 
 parative number of those who are lost. Be they many, or be 
 they few, the conclusion is the same; yet the more numerous they 
 are, the doctrine of universal redemption seems the farther from 
 the truth; and whether we judge from the language of Scripture, 
 or from the aspect of the divine dispensations, both in former 
 times and at the present moment, the conviction is forced upon 
 us that their numbers are immense. What they shall be in future 
 ages, when the gospel comes to be more widely extended, and the 
 Spirit is more plentifully poured out from on high, it is impossible 
 to conjecture; but hitherto we are warranted to say, from the 
 beginning of the world down to the present time, they have 
 unquestionably constituted the great majority of our race. Under 
 the Old Testament, the great God was pleased to " wink at the 
 times of ignorance," and to suffer all nations to walk in their own 
 ways. He showed His word to Jacob, His statutes and His judg- 
 ments to Israel; but He dealt not so with any other nation. He 
 made Himself known in Judah — His name was great in Israel; 
 but darkness covered the earth, and gross darkness the people. 
 And even under the New Testament, although the wall of par- 
 tition is broken down, and the grace which brings salvation has 
 appeared to all, the church is stdl only a " little flock," and those 
 who "are of God" are comparatively a handful, while the "whole 
 world lieth in wickedness." Let men of understanding ponder 
 these things; let them recollect that they are unquestionable facts, 
 and let them candidly say how far they favour the supposition 
 that the Son of God came into the world, and shed His precious 
 blood, for the redemption of all men. 
 
DID NOT DIE TO REDEEM ALL MEN. 13 
 
 Section II. — Cbrist forchnefo tjjaf all foonlb not be sabcb. 
 
 In the preceding section I have argued from the simple fact 
 that all shall not be saved; I now argue from Christ's foreknow- 
 ledge of that fact. Being divine, He must have foreknown it; 
 and foreknowing it, His dying to save all was impossible. Never 
 could He die to do what He knew, at the moment, was never to 
 be done. 
 
 "From these things it will inevitably follow," says Jonathan 
 Edwards, " that however Christ, in some sense, may be said to die 
 for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world, 
 by His death, yet there must be something particular in the design 
 of His death, with respect to such as He intended should actually 
 be saved thereby. As appears by what has been now shown, God 
 has the actual salvation or redemption of a certain number in His 
 proper absolute design, and of a certain number only; and, there- 
 fore, such a design only can be prosecuted, in anything God does, 
 in order to the salvation of men. God pursues a proper design of 
 the salvation of the elect in giving Christ to die, and prosecutes 
 such a design with respect to no other, most strictly speaking; for 
 it is impossible that God should prosecute any other design than 
 only such as He has. He certainly does not, in the highest pro- 
 priety and strictness of speech, pursue a design that He has not. 
 And, indeed, such a particularity and limitation of redemption 
 will as infallibly follow from the doctrine of God's foreknowledge, 
 as from that of the decree; for it is impossible, in strictness of 
 speech, that God should prosecute a design, or aim at a thing 
 winch He, at the same time, most perfectly knows will not be 
 accomplished, as that He should use endeavours for that which is 
 beside His decree." * 
 
 It is with the latter part of this passage only, that, properly 
 speaking, we have at present to do, and every reader must perceive 
 how much it is to the purpose. Xever, perhaps, did the gifted 
 author, in the exercise of that reasoning faculty with which he 
 was endowed above most of the children of men, assert anything 
 * Freedom of the Will, Part IV., Sect, xiv., Conclusion. 
 
14 PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENTS THAT CHRIST 
 
 more incontrovertible, more indisputably self-evident, than when 
 he says, " God can never prosecute a design which He at the same 
 time perfectly knows shall not be accomplished." Now, I submit 
 if, for the purpose of my argument, I have anything more to do 
 than to transfer the words to our blessed Lord, the Mediator 
 between God and man 1 ? I ask, if they do not hold equally true 
 of Him? "Was it possible that He could prosecute a design which 
 at the moment He knew, and knew certainly, would never be 
 fulfilled 1 ? In other words, was it possible that, knowing as He did 
 that all men should not be saved, He could lay down His life to 
 save all men] 
 
 Section III. — <£Jjrisi came to xzbim n stint number foljo bub hmx 
 cboaen to Ii£e. 
 
 If there be "a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence," to the 
 advocates of universal atonement, it is the doctrine of election. 
 That doctrine lies at the very threshold of the question, and in 
 order to get rid of it, as we shall afterwards see, they exert them- 
 selves to the utmost, resorting to a variety of ingenious shifts. 
 With these shifts, however, whether ingenious or not, I have at 
 present no concern. All I have to do, at this stage of the discus- 
 sion, is to state the doctrine simply as it is stated in the Scrip- 
 tures, and as it will naturally be received by every reader of the 
 Scriptures, unless he be labouring under some kind of prejudice; 
 that is, unless he has embraced other tenets which he is deter- 
 mined to retain, and with which he has difficulty in bringing it 
 to harmonize. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord 
 Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with all spiritual blessings in 
 heavenly places in Christ; according as He hath chosen us in Him 
 before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and 
 without blame," Ephes. i. 3, 4. " Whom He did foreknow, He 
 also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, 
 that He might be the first-born among many brethren. Moreover, 
 whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He 
 called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He 
 also glorified," Rom. viii. 29, 30. "God hath not appointed us to 
 
DID NOT DIE TO REDEEM ALL MEN. 15 
 
 wrath, but to obtain salvation by Jesus Christ," 1 Thess. v. 9. 
 "We are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren 
 beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen 
 you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of 
 the truth," 2 Thess. ii. 1 3. " Elect according to the foreknowledge 
 of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedi- 
 ence and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ," 1 Pet. i. 2. It 
 were easy to multiply texts to the same purpose, but it is needless. 
 The doctrine may be stated in the words of our Catechism: — " Did 
 God leave all mankind to perish in the state of sin and misery] 
 God having out of His mere good pleasure, from all eternity, 
 elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of 
 grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to 
 bring them into a state of salvation, by a Redeemer." The 
 Redeemer of God's elect is the Lord Jesus Christ. He came to 
 execute His Father's purpose. He came to save the objects of 
 His Father's choice. They were chosen in Him. His mediatorial 
 work was the link which was to connect, and which in fact does 
 connect, His Father's purpose of love with their advancement to 
 glory. There was no other medium through which they could be 
 brought to glory, at least no other has been adopted. The object 
 of His coming into the world, therefore, and of whatsover He did 
 or suffered while in the world, is sufficiently defined. It had a 
 reference, strictly speaking, not to all men, but to some men only; 
 and unless it can be proved that God did not chose some, but all, 
 which would be no choice, or unless it can be proved that others 
 beside the chosen were redeemed as well as they, and shall be 
 saved as well as they; unless the one or other of these things, or 
 both, be proved — of which the one is absurd, and the other 
 is atheistical — the consequence for which we contend follows 
 unavoidably. 
 
 Section IV. — gflulfifubes Ijab alreabji gone bofon info perbifion 
 before Christ bieb. 
 
 Of this terrible fact there can be no doubt. The world had 
 lasted above four thousand years, and all the while the great 
 
10 PRESUMPTIVE ARGUMENTS, ETC. 
 
 majority of its population had been enemies of God. The Ante- 
 diluvians, to whom Christ preached by His Spirit in the days of 
 Noah, had proved " disobedient," find are styled by Peter " the 
 spirits in prison." The Israelites, God's own people, were at 
 every period of their history a stiff-necked and rebellious race. 
 On their way to the promised land, the whole generation who 
 had come up out of Egypt perished " through unbelief;" and, it is 
 to be feared, a large proportion of them " perished " in the worse 
 sense of the expression. The rest of the world consisted of the 
 heathen nations, worshippers of idols, abandoned to ignorance and 
 vice, who lived and died without God and without hope. Is it 
 possible to conceive that the Son of God died to redeem these 
 multitudes — these multitudes who were already lost — whose 
 redemption was irretrievable, upon whose eternal condition the 
 die had long been cast] 
 
 "Christ," says Dr Owen, "did not intend to satisfy for the 
 sins of all and every man, for innumerable souls were in hell, under 
 the punishment and weight of their own sins, from whence there 
 is no redemption, before and actually then when the Saviour made 
 Himself an oblation for sin. Now, shall we suppose that Christ 
 would make Himself an offering for their sins whom He knew to 
 be past recovery, and that it was utterly impossible that ever they 
 should have any fruit or benefit by His offering 1 ? Shall we think 
 that the blood of the covenant was cast away upon them for 
 whom the Saviour intended no good at all 1 ? To intend good to 
 them, He could not without a direct opposition to the eternal 
 decree of His Father, and therein of His own eternal Deity. Did 
 God send His Son — did Christ come to die for Cain and for 
 Pharaoh, damned so many ages before His sufferings?" * 
 
 Exceptions to these arguments will be considered in the next 
 chapter. 
 
 * On the Death of Christ. Book III., chapter iii., page 23. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 I HAVE called the arguments advanced in the preceding chapter 
 ■presumptive, because previous to all inquiry on the subject, that is, 
 before we have collated the texts relating to the death of Christ, 
 or have subjected them to examination, these arguments afford a 
 presumption, a strong and apparently irrefragable ground for con- 
 cluding, that He did not die for all. If it be a fact that some men 
 shall not be saved, and if it be certain that the blessed Jesus when 
 He came to die knew that fact, how is it possible to conceive that 
 He died for all, unless it be possible to conceive that He might die 
 with an intention to do, what he knew, at the moment, was never 
 to be done 1 ? Again, if there be sufficient evidence that He came 
 with a special intention to save a select number — the chosen, the 
 sanctified, the peculiar people — how is the conclusion to be 
 avoided, that He died for that people, and, in the proper sense of 
 the words, for them alone] Above all, could He die to undo what 
 was already done, to remove the sentence which had been pro- 
 nounced as a final one, and to let in the light of salvation into 
 that horrid place which had been previously overshadowed with 
 "the blackness of darkness for ever?" 
 
 To this it is replied by the advocates of universal atonement, 
 first, that the blessed Jesus did not, properly speaking, die for 
 any one. There was no connection between His death and the 
 salvation of any one; no fixed, inseparable connection, arising 
 either from the nature of His death itself, or from the purpose of 
 the Father who sent Him, or from His own purpose, who came in 
 obedience to the Father's will. Nothing was absolutely secured 
 by His death, nothing beyond the opening of a door of mercy — 
 beyond the removal of legal obstacles which lay in the way of the 
 
18 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 guilty obtaining pardon upon their repentance. This is what the 
 party uniformly allege, but surely, if they mean not to deceive, 
 they must be labouring under a great mistake. Upon these prin- 
 ciples, the door of mercy never has been opened at all. If what 
 closes the door of mercy be only the violated law of God — which, 
 I presume, will hardly be disputed — nothing can be more manifest 
 than that, notwithstanding the death of Christ according to 
 their view of it, that door still remains as it was. The death of 
 Christ was no fulfilment of the law, no removal of its penalty, 
 and, of course, upon their scheme, if any are received into mercy, 
 they must be taken in, not by the door, but by some other way. 
 In a word, the effect of His death was negative rather than 
 positive, not working salvation at all, but only laying a ground for 
 it, or rendering it possible. Of course, if this be true, my reason- 
 ing is invalid — but we shall see. 
 
 Secondly, it is replied that, in the order of the divine decrees, 
 election is posterior to the atonement. There was no election 
 when the Son of God came to die, or rather when the Father 
 appointed Him, and He Himself, in compliance with the appoint- 
 ment, engaged to die. The election was altogether a. subsequent 
 arrangement, the object of which was to prevent His dying in 
 vain. Foreseeing that, through the universal depravity of men, 
 not one of them, if left to himself, would embrace the atonement 
 after it was made, the great God selected a certain number, and 
 gave them to His Son, not to be redeemed, for that He was con- 
 ceived to have done already, but to be called, and regenerated, 
 and saved. " The place for election," we are told, " lies in the 
 application of the remedy." — " The atonement left the Divine 
 Being at perfect liberty to pardon whom He would." " It is in 
 every instance His grace that gives the general remedy its par- 
 ticular application or personal efficiency, and the previous purpose 
 (which must, of course, be conceived of as eternal), to give it the 
 application and efficiency, is election." * This is the theory, and 
 it is not a new one. On what proofs it rests, or whether it rests 
 on any, it will behove us to inquire. 
 
 * Wardlaw On Assurance and Universal Pardon. Pp. 291, 292. 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 19 
 
 Section I. — git$t tbnsmx ansfomb. 
 
 The point to be established in this section is, that there was in 
 the death of Christ a purpose of salvation — a limited or definite 
 purpose — and that, whether it has rendered salvation possible to 
 all or not, it was intended to render it, and has actually rendered 
 it, certain to some. This is demonstrated, as every one must 
 perceive, by the relations which in dying He sustained to His 
 people. He was their Shepherd, their Husband, their Surety, the 
 Captain of their Salvation, divinely qualified, divinely authorised 
 to bring them to glory. These and similar relations He bore, not 
 to the whole, but to a portion of mankind when laying down His 
 life; and what other evidence can any man desire, that there was 
 in His death a purpose of salvation — a certain and specific pur- 
 pose 1 ? This topic, however, which is of vast importance, and 
 which may admit of a lengthened illustration, I shall reserve to 
 be discussed in a separate chapter, and shall content myself at 
 present with some other proofs drawn from other sources. 
 
 1. I might ai'gue from the very name Saviour, which is given to 
 our Lord. Why should He be called The Saviour, if He did not 
 come to save? According to our friends He came not to save, 
 but only to make atonement. I ask, then, why He is called the 
 Saviour, and not simply the Atoner? I ask how He could say of 
 Himself that He, the Son of Man, had come to seek and to save 
 the lost? I ask how the angel could say to the Virgin that His 
 name should be called Jesus, because He should save His people 
 from their sins? According to our brethren, He was not to save His 
 people any more than He was to save the rest of mankind. He was 
 only to furnish a remedy, and the saving process was to consist in 
 the application of the remedy. Of course the saving process was 
 not to be effected by Him, but by the Father or by the Spirit, 
 who applies the remedy, and the name Jesus, given to Him, was 
 not an appropriate name ! If it be granted that He had a people 
 whom He came to save, and that He is justly named Jesus, because 
 He came to save them, all is proved for which we contend, and, 
 
20 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 on the other hand, all for which our brethren contend is disproved 
 and blown to the winds. 
 
 2. I argue from the promises given to the Saviour that He 
 should not die in vain; that the travail of His soul, so sharp and 
 afflictive, should not be endured for nought; but that He should 
 have a reward in the salvation of multitudes. Of these promises, 
 which are numerous, the following are a specimen : — " Thy people 
 shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness 
 from the womb of the morning, thou hast the dew of thy youth," 
 Psalm ex. 3. "Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; He hath 
 put Him to grief: when thou shalt make His soul an offering for 
 sin (or when 'His soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice,' — Lowth), 
 He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His clays, and the pleasure 
 of the Lord shall prosper in His hand. He shall see of the travail 
 of His soul, and shall be satisfied : by His knowledge (or the know- 
 ledge of Himself) shall my righteous servant justify many; for He 
 shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide Him a portion 
 with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong (' I 
 will distribute to Him the many for His portion, and the mighty 
 people shall He share for His spoil,' — Lowth); because He hath 
 poured out His soul unto death : and He was numbered with the 
 transgressors : and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession 
 for the transgressors," Isaiah liii. 10-12. It would not be difficult 
 to add other promises of a similar kind ; but for my purpose a few 
 are as good as many. The inference to be drawn from them is 
 obvious and irrefragable. The Saviour did not die to make salva- 
 tion possible, but to make it certain. His blood was too precious 
 to be shed for a perad venture. He had the assurance that " the 
 many should be His portion, and the mighty people His spoil;" 
 and upon that assurance He poured out His soul unto death. 
 
 3. If the language of prophecy be deemed not precise enough, 
 because it is lofty and poetical, we may take the same thing, or 
 what amounts to the same thing, from the lips of an apostle. 
 " Let us run with patience the race that is set before us," says the 
 writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, "looking unto Jesus, the 
 author and finisher of our faith; who, for the joy that was set before 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 21 
 
 Him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at 
 the right hand of the throne of God," Heb. xii. 1, 2. What, let 
 us ask, was the joy set before Him 1 ? Was it an uncertainty — a 
 mere possibility ! Was it the laying of a foundation on which no 
 temple might ever be erected 1 ? — the paying of a ransom which 
 might open no prison-house and give liberty to no captive 1 ? Was 
 that the joy set before Him, and was He deceived by it 1 ? Did He 
 mistake the shadow for a reality, and lay down His life, believing 
 the results were sure, when they were quite otherwise'? Away 
 with such impieties ! The joy set before Him was that reward of 
 which we have just been speaking — the reward held out in the 
 promises of Him who cannot lie. It was the assurance that He 
 should see a seed who should prolong their days, and that a will- 
 ing people should come to Him in the day of His power, numerous 
 and bright as the dew-drops of the morning. For the sake of this, 
 and nothing less than this, He endured the cross, despising the 
 shame. 
 
 4. The same conclusion is to be drawn from the several passages 
 in which Christ is said to have redeemed His people by His death, 
 or in which His people are said to have redemption through His 
 blood. The passages I speak of are many in number; and if they 
 do not bear the inference that there was a connexion — a certain 
 infallible connexion — between His death and the ultimate salva- 
 tion, not of all men, but of some, I hesitate not to affirm there is 
 no meaning in language. " The Son of man come not to be minis- 
 tered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom for 
 many," Matt. xx. 28. "Being justified freely by His grace, 
 through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus," Rom. iii. 24. 
 "Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price; therefore 
 glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's," 
 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. "Ye are bought with a price: be not ye the 
 servants of men," 1 Cor. vii. 23. "Christ hath redeemed us from 
 the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, 
 Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," Gal. iii. 13. "In 
 whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of 
 sins, according to the riches of His grace," Ephes. i. 7. " In whom 
 
22 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of 
 sins," Col. i. 14. "Who gave Himself for us, that He might re- 
 deem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a peculiar 
 people, zealous of good works," Titus ii. 14. "Forasmuch as ye 
 know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver 
 and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from 
 your fathers ; but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb 
 without blemish and without spot," 1 Pet. i. 18, 19. "Thou wast 
 slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every 
 kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us 
 unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth," 
 Rev. v. 9, 10. "And they sung as it were a new song before the 
 throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders : and no man 
 could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, 
 which were redeemed from the earth," Rev. xiv. 3. 
 
 Let any man of common understanding, not prejudiced in favour 
 of a theory, candidly read over these passages, and let him say 
 whether they do, or do not, bear . the conclusion for which we 
 contend. Nay, let him say, whether taken separately or taken 
 together, they do not only bear such a conclusion, but absolutely 
 require it. Do they not assert plainly, and with great variety of 
 expression, that the death of Christ was the redemption of His 
 people — that He died with a view to redeem them — and that their 
 redemption is not the possible, but the certain effect of His dying] 
 If that be not the doctrine taught in these passages, I see not how 
 any man can tell what is taught in them ; and I despair, as I have 
 said, of ever being able, in any case, to learn any doctrine through 
 the medium of words. 
 
 We are told, however, that it is a very great mistake to ascribe 
 redemption to the death of Christ, or to consider it as effected 
 when He expired on the cross. Redemption means deliverance, 
 and nothing but deliverance, " always and invariably, and in every 
 situation, actual deliverance." "Redemption did not take place 
 at Christ's death. It is a blessing that has no existence any more 
 than justification, till the sinner becomes a believer." * 
 
 * "The Question, "What is the Atonement? Answered," p. 18. 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 23 
 
 In proof of this we are referred to a variety of passages where 
 the word can hear no other acceptation. For example, to Luke 
 xxi. 28, " When these tilings begin to come to pass, then look up, 
 and lift up your heads ; for your redemption draweth nigh," that 
 is, your deliverance shall then be at hand; to Eom. viii. 23, "Our- 
 selves also, who have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves 
 groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the 
 redemption of the body," that is, the deliverance of the body from 
 the corruption of the grave; and to Eph. iv. 30, "Grieve not the 
 Holy Spirit of God, by whom ye are sealed unto the day of redemp- 
 tion" that is, the day of your final deliverance from sin, and the 
 various consequences of sin, at the general resurrection. To a long 
 array of such passages we are referred, and are told, that if we look 
 at them we may " see clearly that the proper meaning of the term 
 redemption is deliverance, and that, consequently, no man can be 
 said to be redeemed who is not actually delivered."* 
 
 Will the reader believe that all this parade is assertion against 
 fact, or that, putting upon it the most favourable interpretation 
 possible, it amounts to nothing better than a quibble, or play upon 
 a word ) That redemption means deliverance is not denied — I 
 never heard of any one who denied it; but the question is, does it 
 mean deliverance alone 1 Is that its only, or even its primary 
 meaning ? "When an article is bought with money, or by any equi- 
 valent, the next step is the delivery of it to the purchaser. "When 
 the ransom of a captive, or a prisoner, or of one who is both a 
 prisoner and a captive, is paid, the next step is the opening of his 
 prison-house, and bidding him go free. The two steps, in each of 
 these cases, are ultimately connected — just as intimately as cause 
 and effect, antecedent and consequent, and it is agreeable to the 
 usage of language, so far as I know, among every people, to con- 
 found them with one another — at least to confound them to such 
 an extent as to call them occasionally by the same name. Hence 
 the word redemption, like hundreds of other words, has two accep- 
 tations, a primary and a secondary; a proper and a metonymical ; 
 the payment of a ransom, and the release consequent upon that 
 * "The Question, What is the Atonement ? Answered," p. 19. 
 
24 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 payment; but what must we think of the accuracy of those who, 
 seizing upon the word, when they find it occurring in the secondary 
 sense, loudly and strenuously affirm that it never occurs in any 
 other ] "We grant that it occurs in the secondary sense — occurs in 
 it very frequently — but we contend that it occurs also in the other 
 sense, and if it occur but once in the other sense our cause is 
 gained. If there be but one passage in the whole Bible where the 
 Saviour is distinctly said to have effected redemption by His blood, 
 or by the expiation He has made for sin, the proof is.made out that 
 there was a certain connection between His death and the ultimate 
 salvation of His people — not a possible but a real connection — 
 such a connection as implies that by the one thing the other thing- 
 was secured. 
 
 Let us, then, take a few of the passages emoted above, and see 
 if they will not bear this meaning — or rather, if by the rules of 
 fair interpretation, they can be made to bear any other meaning. 
 " Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that 
 is in Christ Jesus," Bom. iii. 24. To be justified is to be delivered 
 — delivered from the guilt of sin — delivered from the condemna- 
 tion of the law. If, therefore, redemption in this place means de- 
 liverance, what the Apostle says, instead of being one of the most 
 instructive and consolatory statements in the whole Bible, is 
 reduced to the emptiest and baldest of identical propositions — 
 " being delivered — through the deliverance that is in Christ Jesus." 
 Again, " In whom we have redemption through His blood, even 
 the forgiveness of sins," Col. i. 14. Forgiveness of sins is de- 
 liverance, the same deliverance that is spoken of in the foregoing- 
 passage — deliverance from guilt and from condemnation. If, 
 therefore, redemption in this place means deliverance, the Apostle, 
 both here and in Eph. i. 7, where the same words occur, must be 
 considered as giving utterance to the following important announce- 
 ment — "In whom we have deliverance — even deliverance!" 
 
 Enough, however, of this. I forbear to go over the rest of the 
 passages, or to give other examples, as I might easily do, of the 
 reductio ad absurdim. Suffice it to say, that the meaning of re- 
 demption, its primary and proper meaning, is the payment of a 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 25 
 
 ransom, and that when Christ is said to have redeemed His people 
 by His blood, or when, by a slight variation of terms, they are 
 said to have redemption through His blood, the meaning is, that 
 His blood, or His sacrifice, or His life laid down for them, was the 
 ransom of their souls. "The force of the word (a7ro\i/r/>wcrts)," says 
 Professor Stuart, " may be best seen by recurring to its root Xvrpov, 
 which means the 'price of ransom paid for a slave or a captive, in 
 consequence of which he is set free.' Avrpou and awoXvrpou both 
 mean the price of ransom ; airoXvTpoo} is somewhat intensive, and is 
 equivalent to pay off. Accordingly Xvrpuxns and airoXvrpucris mean 
 (1), The act of paying this price; and (2), The consequence of this 
 act, viz., the redemption which follows it. In this way, the idea 
 of cnroXirrpweis comes at times to be merely a generic one, i.e., libera- 
 tion, deliverance."* 
 
 The statement of this learned man requires no aid, and derives 
 none, from his authority. The language of the Bible, on which it 
 is founded, is as plain as any language can be. At a subsequent 
 stage of the discussion I purpose to inquire a little into what our 
 brethren are pleased to call the commercial atonement, when per- 
 haps it may appear that, iu reference to that matter, they express 
 themselves rather unguardedly. In the meanwhile, however, I 
 am warranted to take the language before us as it stands, and to 
 argue from it according to its obvious import. The death of the 
 Eedeemer, I am warranted to say, is the ransom of His people — ifc 
 is the price He has given for them — a price of higher value than 
 silver or gold, or any other corruptible thing — a price by which He 
 has bought them — bought them, so that they are no longer their 
 own, but His property, and therefore bound to glorify Him in their 
 body and in their spirit. What is more, He has given Himself 
 for them with the express intention of redeeming them from all 
 iniquity, and purifying them to Himself a peculiar people; and, 
 with hearts full of gratitude, they acknowledge this before the 
 throne on high, ascribing to Him glory and dominion for ever, 
 because He has "loved them, and has washed them from their sins 
 in His own blood," Rev. i. 5, 6. If this do not prove a connexion 
 
 * On the Romans, p. 131. 
 D 
 
26 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 — a fixed and inseparable connexion — between His death and 
 their salvation, I know not what will. I would almost say, as one 
 of their own prophets has said in reference to certain Unitarian 
 comments, that if matters are so, the Bible would "require to be 
 sent back to its author to be dictated anew, in its most essential 
 parts, at least; to be re-written, that where, most of all, it is 
 needed to direct mankind, it may not delude them."* 
 
 The doctrine of our brethren, it will be recollected, is, that the 
 Saviour did not die for one more than for another — He died for 
 all in general, for none in particular — Be died, not to save, but 
 only to make atonement — -and there was no connexion between 
 His death and the salvation of any one, except a contingent con- 
 nexion. Of course, it may be said to all alike, and in precisely 
 the same sense — to Nero and to Paul, to Judas and to Peter, to 
 those who are in heaven and to those who are in hell. " Ye are 
 not your own, ye are bought with a price." t And of course, also, 
 the saints above are mistaken when they speak of being redeemed 
 by His blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and nation," espe- 
 cially when they give thanks for it as a peculiar mercy. They 
 ought to know that there was nothing peculiar about the matter. 
 All kindreds, and nations, and tongues, individually and collec- 
 tively, have been redeemed as well as they, at the same moment 
 and by the same means ! 
 
 I submit to my readers if I have not made good what I pro- 
 mised in this section? — if I have not produced sufficient proof that 
 there was in the Redeemer's death a specific, and consequently a 
 limited, purpose 1 ? And if so, let it be recollected that my first 
 argument stands untouched — the exception taken against it by the 
 advocates of universal atonement is found to be groundless and 
 contrary to fact, and I am still warranted to affirm, as I affirmed 
 at the outset, that the Saviour could not die to save all men, 
 because He never could die to do what He kneio certainly at the moment 
 was never to be clone. 
 
 Further, I submit if more than this have not been accomplished 
 — if while the first presumptive argument, as I chose to call it, has 
 * Gilbert on the Atonement, p. 60. 1' Note A. 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 27 
 
 been vindicated, and left to have its full effect, a mass of evidence 
 have not been brought forward, of a positive nature, directly bear- 
 ing upon the point at issue, and confirming, beyond all reasonable 
 doubt, the great truth which it is the object of these pages to 
 establish? 
 
 Section II. — ^cconb timsian ausfoercir. 
 The second evasion is meant to invalidate the objection to uni- 
 versal atonement drawn from the doctrine of election — an objec- 
 tion which can hardly fail to suggest itself to every man who looks 
 into the Bible, and which it requires some subtlety at least to 
 meet. If Christ came to die for a select number, how could He 
 come to die for all? If a select number were chosen in Him, 
 chosen to be redeemed, and if He came to redeem that number, 
 how could His death be the ransom of all? The answer given to 
 this question by the advocates of universal atonement has already 
 been mentioned. They make a distinction in the Divine decrees. 
 They conceive there was first a decree to make atonement, which 
 was general; and, secondly, a decree to call, and justify, and save 
 certain individuals, which was particular. The subterfuge, it must 
 be allowed, is ingenious enough, and it is by no means of very 
 modern date. Turretin, in his Institutes of Theology, takes notice 
 of a class, whom he distinguishes from Arminians by the name of 
 Universalists, and whose leading tenet was, that in the Divine 
 purpose election was posterior to the atonement — "decretum mortis 
 Christi antecessisse decretum electionis." * Camero, our countryman, 
 Amyraut, and Testardus, were chief men among these brethren. In 
 our own times the doctrine is but too common, both in America 
 and among ourselves; nor is it peculiar to any denomination, 
 although in Scotland, I believe, it has, till of late, been chiefly 
 confined to the Congregationalists. In animadverting upon it 
 briefly, I might refer to the writings of many distinguished men; 
 but I have already referred to those of Dr Wardlaw, and I select 
 his in preference to all others, for various reasons, partly because 
 
 Instit. Theol. Elench., pars, ii., page 297. See also Owen on the Death of 
 Christ, Book ii., chap. iv. 
 
28 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 there are feAV of higher reputation, but chiefly because I conceive 
 they have contributed more, perhaps, than any other writings, to 
 disseminate, in the Secession body,* those views on the subject of 
 atonement to which I am opposed. From the eminence of Dr W. 
 as an author, added to his agreeable manners as a man, he is 
 regarded by many with a very fervent admiration; and I have 
 reason to suspect that some influential individuals in the Secession, 
 and perhaps also in other churches, have, whether consciously or 
 unconsciously, paid him a species of homage not the most credit- 
 able to men of independent thinking, by giving an easy reception 
 to certain opinions, simply on the ground that they are held by 
 him. In this, indeed, I may be mistaken ; but be it as it may, I 
 am quite satisfied I cannot do better than state the principle I am 
 now to examine in Dr W.'s words: — "The place for election lies in 
 the application of the remedy." 
 
 1. My first objection to this doctrine is, that it limits the divine 
 sovereignty. The great God says, " I will have mercy on whom I 
 will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have 
 compassion." This doctrine says, or seems to say, No 1 ? You can 
 have compassion only on those for whom atonement has been 
 made — you can show mercy only to those for whom a remedy has 
 been provided. " The place for election lies in the application of 
 the remedy." The remedy must first be in existence, or conceived 
 to be in existence, before any election can be made. " The 
 atonement," says Dr W., "left the Divine Being at liberty to 
 pardon whom he would." Away with the expression "left at 
 liberty." I do not like such an expression in connection with the 
 name of the Divine Being. To me it savours somewhat of the 
 presumptuous; but why say merely at liberty to "pardon?" Why 
 not say at liberty to "choose?" It is manifest, notwithstanding the 
 caution of Dr W., that his system requires him to go all this 
 length. To avoid the supposition of a choice being made previous 
 to the atonement, is the great reason, indeed, the only reason, for 
 which the system has been invented. In other words, it has been 
 
 * It is almost needless to say the Secession body is now absorbed in that 
 called United Presbyterian. 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 29 
 
 invented with a view to obviate the argument drawn from election 
 going before the atonement. Of course it must require every man 
 who holds it to deny the possibility of election before the atone- 
 ment, and to say, " Till the atonement was made, or conceived to 
 be made, the Divine Being was not at liberty to choose whom He 
 would." I say again, this is presumptuous. It limits the Holy 
 One. It is a creature of yesterday, who knows nothing, daring to 
 prescribe to Him whose judgments are unsearchable. It is not 
 reconcileable with the sovereign claim, "I will have mercy on 
 whom I -will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I 
 will have compassion." 
 
 2. That " the place for election lies in the application of the 
 remedy," appears to me not to correspond with what the Saviour 
 says in his intercessory prayer — " thine they were, and thou gavest 
 them me." If the "giving" means election, and if He to whom 
 the gift was made was to furnish the remedy, one would say the 
 place for the election was not quite so far on. One would say, the 
 election was the first thing in order, and that the remedy, both in 
 its preparation and in its application, came only in the second 
 place. I grant that the Saviour, in the intercessory prayer, speaks, 
 in the first instance, of the apostles; but I hold with Mr Scott, 
 and, so far as I know, with the whole body of evangelical anno- 
 tators, that He does not speak of them exclusively* The rest of 
 the chosen belonged to the Father, and were given to His Son, 
 just as truly as the twelve; not, indeed, to be His companions 
 during His sojourn on earth, or to be the teachers of His religion, 
 but to be called, and justified, and saved, and finally made one, as 
 the Father and the Son are one. Mark, then, the terms in which 
 the Saviour speaks — "Thine they were, and thou gavest them 
 me." According to our doctrine, that election goes before the 
 atonement, this appears sufficiently intelligible; but according to 
 the doctrine of Dr W., that the atonement goes first, it amounts 
 to nothing less than a contradiction. If that doctrine be true, 
 was not the Saviour entitled to say, and would He not unques- 
 tionably have said, Mine they were 1 ? Had He not by this time 
 
 * See Scott on John xvii. 6. 
 
30 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 made them His, or was He not conceived to have made them His 
 by every title 1 ? Had He not given Himself for them an offering 
 and a sacrifice 1 ? Had He not "redeemed them, not with cor- 
 ruptible things, such as silver and gold, but with His precious 
 blood 1 ?" Had He not "loved them, and washed them from their 
 sins in His own blood, that He might make them kings and 
 priests unto God, even His Father 1 ?" In one word, had He not 
 " bought them with a price," — bought them so that they were no 
 longer "their own," but His property? Although He had done 
 nothing of all this in reality, yet was He not conceived to have 
 done it all; and, by the doctrine we are examining, was it not 
 absolutely necessary He should be conceived to have done it all, 
 before so much as one of them either was or could be given to 
 Him 1 ? I demand, then, a reasonable account of the Saviour's 
 language. I ask not Dr W. in particular, whom I have selected 
 as the primipilus of the party, but I ask any one of the party, or 
 the whole of them together, to give a satisfactory explanation of 
 what, they must allow, requires explanation, and what, upon their 
 principles, seems not a little unnatural.* 
 
 3. If the place for election he in the application of the remedy, 
 where does the place for the love of Christ lie'? Of course it must 
 lie in the application of the remedy also, and nowhere else. 
 According to this doctrine, Christ did not love any one when He 
 died. He died for all, but for no one in particular — with no 
 specific regard to any. He died to make atonement — to remove 
 
 * To this Dr Wardlaw replies, " Thou gavest them me. Who speaks ? The 
 Son of God. In what capacity ? Beyond a doubt, in His capacity of Mediator. 
 How, then, could they be given Him in that capacity unless He was first 
 regarded in that capacity ? " This is an example of what logicians call the 
 ijnoratio elenchi. Dr W., in order to make out his position, should have been 
 al ile to show, not merely that the Saviour, when He used the words, " Thou 
 gavest them me," was regarded as sustaining the mediatorial character, but he 
 should have been able to show that He was regarded as having finished His 
 mediatorial work, and so made room for the gift of a redeemed people being 
 presented to Him, or, to use the doctor's own language, " left the Most High at 
 liberty to choose them." Ingenious men sometimes involve themselves in great 
 absurdity. I submit to every competent judge if the attempt at reply on the 
 part of the respected individual on whom I am now animadverting be not an 
 abortive one. 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 31 
 
 legal obstructions;* but as to a special personal love, He cherisbed 
 no sucb feeling, and could cberisb no sucb feeling, in tbe circum- 
 stances in which He stood. He never could be supposed to love 
 those whom His Father bad not loved; but when He died, or was 
 conceived to die, His Father had loved none. The love of the 
 Father is the same thing as election. Election is nothing but the 
 love of the Father formed into a purpose ; but, according to our 
 friends, election comes after the atonement. Consequently, the 
 love of the Father comes after the atonement, and, consequently, 
 the love of Christ, who visited the world in obedience to the 
 Father's commandment — not to do His own will, but the will of 
 Him who sent Him — comes after the atonement too ! 
 
 Let the religious world judge of this. Let those who love 
 Christ, because He first loved them, judge of this. Let all judge 
 of it who are accustomed to read the Bible, and to form their 
 opinions from the statements of the Bible in simplicity and godly 
 sincerity. " Christ hath loved us, and given Himself for us," 
 Ephes. v. 2. " Christ loved the church, and gave Himself for it," 
 Ephes. v. 25. " Unto Him who loved us, and washed us from our 
 sins in His own blood," Rev. i. 5. Was this a love which came 
 after the atonement I — this a love which found its place only in 
 the application of the remedy? If there be meaning in language, 
 it was a love which furnished the remedy — furnished it at infinite 
 expense, and which, in the order of nature, preceded it, and was 
 its cause. There are no passages in the Bible, relating to the great 
 salvation, plainer than those which I have just quoted. I may 
 defy the advocates of Universalism to produce plainer passages; I 
 may also defy their utmost ingenuity to make any man believe 
 that, in these passages, the love of Christ is spoken of as posterior 
 to the atonement. 
 
 If there be a single passage more explicit than those just referred 
 to, it is Gal. ii. 20, "Who loved me, and gave Himself for me;" 
 and the greater explicitness of this passage is all in our favour. 
 
 * A figment, ■which, when it comes to be explained, they themselves do not 
 hold. How could legal obstructions be removed unless the sentence of the 
 divine law were endured ? Yet this they deny. 
 
32 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 It only enables us to bring out tlie more conclusively the great 
 and consolatory truth for which we are now contending. Every 
 other believer cannot express himself in the same terms as Paul 
 did, because every other believer has not the same assurance. 
 What Paul says of himself, however, is true of every other believer, 
 whether he be able to avow it or not. Of every believer it is true 
 that Christ loved him, and gave Himself for him; and the time is 
 coming when every believer, even the weakest — even the most 
 timid— shall be able to avow it, and to avow it triumphantly. Is 
 it not the language of all heaven at present 1 ? Shall it not be the 
 language of all heaven time without end? " He loved us," shall 
 they not cry, without one of the countless multitude failing to join 
 the song, "He loved us, and gave Himself for us!" Yet how can 
 the Universalist ever adopt such language 1 ? — the man who puts the 
 election after the atonement, and the love of Christ after His 
 death'? Such a man may say consistently enough, He loved me, 
 and applied to me the remedy — He loved me, and imparted to me 
 the Spirit ; but the language of Paul, which, we doubt not, will be 
 the language of heaven, can never, while he retains his principles, 
 be uttered by his lips. 
 
 What reply our friends may offer to this reasoning, I am not 
 aware. Possibly some of the more superficial among them may 
 treat it very lightly. Was not the election, they may be apt to 
 say, made from eternity'? Although in the order of the divine 
 decrees it was posterior to the atonement, yet did it not take place 
 before the world began'? Did not the Saviour know well what 
 individuals the Father had selected to share the benefits of the 
 atonement, and to be called, and justified, and saved 1 ? Did not 
 His thoughts naturally turn to those individuals when He appeared 
 in human flesh'? Did not His heart glow with a tender concern 
 for them, when He bowed His head on the ignominious tree; and 
 is not this enough to explain what is said about His loving us and 
 giving Himself for us? I say I am not aware that this is the reply 
 our friends will offer to the above reasoning; but I can hardly 
 think of any other; and if this is offered, one thing is clear, that 
 the cause is given up. It is granted that electing love had its 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 33 
 
 effect previous to the atonement — that the Saviour had a regard 
 to certain individuals whom He knew to be marked out in His 
 Father's decree — and that, as the Scriptures say, He loved them 
 and washed them in His blood. 
 
 The reader will recollect that the object of this section was to 
 vindicate the argument against universal atonement, drawn from 
 the doctrine of election; and I submit, if that argument be not 
 vindicated completely — if the distinction in the order of the divine 
 decrees, invented by our friends, or rather invented centuries ago 
 by the party whom they choose to follow — if that distinction, with 
 all that is said about the place for election lying in the application 
 of the remedy — I submit, if the Avhole be not proved to be a weak 
 and inefficient subterfuge. Consequently, our argument stands 
 uninjured, and I am still warranted to put the question, how 
 Christ could come to save all, when He came with the express 
 intention of saving a select number? 
 
 It may not be improper to add here, that what we have said of 
 the love of Christ may be said with equal truth and propriety in 
 reference to the love of the Father who sent Him. If the place 
 for election lies in the application of the remedy, where lies the 
 place for the love of the Father? Unquestionably it must lie in 
 the application of the remedy too. Yet how can this be recon- 
 ciled with the language of Scripture? If the language of Scripture 
 is to be interpreted like other language, the love of the Father 
 was anterior to the remedy, and was, in fact, the prime cause to 
 which the providing of the remedy must be ascribed. " God so 
 loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whoso- 
 ever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting 
 life," John hi. 16. "In this was manifested the love of God 
 toward us, because that God sent His only-begotten Son into the 
 world, that we might live through Him. Herein is love, not that 
 we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the 
 propitiation for our sins," 1 John iv. 9, 10. Upon this another 
 theory is founded, the theory of a double object being contem- 
 plated by the divine mind in providing the atonement — of a 
 general and a peculiar love — a love emanating from the Most High 
 
31 MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 
 
 as the moral ruler of the world, and a love emanating from Him 
 as a sovereign benefactor.* "Whether this theory is founded in 
 the Scriptures, and how far it is calculated to serve the design for 
 which it is brought forward, I purpose to inquire in a subsequent 
 chapter. 
 
 Section III. — tbt Argument against % ®ntbcrsaliii| of % SUoncnuni 
 
 bmkb from mnltitnbes babing gone bo ton into rmbitioit before Christ 
 bicb, incapable of being drbnttctr. 
 
 To the last argument advanced in the foregoing chapter I am 
 not aware that the party t have ever attempted any reply. If they 
 have, it has never happened to come under my notice. Probably 
 as they are accustomed to say that the Saviour, properly speaking, 
 did not die for any one, and that there is no necessary connection 
 between His death and any one's salvation — probably holding 
 this view of the nature of the atonement, they may deem it of 
 little moment when it was made, whether before the sons of 
 perdition had gone down into the pit, or whether after they were 
 
 * Wardlaw on Assurance and Universal Pardon, p. 289. 
 
 + The author is evidently to be understood as referring to Protestants who 
 adopt the tenet of a universal atonement ; for it is well known that Romanists 
 allege that the benefits of Christ's death extend to departed souls, and that they 
 adduce 1 Peter iii. 1 9 in support of this unscriptural tenet. Quesnel, in his 
 reflections upon that passage, has the following observations: — "We adore and 
 love the infinite goodness of the Good Shepherd, who goes in quest of His sheep 
 to the very centre of the earth — an evidence this of the pains of purgatory. 
 It is the prison of the sovereign Judge; in which souls would not be incarce- 
 rated unless amenable to the justice of God, and where salvation would not be 
 announced to them unless they were in a condition to receive it." — Le Nouveau 
 Testament avec Reflexions Morales. 
 
 Mr Howe explains the passage as importing that while Noah, the preacher 
 of righteousness, did preach externally, Christ was, by His Spirit, inwardly 
 preaching to that generation, who were subsequently shut up in the infernal 
 prison on account of their continued unbelief and impenitence, " not while they 
 were so (which the text says not), but in their former days of disobedience on 
 earth." He adduces Genesis vi. 3 as a passage relative to the same subject; 
 which proves that Christ "had been constantly and generally striving, by His 
 Spirit, with that generation, until it was now time, by the holy, wise, and 
 righteous judgment of Heaven, to surcease, and give them over to the destruc- 
 tion which ensued." — Hoar's Works, vol. i. 
 
MODES OF EVADING THE FOREGOING REASONING. 35 
 
 there. With reckless men, who care not much how ridiculous they 
 
 make themselves, such an evasion may perhaps be sufficient, but 
 
 surely all other men who respect themselves, and wish to be 
 
 deemed rational, must be of a different mind. The method of 
 
 salvation through the death of Christ was intended to glorify the 
 
 wisdom of God, as well as His other attributes. It is styled in the 
 
 Scriptures the " wisdom of God," — the " manifold wisdom of God," 
 
 — the "wisdom of God in a mystery," — and doubtless it is so 
 
 styled not without reason. Take the view of it, however, avowed 
 
 by this party, and think of the Son of God dying for the damned 
 
 in hell, and where is the wisdom? In what a light must the divine 
 
 government appear, not to the principalities and powers in heaven 
 
 only, but even to human beings endowed with ordinary sense ] 
 
 Expiating sin for which the sinner is already suffering the 
 
 penalty! — stipulating to redeem those who are already past all 
 
 redemption! Yes, stipulating! for according to the Bible the 
 
 Saviour dies not on any other terms. He dies not as a fool dies. 
 
 He throws not his life away on a perad venture. It is made 
 
 sure to Him before hand, as sure as the promise and the oath 
 
 of God can make it, that He shall "see His seed;" and that 
 
 with the "travail of His soul" He shall be "satisfied." Yet if 
 
 the party opposed to us may be believed, the utmost travail of 
 
 His soul was endured for innumerable multitudes, who were 
 
 already undergoing their appointed doom — a doom never to be 
 
 reversed. 
 
CHAPTER III. 
 
 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED TO HIS 
 PEOPLE IN DYING. 
 
 The idea of universal atonement excludes all specific reference to 
 classes or to individuals. A general remedy, limited only in the 
 application, admits of no sort of limitation at any previous stage. 
 If the Saviour, in laying down his life, had any regard to one 
 individual more than another, or to one class of individuals more 
 than another, the doctrine of such a remedy is effectually over- 
 thrown. Yet, how any man can read the Scriptures and not 
 meet with proofs of such a regard — proofs not rare but frequent — 
 and not expressed in obscure but in the plainest terms — is to 
 me incomprehensible. To bring a few of these proofs under the 
 notice of the reader, is the object of this chapter. 
 
 Section I. — Clje Sjfafrfrmr in aging susfahub % relation 
 of a ^Ijcnbnb. 
 
 "I am the good shepherd," He says; "the good shepherd 
 giveth his life for the sheep," John x. 11. Does this prove no 
 specific relation, and no limitation of purpose 1 If it do not, I 
 know not what will. The answer of our brethren to this argu- 
 ment is, that although it is said the Saviour died for the sheep, 
 it is not said that He died for them only. " The Scriptures," says 
 one of them, " do not mark these as the only characters for whom 
 the Son of God died."* " It is true," remarks another, " that He 
 laid down His life for the sheep, but how that can prove that He 
 laid it down for none others, I am at a loss to comprehend V'f 
 My readers, I should think, must be at a loss to comprehend, as I 
 
 * Jenkyn's Extent of the Atonement, chap, xh., p. 398. 
 + " The Question, For whom did Christ die ? Answered," p. 64. 
 
 
SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED. 37 
 
 certainly am, how these writers, and others who agree with them, 
 do not perceive, that- by adopting this evasion they surrender 
 their cause. Their doctrine — as we have shown, and as they con- 
 stantly affirm — is, that the Saviour died for all alike — for all in 
 exactly the same sense — that His atonement was strictly and truly 
 a universal atonement, having no reference to one more than to 
 another, till it comes to be applied. Now, how does it accord 
 with tins, to say that He died for the sheep, but not for the 
 sheep only 1 If it be admitted that He died for the sheep in 
 any peculiar sense — in any sense different from that in which He 
 died for others — if this be admitted, who does not see that their 
 cause is given up 1 Yet what less than this do they admit, when 
 they say His dying for the sheep proves not that He died for none 
 others? The question at present is not, whether He died in 
 any sense for others, but whether He died in a special sense for 
 the sheep 1 
 
 Apart from the comments of our friends, however, we have 
 abundant evidence, in this and other passages, that our Lord, in 
 dying, sustained the relation of a shepherd, and it is of importance 
 to ascertain when that relation was constituted, and what it 
 implies. It was constituted, at all events, prior to His death, 
 for He declares that He laid down His life for the sheep. It 
 was constituted prior to their coming to Him, or placing them- 
 selves under His pastoral care, for He intimates that He had 
 sheep who had not yet entered His fold. " Other sheep I have, 
 which are not of this fold: them also I must bring; and there 
 shall be one fold and one shepherd," verse 16. What is more, 
 they enter His fold, not that they may become His sheep, but 
 because they are His sheep already, and because, being His sheep, 
 He causes them to " hear His voice," which others do not hear. 
 " Ye believe not," He said to the Jews, " because ye are not of 
 my sheep," verse 26. All this proves, beyond contradiction, that 
 there is a certain portion of mankind distinguished from others, 
 who have been committed to His care, with whose interests He 
 has been entrusted, and, with a view to secure whose interests, 
 He has poured out His blood. Is this reconcileable with the 
 
38 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 idea of a universal and indiscriminate atonement 1 — an atonement 
 having the same aspect to the entire race, whether they be sheep 
 or goats 1 " If He died for all, there would be no meaning in 
 saying He died for His sheep, because in this case there would 
 be nothing peculiar to them — nothing by which they were dis- 
 tinguished from any other description of men." — Lectures on 
 Theology, by John Dick, D.D., vol. iv., p. 484. 
 
 Further, we learn that our blessed Lord is constituted the 
 " Great Shepherd of the sheep " in virtue of a covenant — that His 
 dying for the sheep was the condition of that covenant — and that 
 His resurrection from the dead is the great and decisive proof that 
 the condition has been fulfilled. " The God of peace has brought 
 again from the dead the Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd 
 of the sheep, by the blood of the everlasting covenant," Heb. xiii. 
 20. Will it be alleged that the covenant embraced the goats as 
 well as the sheep, or that the blood which sealed the covenant 
 was shed for both alike 1 If so, what can prevent the salvation 
 of every human being 1 How can any even of the goats perish, 
 unless the covenant be made void 1 To this we may have occasion 
 to advert afterwards. 
 
 We learn yet further, that the love which the Saviour bore to 
 the sheep, and which prompted Him to die for them, was not 
 only a special, but a boundless love — a love of which the only 
 measure is the love subsisting between the divine persons. " I 
 am the good shepherd," He says; "I know my sheep, and am 
 known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I 
 the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep," verses 14, 15. 
 It is admitted on all hands that the knowledge here spoken of 
 is the knowledge of love, or of approbation, according to the 
 Avell-known use of the Hebrew word jn* to which 7«wkw cor- 
 responds, both in the Seventy and in the New Testament, Ps. i. 6; 
 ci. 4; Eom. vii. 15; 1 Cor. viii. 3, ct al. freq. The meaning is, "I 
 love my sheep, and am loved of mine," and of this love, on His 
 part at least, what is the measure? Nothing less, as we have 
 said, than the love subsisting between the divine persons. "As the 
 Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father;" rather, "even 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 39 
 
 as the Father knowetk me and I know the Father," or, dropping 
 the Hebraism, " even as the Father loveth me and I love the 
 Father;" that is, in other words, I love my sheep as the Father 
 loveth me, and therefore I lay down my life for their sake. The 
 improper division of the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, and the 
 improper rendering of Kadws, in the latter, have been noticed from 
 an early period. Even Beza, who wrote hi the sixteenth century, 
 pointedly condemns both, and it is not a little singular that our 
 English translators, who for the most part follow Beza, should, in 
 this particular instance, have chosen to differ from him, and to follow 
 the Vulgate, on which he pours his censure. According to the 
 Vulgate, and the English version, the first part of the fifteenth 
 verse is an independent proposition, asserting that the Son knows 
 the Father, even as the Father knows the Son, and having scarcely 
 any perceptible connection either with what goes before it, or 
 with what follows. According to all other interpreters, it is only 
 one member of a sentence, which begins in the fourteenth verse, 
 and which asserts that the love between the shepherd and the 
 sheep has no true parallel, no true resemblance, except in the love 
 lift ween the Father and the Son. "I love my sheep, and am 
 loved of mine, even as the Father loveth me, and I love the 
 Father, and I lay down my life for the sheep." What is this 
 but saying that the Saviour, in dying for the sheep, regarded 
 them with a love not only special, but without limits ? Can this 
 be said of the love He bore to mankind in general — to the 
 countless generations who never heard of His name, and never 
 shall see His face except in anger ? Can this be said of the 
 rectoral love, spoken of by Dr Wardlaw and others, the love 
 which emanates from the Most High, not as a benefactor, but as a 
 rider — the love which, whether generous or not, is utterly fruit- 
 less, producing no conversion in this world, and no salvation in 
 the world to come 1 * 
 
 * Note B. 
 
40 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 Section II. — £be Sabiour in bgxng susiamdb % relation 
 of a |jusb;uiLt. 
 
 " Husbands, love your wives," says Paul, " even as Christ also 
 loved the church, and gave Himself for it, 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," Eph. v. 25-27. What is limited, 
 what is special, if this be not 1 Will our friends make the same 
 reply to this argument as to the former one 1 Will they say that 
 husbands are to love their wives, but not their wives only ? The 
 evasion, although we should take it gravely, will avail them as 
 little in this case as in the other. In either case it must be 
 regarded from their lips as a virtual surrendering of their cause. 
 It will not do for them to say that the Saviour loved the church, 
 but not the church only, because their doctrine is that He loved 
 all alike, that He died for all alike, and that the distinction 
 between the church and others is altogether a subsequent affair, 
 to which, in His death, He had not the smallest reference. By 
 adopting such an evasion, therefore, in this case, as in the other, 
 they stultify themselves. 
 
 The idea of husbands being enjoined to love their wives, with 
 the reservation — but not them only — is, to say the least, sufficiently 
 ludicrous, and the Universalists have accordingly been laughed at 
 for using such language, even by implication. Hurrion has 
 remarked, " If all men are excluded because the Word only is not 
 added, then when men are commanded to love their wives, as 
 Christ loved the church," they are allowed to extend their 
 conjugal affection to all women besides their wives, because it is 
 not said, " Love your wives only." This, as might have been 
 expected, is taken in high dudgeon, and is styled " pitiful levity," 
 although every impartial man must perceive that it is nothing 
 more than a deserved reproof of " pitiful" absurdity. Nor is 
 Hurrion to be regarded as its author. Be the remark proper or 
 improper, it has a much remoter parentage. The reader of 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 41 
 
 Turretin may find it in his pages, although, even there, for 
 anything I know, it may not be original. * 
 
 We are told, however, that " Christ has no reference at all to 
 the singleness of affection that is due from a husband to his wife 
 — that he has exclusive reference to strength or intensity of 
 affection." f This writer says "Christ" when it may be 
 presumed he means to say Paul or the, Apostle, for the words 
 on which he is commenting are the words not of Christ, but 
 of Paul. The blunder, however, is not half so bad as the 
 argument. 
 
 Where is the proof that there is no reference to singleness of 
 affection, but only to intensity 1 " It is rendered evident," he 
 says, " by the remarkable fact that the very same measure of love 
 is prescribed towards all believers, that is here prescribed towards 
 wives." " This is my commandment," says the Saviour, " that ye 
 love one another, as I have loved you," John xv. 12. " It will not 
 be pretended that singleness of affection is here enjoined ; nay, it 
 is by implication forbidden, and I ask, therefore, on what principle 
 can such singleness of affection be inferred from the passage in 
 Eph. v. 25, 26, under consideration."]: This writer must be 
 informed, since it appears he does not know it, that conjugal 
 affection and Christian affection are not exactly the same thing ; 
 that, although he confounds them, they are yet sufficiently distinct; 
 and that, to reason from the one to the other, is to reason incon- 
 sequentially. It is Christian affection which the Saviour incul- 
 cates in John xv. 12; it is conjugal affection which the apostle 
 inculcates in Eph. v. 25. The two may agree in point of intensity, 
 but in other points they essentially differ. Christian affection is 
 diffusive, extending to the utmost limits of the Christian world; 
 the very soul of conjugal affection is exclusiveness — entire, un- 
 divided, exclusiveness ; and of this exclusiveness the apostle gives 
 
 * Nee adulterum quis ferret, ita vitilitigantem, ad crimen suurn tegendum, 
 dictum quidem fuisse " Viri diligite uxores vestras,"secZ non solas. — Theol. Pars., 
 ii., p. 502. 
 
 t " The Question, For whom did Christ die ? Answered," p. 66. 
 
 + " The Question, For whom did Christ die? Answered," p. 67. 
 
 F 
 
42 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 the greatest, the most transcendant of all examples — the example 
 of the Saviour's love to His people — His church, His spouse, His 
 betrothed bride. 
 
 Grant that the Saviour's love to His church is represented to 
 us as conjugal love — grant that it has all the exclusiveness of 
 conjugal love — and till the denial is supported by aiguments very 
 different from that which I have just examined, "we must continue 
 to assert it. Grant this, I say, and what follows ? Most unques- 
 tionably the whole truth which I am seeking to establish — the 
 truth hitherto avowed by the Secession churches, hitherto, bid 
 not since; by the Church of Scotland; and I may say generally by 
 the churches of the Reformation. The single passage under dis- 
 cussion, Eph. v. 25-27, which gives us to understand that the 
 Saviour in dying sustained to His people the relation of a 
 husband, is of itself sufficient to decide the controversy. There is 
 no avoiding the conclusion that His love was not general but 
 special; that the giving of Himself was for the sake of some, not 
 for the sake of all. 
 
 The spouse, moreover, on whom the Lamb of God had set His 
 affection, and whom he purposed to present to Himself a "glorious 
 church," needed to be "sanctified and cleansed;" and He gave 
 Himself for her with the express intention that this should be 
 accomplished. Our Universalist friends contend, that in dying 
 He only made atonement— only satisfied public justice, and that 
 His death had no reference to anything farther. The apostle, 
 however, asserts the contrary. He asserts, in as express terms as 
 it seems possible to employ, that the object of the Saviour's death 
 was not merely the expiation of sin, but the sanctification of the 
 church; her being effectually delivered from sin, and brought to 
 Him in the beauty of holiness, " adorned as a bride prepared for 
 her husband." Whom then shall we believe 1 Shall we believe 
 our friends] Or shall we believe the apostle? Will it do 
 to say witli Robert Hall, that the selecting of the objects to 
 whom the benefit of the Saviour's death should be applied, or, 
 in other words, the selecting of the individuals who should 
 constitute the church, was a matter of "separate arrange- 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 43 
 
 ment?" * Or will it do to say with Dr Wardlaw, that the 
 passages which speak of Christ's dying for the church or for 
 the sheep, " may he considered as having an interpretation 
 sufficiently appropriate " f hi the purpose of God to apply to 
 individuals the general remedy? I leave it to any candid man 
 to answer these questions. I ask if there he not in both cases — 
 I will not say an attempt to tamper with the apostle's words — 
 that is impossible in such men — but a something like resorting 
 to a shift, in order to avoid the inference to which his words 
 obviously lead? Away with such finessing! Away with the 
 doctrine which recpiires such finessing for its support! Let 
 us take the apostle as he speaks. Let us admit that the 
 Saviour in dying contemplated the objects to whom His death 
 should be applied; that they were at the moment the objects of 
 His love — such love as the bridegroom bears to his bride — and 
 that he gave Himself for them, not for any general or indefinite 
 object, but desiring and purposing actually to save them. 
 
 I shall only add, that some of our friends, in their comments 
 on this passage, strenuously as they contend against its obvious 
 import, allow themselves inadvertently to make concessions which, 
 if they do not quite amount to all Ave require, are yet virtually 
 destructive of their own argument. " Christ loved the church," 
 says one already referred to oftener than once; " Christ loved the 
 church, not in the sense of loving no others but those in the 
 church, but in the sense of expiating its sins, as He expiated the 
 
 * " But you admit the doctrine of election, which necessarily implies limita- 
 tion. Do you not think that election and particular redemption are inseparably 
 connected? ' I believe firmly,' he rejoined, 'in election; but I do not think it 
 involves particular redemption. I consider the sacrifice of Christ as a remedy, 
 not only adapted but intended for all, and as placing all in a salvable state ; as 
 removing all barriers to their salvation, except such as arise from their own 
 perversity and depravity. But God foresaw or knew that none would accept 
 the remedy of themselves, and therefore, by what may be called a separate 
 arrangement, he resolved to glorify His mercy by effectually applying salvation 
 to a certain number of our race, through the agency of His Holy Spirit.' " — 
 Dr Buhner's Report of his Conversation icith Mr Hall — IlalVs Works, vol. vi., 
 page IIS. 
 
 *f Essays on Assurance and Universal Pardon, p. 292. 
 
44 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 sins of all others — and of purposing besides, in consequence of a 
 foreseen universal rejection of Himself and His atonement, to 
 intercede and obtain for them the Holy Spirit." — "There cannot 
 be a doubt, that in this and other passages there is a reference to 
 Christ's purpose, founded on the foreseen universal rejection of 
 Himself," etc. * Will it be believed that this comes from a man 
 who asserts, on all occasions, in speech and in writing, that Christ 
 died for all equally; — for all in the same sense — for Nero as for 
 Paul, for Simon Magus, as for Simon Peter % How, then, a 
 purpose of the Saviour about the one and not about the other'? 
 How a reference to such a purpose in speaking of His death ] 
 This is doubtless more than the author intended. We may 
 expect, not a retractation — that would be too humiliating, that 
 the party never give — but a contradiction we may expect, and 
 probably a flat enough one, although not acknowledged, before we 
 have proceeded far. 
 
 Section III. — ®jjc ^notour ra bgiirg sustaincb i\t relation 
 of h Surcrg. 
 " Christ," says Mr Fuller, " laid down His life as a Surety. He 
 is expressly called the 'Surety of a better testament.' He needed 
 not to be a Surety on behalf of the Father, to see to the fulfilment 
 of His promises, seeing there was no possibility of His failing in 
 what He had engaged to bestow; but there was danger on our 
 part. Ought Ave not therefore to suppose that, after the example 
 of the High Priest under the hrw, He was a surety for the people 
 to God ? And if so, we cannot extend the objects for whom He 
 was a surety beyond those who are finally saved, without suppos- 
 ing Him to fail in what He has undertaken. In perfect conformity 
 with these sentiments, the following Scriptures represent our 
 Lord Jesus, I apprehend, as having undertaken the certain salva- 
 tion of all those for whom He lived and died. ' It became 
 Him for whom are all things— in bringing many sons unto glory, 
 to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.' 
 He died not for the Jewish nation only, ' but that He might 
 
 * " The Question, For whom did Christ die ? Answered," p. 67. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 45 
 
 gather together in one the children of God that were scattered 
 abroad.' — ' The children being partakers of flesh and blood, He 
 also Himself took part of the same.' ' Here am I, and the children 
 whom the Lord hath given me.' Though we receive not the 
 ' power (or privilege) to become the sons of God,' till after we 
 believe in Christ, yet, ' from before the foundation of the world, 
 we are predestinated to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ 
 unto Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will,' and so 
 in the esteem of God were considered as children, while as yet 
 we lay scattered abroad under the ruins of the fall." * 
 
 We are told, however, that " the term in Scripture generally 
 rendered ' covenant' is improperly so rendered, and really means 
 ' dispensation,' ' disposition,' ' economy,' or ' arrangement.' It is a 
 pity that so many entire systems of theology and bodies of 
 divinity should have been cast into the mould of a single word, 
 which, after all, is found out to be but a mistranslation." " In 
 every passage where Christ is spoken of as the Mediator or Surety 
 of a better ' covenant,' — the ' better covenant' referred to, is not 
 any supposed ' covenant of grace,' as contra-distinguished from the 
 Adamic ' covenant of works,' but it is the Christian dispensation of 
 grace, as contra-distinguished from the typical Jewish beggarly 
 rudimentary, elementary dispensation of grace set up amongst the 
 Jews. Moses was the Mediator of that dispensation, Gal. iii. 19, 
 20; Deut. v. 5. Jesus is the Mediator of this; and we might as 
 well talk of the 'federal transactions' 1 between Moses and God, as of 
 those between God and Christ." t 
 
 This passage affords matter for some reflection, particularly the 
 concluding words of it, which I have put in italics. The Christian 
 people of Scotland, both in the Establishment, and among the 
 dissenters, may learn from it what kind of theology it is which 
 has lately sprung up among us, and which is said to be taught in 
 many pulpits, and in some theological halls. That Moses is the 
 mediator spoken of in Gal. iii. 19, is not altogether indisputable. 
 Calvin denied it, on the ground that the one Mediator between 
 
 * Complete Works, p. 224. 
 t " The Question, For whom did Christ die ? Answered," p. 69. 
 
46 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 God and man is Christ Jesus. Pierce denied it, on the ground 
 that the priests who offered the sacrifices, and consequently made 
 the typical atonement, were better entitled to the designation than 
 Moses, who only acted as an internuntius. That, however, is a 
 matter of no moment. The point to which I would call the 
 attention of my readers, and of the religious public, is that, 
 according to the writer now quoted, there never was any federal 
 transaction between God and Christ, more than between God and 
 Moses; that is, there never was any at all! It may be presumed 
 that this writer speaks the sentiments of his party, particularly of 
 the more influential among them, and this is what he confidently 
 avers. The doctrine of the " covenant of grace," to which our 
 learned divines, and our devout Christian people, have been 
 accustomed to attach so much importance, is altogether a baseless 
 doctrine, "found out" to rest on nothing better than a mis- 
 translation ! I must take leave, however, to remark, that for all 
 the lofty tone of this writer and his confederates, they have " found 
 out" nothing about the "term in Scripture generally translated 
 covenant" that was not found out before, and that was not long 
 ago familiar to every individual, whose acquaintance with the 
 subject was even the most " beggarly and rudimentary." No 
 man of competent understanding ever imagined that the " two 
 covenants," mentioned in Galatians, or the "first" and the 
 " better" covenants mentioned in Hebrews, meant anything else 
 than the old and the new dispensations, that of Moses and that of 
 Christ; yet, nevertheless, the prevailing opinion among the ablest 
 and best informed, has ever been that the transactions between 
 the Divine Persons, to which the whole scheme of mercy must be 
 traced, has all the characteristics of a federal transaction, and that 
 it receives its proper appellation when it is designated, " The 
 Covenant of Grace." 
 
 " There are various considerations," says Dr Dick, " from 
 which we may infer the existence of the covenant of grace, or of 
 that agreement relative to the salvation of sinners, into which God 
 entered with his Son, before the foundation of the world. The 
 character of a Swety, which is given to our Saviour in Scripture, 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 47 
 
 points Him out as the representative of others, and as having come 
 under an engagement to fulfil certain terms in their name and for 
 their benefit. The title of the Second Adam, and the comparison, 
 or rather the contrast, which is drawn between Him and the first 
 man, implies that He resembled the latter in being a federal head, 
 by whose conduct others are affected. The frequent declarations 
 that He came into the world to do the will of His Father import 
 that the Father had proposed a certain design to Him, and that 
 He had undertaken to accomplish it; and this conclusion is 
 confirmed by the important circumstance, that promises are made 
 to Him of a glorious reward. The transaction is clearly expressed 
 in the following words: '"When thou shalt make His soid an 
 offering for sin,' or rather, ' if His soul shall make a propitiatory 
 sacrifice, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and 
 the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand;' for here we 
 have a condition and a promise. Indeed, the whole scheme of 
 redemption involves the idea of a covenant ; while one Divine 
 Person prescribes certain services to the other, the other performs 
 them ; and the result is, not only His own personal exaltation, but 
 the eternal happiness of millions, whose cause He had espoused."* 
 "In the text," says Dwight, after quoting Isaiah liii. 10, 12, "a 
 covenant is made on the part of the speaker with the j)erson of 
 whom he speaks; or on the part of God the Father with the Son. 
 In the tenth verse, the first of the text, it is proposed condition- 
 ally, in the following terms: — When thou shall make His soul a,n 
 offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the 
 pleasure of the Lord shall "prosper in His hand. In the translation of 
 Bishop Lonih, which differs from the common one only by being 
 more correct and explicit, it is, 'If His soul shall make a pro- 
 pitiatory sacrifice, He shall see His seed, who shall prolong their 
 days, and the gracious purpose of Jehovah shall prosper in His 
 hands.' The difference lies principally in the second clause, ' He 
 shall see a seed who shall prolong their days.' It could not, I 
 think, with propriety be promised, as a reward to Christ for His 
 sufferings, that in any sense He should prolong His own days; but 
 * Lectures on Theology, vol. ii., pp. 413, 414. 
 
48 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 with the most perfect propriety that He should see a seed, who, in 
 a sense hereafter to he explained, should prolong their days. The 
 days of Him who is the 'same yesterday, and to-day, and for ever, 
 the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending,' could 
 not, in any sense, be prolonged, in consequence of His sufferings, 
 or of any other possible event. The word his, supplied by the 
 translators, is supplied erroneously, since, in the present transla- 
 tion, it presents a meaning which plainly cannot be admitted. 
 The justice of these remarks will be further evident from the 
 repetition of the same covenant, in the eleventh verse, He shall 
 see of the travail of His soul, that is, as explained by Louih, ' Of the 
 travail of His soul He shall see the fruit, and be satisfied;' 'by 
 His knowledge,' or, as Lowth more correctly renders it, ' by the 
 knowledge of Him, shall my servant justify many.' The justifica- 
 tion of the many here spoken of, together with its consequences, 
 is the very reward promised in the preceding verse, in the words, 
 ' He shall see a seed who shall prolong their days;' and here the 
 reward promised is no other than the justification, and con- 
 sequent eternal life of those who should become interested in His 
 death." * 
 
 " The same thing is abundantly evinced in Psalm lxxxix., 
 where also the same covenant is recorded. ' Once have I sworn 
 in my holiness that I will not lie unto David; his seed shall 
 endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me.' And again, 
 ' His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as 
 the days of heaven.' It is to be observed that in all these 
 passages, the reward promised to Christ consists in giving persons 
 to Him as ' seed,' the ' many,' the ' mighty people.' These are 
 undoubtedly no other than the ' general assembly and church of 
 the first-born,' styled elsewhere ' the children of God,' ' little 
 children,' ' sons and daughters.' They are His own people, those 
 in whom He has a peculiar property; persons justified, who in this 
 manner have become His portion, His spoil, His seed. The reward 
 of His suffering here promised, is to consist of these. 
 
 " All these things are exhibited to us in the form of a 
 
 * Dwight's Theology, Sermon xliii. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 49 
 
 covenant. To this covenant, as to every other, there are two 
 parties, God who promises, and His servant who was to justify 
 many. A condition is specified, to which is annexed a promise of 
 reward. The condition is, that Christ should 'make His soul an 
 offering for sin,' and 'make intercession for the transgressors,' or, in 
 other words, execute the whole office of a priest for mankind. The 
 reward is, that He should 'receive the many for His portion,' and 
 that they should 'prolong their days,' or endure for ever. It is 
 remarkable that this covenant, on the part of God the Father, like 
 that made with Noah, and that made with Abraham, and various 
 others recorded in the Scriptures, is in the eighty-ninth Psalm 
 exhibited as a promissory oath: 'Once have I sworn by my holiness, 
 that I will not lie unto David : his seed shall endure for ever, and 
 his throne as the sun before me.'"* 
 
 Scarcely need I add that it is the same covenant virtually to 
 which the Saviour refers when, in the institution of the Holy 
 Supper, He presents the cup to the disciples, saying, " This is my 
 blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the 
 remission of sins." And the same also to which the writer of the 
 epistle to the Hebrews refers oftener than once: first, when he 
 speaks of Jesus being made the " Surety of a better testament," 
 chap. vii. 22; and again, when he speaks of the God of peace 
 having brought again from the dead the Great Shepherd of the 
 sheep " through the blood of the everlasting covenant," chap. 
 xiii. 20. 
 
 The word rendered " surety," tyyvos from eyyvri a pledge or 
 bail, means one who gives a pledge, or becomes security. Pro- 
 bably the radical word, although none of the lexicographers, so 
 far as I know, have thrown out such a suggestion, may be €771*5 
 near. 'E77UOS may be a person who is near to another in the time 
 of need; that is, who stands by him, and affords him, as the case 
 may require, protection or assistance, or both.f In the Hebrew 
 Scriptures the word is y\y, the radical meaning of which is to mix. 
 
 * Dwight's Theology, Sermon xliii. 
 + The subject is learnedly dismissed by Dr Owen, Works, vol. v., pp. 181, 
 182, Goold's Edition. 
 
 G 
 
50 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 It seems to denote a person who mixes himself with another's 
 affairs, that is, who becomes responsible for another, or occupies 
 another's room. It is a word of frequent occurrence, and is 
 generally found in connexion with another word which signifies to 
 strike hands, or to plight faith. The Seventy render it variously, 
 employing different terms as equivalent to it, but oftener than 
 once they employ the derivatives of 6771/05. "A man void of 
 understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety eyyvwuevos 6771'?? 
 for his friend," Pro v. xvii. 18. " My son, if thou be surety for thy 
 friend iav iyyvnarj abv <pl\ov, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a 
 stranger, thou art snared, thou art taken with the words of thy 
 mouth," chap. vi. 1, 2. This seems to speak of a solemn obliga- 
 tion, productive of consequences of the most serious nature, and 
 from which there is no escape, except by a rigid fulfilment of the 
 terms. Elsewhere in the Seventy we find the word conveying a 
 still stronger idea, namely, the idea of a covenant engagement, 
 and that, too, a covenant engagement on the part of the Most 
 High. In the second book of the Maccabees, when the Jews 
 joined battle with Timotheus, they are said to have had the Great 
 God for their 1771/05, assuring them of victory. They had pro- 
 strated themselves before the altar, they had spread ashes upon 
 their ^ heads and covered themselves with sackcloth, they had 
 poured out their hearts in prayer, pleading with the Most High, and 
 putting Him in mind of His promise — the promise in which He had 
 said that He would be an enemy to their enemies, and an adversary 
 to their adversaries — then seizing their arms, and advancing to 
 meet Timotheus, they rushed into the fight, Ave are told, iyyvov 
 ixovres cvrjixeplas /cat viktjs, having the Lord as their surety for victory 
 and success, 2 Maccab., x. 28. 
 
 Passing from this, however, the question to be determined is, 
 for whom did the blessed Jesus undertake in the covenant 1 Who 
 are the seed for whom His soul was to make a propitiatory 
 sacrifice, and whom He was to receive as His reward 1 ? According 
 to Dwight, the passage in Isaiah liii. is exegetical of the following 
 passage in the epistle to the Ephesians : — " Blessed be the God 
 and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 51 
 
 all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ; according as 
 He hath chosen us in Him, before the foundation of the world, that 
 we should be holy, and without blame before him in love : having 
 predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ 
 to himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise 
 of the glory of His grace, wherein He hath made us accepted in the 
 Beloved," Eph. i. 3-6. " The manner," he says, " in which this 
 transaction took place, and in which the purposes of it were 
 accomplished, is recorded in the text," that is, in Isaiah liii. 10-12. 
 Of course, if Dwight be any authority — and with the new school 
 brethren he is quite a Coryphaeus — those whom the Saviour 
 represented in the covenant, and whom He shall receive as His 
 "portion," or the "fruit of the travail of His soul," were not "all 
 men alike," — not the " whole world" in the most unrestricted 
 sense — but those only who were " chosen in Him before the 
 foundation of the world," and "predestinated in Him to the 
 adoption of children." Let it not be thought, however, that the 
 conclusion rests, less or more, on the authority of Dwight, or the 
 authority of any other man; it rests solely on the evidence 
 afforded by the passages themselves, taken in connection with 
 other passages relating to the same subject. Perhaps it is no 
 where brought out more clearly than in the fifth of the Romans, 
 where the parallel is run between the "first" and the "second" 
 man. " As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners; 
 so by the obedience of one many are made righteous." " As by 
 the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; 
 even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all 
 men unto justification of life." The relation which Christ bore to 
 His "seed" was exactly similar to that which Adam bore to his 
 posterity. Righteousness and life are secured by the one covenant, 
 as certainly as sin and death are transmitted by the other. If, 
 therefore, the representation in both be co-extensive — if every 
 human being be represented by Christ, as every human being was 
 represented by Adam, the conclusion is unavoidable that every 
 human being shall be saved. So obvious is this and indisputable, 
 that even Dr Wardlaw himself admits and labours to prove that 
 
52 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 the "all men," in Eomans v. 18, means not "all men without 
 exception," but only " all men without difference," that is, men of 
 all classes and descriptions.* 
 
 Dr Payne admits that our blessed Lord is called a Surety, but 
 he affirms that he cannot be so in any strict or proper sense. If 
 He be so in the proper sense, Dr. P. has discernment enough to 
 perceive his whole theory must be overturned, and he there- 
 fore struggles hard, as he does in other cases, to have the received 
 doctrine modified. Our Lord is a Surety or Representative, he 
 says, " analogically," that is, as I understand the phrase, he bears 
 some kind of resemblance, or approximates in some degree to a 
 Surety or Representative, but is not so in fact. Perhaps it is 
 scarcely necessary I should enter into the question in consequence 
 of anything this writer alleges, because if our Lord was the 
 Surety of the covenant in any sense, which the Scriptures 
 expressly assure us He was, He must in dying have borne a 
 relation to those included in the covenant which He did not bear 
 to mankind in general, unless the covenant embraced the whole 
 human race, which even the wildest Pelagians will scarcely affirm. 
 It is well that we have the testimony of Mr Fuller in favour of 
 our Lord's Suretyship. His testimony is more to be valued than 
 that, perhaps, of the whole school with which he is usually 
 associated. Probably the passage cited above was written in the 
 earlier part of his life, when his views were sounder and more 
 Scriptural than for a time at least they afterwards became, t 
 
 The matter, however, is too important to be passed with a 
 simple reference to the opinion of any one. It forms, if I mistake 
 not, the very hinge of the controversy, and I therefore proceed to 
 
 * Essays on Assurance and Universal Pardon, p. 297-300. 
 + Payne's Lectures, p. 206, foot note; also p. 264, etc. Dr Payne relates, in 
 another foot note, that at one period Mr Fuller came nearly to agree in 
 sentiment with him, of which he seems to have been not a little proud, 
 but "ultimately" — he is constrained to admit, and he does so apparently 
 with the deepest regret — ' ' ultimately he seems to have returned to his first 
 views." With whatever feelings Dr Payne may have recorded this fact, it 
 must be most gratifying to all right thinking men to have such a tiling affirmed 
 on good grounds of such a man as Mr Fuller. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 53 
 
 bring forward some decisive proofs that our blessed Lord was the 
 Surety of His people iu the strictest and most proper sense. 
 These proofs are many in number, but I shall content myself with 
 selecting a few of the more obvious. Nor does it matter much in 
 what order they be arranged, as each of them by itself is con- 
 clusive, independently of the rest. 
 
 (1.) The first I shall mention is Heb. vii. 22, the only passage 
 in the English Bible where He is expressly styled a Surety: " By 
 so much was Jesus made a Surety of a better covenant." The 
 oath that made Him a Surety was the oath that made Him a 
 Priest. Of course His Priesthood and his Suretyship are substan- 
 tially the same thing. As a Priest He became bound to ratify the 
 covenant, and He has ratified it, "giving Himself for us an 
 offering and a sacrifice of a sweet smelling savour," Eph. v. 2. 
 "The word," says Mr Scott, "signifies a person who is bound to 
 another for the payment of a debt, or the performance of an 
 engagement. Jesus, the Surety of His people, became answerable 
 for their debt of sin, and engaged to satisfy Divine justice, 
 and magnify the holy law as their representative."— (Scott, 
 in lOG.) 
 
 (2.) Our Lord is the second Man as Adam was the first, Rom. 
 v. 12-19. This clearly implies his Suretyship, and at the same 
 time illustrates its nature. Adam was the federal head of his 
 posterity, and through his offence judgment came upon them all 
 to condemnation. Jesus bears a similar relation to His people, 
 and through His righteousness the free gift comes upon them all 
 to justification of life. As by the disobedience of the one many 
 were made sinners, so by the obedience of the other many are 
 made righteous. The conclusion is obvious and unavoidable. If 
 His obedience have made them righteous, He must be their Surety 
 in the strictest sense — standing in their room, sustaining their 
 persons, answering on their account, to all intents and purposes 
 one with them in the eye of the law. I say nothing here about 
 the extent of our Lord's representation. Our opponents them- 
 selves, in order to get rid of the conclusion not otherwise to be 
 avoided, namely, that the whole race must be saved, find it 
 
54 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 necessary to admit that the "all men" in this place means not all 
 men without exception, but all men without difference.* 
 
 (3.) The death of Christ is the death of His people, and His 
 resurrection also is their resurrection, neither of which is possible 
 if He were not their Surety in the sense Ave contend for. " How 
 shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein'?" Bom. vi. 2. 
 The meaning is, that they are dead to sin by having died with 
 Christ — if they have died with Christ they must also live with 
 Him, and living with Him they cannot live in sin. " Now, if we 
 be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him. 
 For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He 
 liveth, He liveth unto God. Likewise also reckon ye yourselves to 
 be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ 
 our Lord," Kom. vi. 8, 10, 1 1. " Wherefore, my brethren, ye also 
 are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should 
 be married to another, even to Him who has been raised from the 
 dead," Kom. vii. 4. "The love of Christ constraineth us; because 
 we thus judge, that if one died for all, then Avere all dead: and that 
 He died for all, that they Avho live should not henceforth live unto 
 themselves, but unto Him Avho died for them, and rose again," 2 Cor. 
 v. 14, 15. Instead of "then Avere all dead," the translation ought 
 to be " then all have died," xajres cnrtdavov. If one died for all, in 
 the room of all, bearing the sin of all, making expiation for all; 
 if one died in this sense for all, then all virtually died, and 
 the meaning is not all were dead, but all are dead, as truly 
 dead as Christ was. They have borne the curse, they have 
 undergone the sentence, they are dead in law, and iioav living 
 in the life of Christ, living through His resurrection, they 
 cannot but live to Him. This is beyond all doubt the meaning 
 of the passage, and if it be not so clearly brought out in the 
 English version the fault is in that version. + Our translators 
 folloAv Beza, Avho says, fuisse mortuos, and who understands the 
 Apostle to mean, that all for whom the Saviour died were pre- 
 
 * Wardlaw. 
 t The 8i iravre's is a limited number, as every one may see at a glance, just 
 as much as the oi £wi>Tes. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYINO. 55 
 
 viously in a state of spiritual death. Now this I submit is a 
 wrong interpretation. It gives something like the meaning, but 
 not the real meaning. I hold it indeed to be a fact, that those 
 for whom the Saviour died were previously in a state of spiritual 
 death, but I deny that the apostle asserts, or means to assert, that 
 fact. I deny it for this simple reason, that the Saviour dying for 
 men does not necessarily suppose their being spiritually dead. 
 He might have died for them although they were not in that 
 condition. He might have died for them, to deliver them from 
 some grievous evil, which yet did not imply their being spiritually 
 dead. Nay, He might have died for them even on the supposition 
 that they were worthy, deserving persons, for "perad venture for a 
 good man some would even dare to die." The apostle, however, 
 as every scholar who looks at his words must perceive, speaks 
 logically, and the inference he draws is a strictly logical inference, 
 
 " If one died for all," he Says, "Apa 81 Trdvres aireOavov — THEN all 
 
 have died. The death of the Surety, is virtually, is legally, the 
 death of those for whom He stood bound. His death in their 
 room is their death, in as far as the claims of the Divine law are 
 concerned, or the ends of the Divine government — it is the same 
 thing as if they had died themselves. Accordingly the Vulgate 
 gives the true rendering, " omnes mortui sunt," all are dead or have 
 died. "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but 
 Christ liveth in me," Gal. ii. 20. " Buried with Him in baptism, 
 wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the 
 operation of God," Col. ii. 12. "If ye then be risen with 
 Christ, seek those things which are above," Col. iii. 1. It is 
 needless to add any more passages. The fact is established beyond 
 all question. In the Saviour's death His people have died, in His 
 resurrection they have risen, consequently He died and rose as a 
 public person, their Head and Surety. 
 
 (4.) The same doctrine is taught most unequivocally in the 
 well-known passage, Isaiah liii. : " Surely He hath borne our griefs, 
 and carried our sorrows. But He was wounded for our transgres- 
 sions, He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our 
 peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed. All we, 
 
56 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 like sheep, have gone astray; we have turned every one to his 
 own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 
 He was oppressed, and He was afflicted (' It was exacted, and He 
 was made answerable.' — Vitringa, Lowth, Parkhurst, and many 
 others). For the transgression of my people was He stricken. 
 By His knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for 
 He shall bear their iniquities. He was numbered with the 
 transgressors; and He bare the sin of many, and made intercession 
 for the transgressors." 
 
 Let this language be honestly interpreted, let the rules of fair 
 criticism be applied to it, and what else does it mean, or what else 
 can it mean, than that the Great Redeemer stood as our Surety 1 ? 
 Our iniquity was laid on Him, the chastisement of our peace was 
 inflicted on Him. There was an exaction, and He was made 
 answerable — for what 1 ? For our transgressions. He was stricken 
 for our transgressions, He bare our iniquities. No expression in 
 the Bible, perhaps, is more familiar than that of bearing iniquity. 
 What does it mean 1 ? Beyond all question it means to bear the 
 guilt of iniquity, and as a consequence of bearing its guilt to bear 
 its punishment. Impossible ! cry our friends ; that can never be ; 
 guilt is not to be transferred. If guilt meant criminality, we 
 reply it certainly could not be transferred; the nature of things 
 would prevent it, but if it mean, as it unquestionably does mean, 
 obligation to punishment, it not only can be transferred, but has 
 been transferred in fact; and what is more, the transference of it 
 is our only hope for pardon and eternal life. 
 
 (5.) Another passage which has been referred to on this subject 
 by Witsius and others, and apparently with good reason, is 
 Jer. xxx. 21: "Who is this that engaged his heart to approach 
 unto me, saith the Lord 1 ?" The individual spoken of in the first 
 instance is Zerubbabel, or some other governor of the Jews after 
 the captivity, who was of course a type of the Messiah ; but the 
 words apply in their fullest sense only to Messiah himself. The 
 rendering in the Yulgate, is qui applicet cor suum — in the Seventy, 
 8s ?5w/c<r tV KapUav avrov— but neither applying the heart nor giving 
 the heart corresponds to the true import of the original expression. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 57 
 
 The word is the very word employed to denote Suretyship — 
 'isS r\s; any hath engaged his heart as a Surety to approach unto me. 
 (6.) The same doctrine is taught in Rom. iv. 25, "Who was 
 delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." 
 For our justification, that is not in order to our justification, 
 not that He might effect our justification, but because our 
 justification was effected already, because we were justified 
 in His justification; a decisive proof that He sustained our 
 persons and acted in our name. The words can be explained in 
 
 no Other way. "Os TrapeSodr] 8ia to. Trapa.WTWfj.aTa. rjfiCiv /ecu 'rjyepdr] 5ia ttjv 
 
 SiKaiwa-iv fifxCbv. The/o/' in both clauses of the verse has precisely the 
 same force. In both it is to be regarded not as prospective but as 
 retrospective, not as denoting something to be accomplished but 
 something that has been accomplished already; hi other words, 
 as signifying not an end but a cause. The blessed Jesus was 
 delivered to death because of our offences ; that is, because they 
 were imputed to Him, because the guilt of them was with His own 
 entire consent transferred to His account, because He was " made 
 sin for us," and made a " curse for us," that we might be redeemed 
 from the curse of the law. In this sense was He delivered for 
 our offences, under the charge of them as if they had been His 
 own — that the law of God might be executed— that His justice 
 might be appeased, and that sin might be condemned in the flesh. 
 In the same sense has He been raised again for our justification, 
 not that He might justify us, not that He might convert us and 
 make us righteous persons, and bring us to heaven, but because 
 we were virtually justified in His death, because we had died 
 with Him in order to rise with Him, and because His resurrection, 
 which was His own justification, was in the eye of the law our 
 justification too. Although He knew no sin, He suffered as a 
 sinner. As a sinner He died, as a sinner He was committed to 
 the grave. The grave for a season became His prison house, 
 where He was retained as a captive. The opening of that prison 
 house, therefore, and bringing Him back to life, was His justifica- 
 tion—a decisive, a triumphant proof that He had finished the 
 work given Him to do, that He had effectually cleared Himself of 
 
58 SPECIAL" RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 every charge, that blotting out the hand writing which was against 
 us, He had taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross, and 
 that the Lord was well pleased for His righteousness sake. 
 Accordingly, we are told that He was "justified in the Spirit," or 
 by the Spirit, as it ought to be read, 1 Tim. iii. 16. The Spirit who 
 raised Him up from the dead, Rom. viii. 2, bore witness to the 
 efficacy of His astonishing sacrifice, demonstrating by that simple 
 fact that He had acquitted Himself of every engagement, finishing 
 transgression, and making an end of sin-offering This then was 
 His justification, and who does not see that at the same time it 
 was virtually ours. He rose for our justification, not, as we have 
 repeatedly said, that it might take place, but in consequence of its 
 having taken place. The charge of our guilt, under which He 
 went down into the grave, was removed, and He was "brought 
 again from prison and from judgment." The Greek preposition 
 Sid, for, according to certain lexicographers, has shades of mean- 
 ing almost without number; and were we giving heed to 
 some of these learned persons, we could hardly be sure in any 
 case of the right meaning. Every man, however, who knows 
 anything of the language is aware that, properly speaking, 
 the preposition has only two meanings — when it governs the 
 genitive, and when it governs the accusative. With the 
 genitive it signifies the means by which anything is done, and is 
 rendered by the English word through or the Latin per. With 
 the accusative it signifies the reason why anything is done, and is 
 rendered in Latin by propter, and in English by because, or on 
 account of. I do not deny but there are instances of departure 
 from the rule, perhaps sometimes to be met with even in good 
 writers; but I state what the rule is in ordinary cases, and the 
 very idea of a rule implies that there can be no departure from it 
 without some special cause. Now, in the passage I am considering, 
 and in both clauses of it, 8ia occui's with the accusative — 5«x to. 
 TrapcnrTw/j.a.Ta—8iat. ttju SiKaidxriv — because of the offences— because of 
 the justification — each being a reason in its own way, the offences 
 causing the death of Christ, the justification causing His resurrec- 
 tion. Let it not be thought an objection to this doctrine that the 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 59 
 
 people of Christ are riot justified personally while they believe 
 not. Taking them individually, they are in a state of condemna- 
 tion, under the curse, liable to perdition, till they become con- 
 nected with Him by faith, which makes them one with Him in a 
 new sense, and gives them an actual interest in what He has done 
 and suffered. They died in His death, they rose in His resurrec- 
 tion, yet the benefit in either case they come to enjoy only in that 
 state of union with Him which is established by their " receiving 
 and resting on Him for salvation as He is offered in the gospel." * 
 (7.) The last proof I shall offer of this most interesting doctrine 
 is a proof from fact — the great and incontrovertible fact that the 
 Saviour has actually died in the room of His people, which He 
 could not possibly have done had He not been their Surety. He 
 was an innocent person — a Lamb without blemish and without 
 spot. He knew no sin, neither was deceit found in His mouth. 
 His death was the judicial act of His Father in heaven, the Judge 
 of all the earth, who could only do what was right. " It pleased 
 the Lord to bruise Him, and to put Him to grief. He was 
 stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." " Awake, sword, against 
 
 * This is well stated by Bunyan, who, though what is called an unlearned 
 man, has, as his biographer justly remarks, written some of the best treatises in 
 the English language — " This stands clear to reason that if Christ had our sins 
 charged upon Him at His death He must be discharged of them in order to 
 His resurrection. Is ow, though it is not proper to say they were forgiven to 
 Him, because they were purged from Him by merit, yet they may be said to 
 be forgiven us because we receive this benefit by grace. And this, I say, was 
 done precedent to His resurrection from the dead. ' He hath quickened us 
 together with Him, having forgiven us all trespasses.' He could not be 
 'quickened' till we were ' discharged,' because it was not for Himself but for us 
 that He died. Hence we are said at that time, as to our own personal state, 
 to be dead in our sins, even when we are 'quickened together with Him,' 
 Col. ii. 13. Necessity so required, else how was it possible that the j)ains of 
 death should be loosed in order to His rising so long as one sin stood still 
 charged to Him as that for the commission of which God had not received a 
 plenary satisfaction. As, therefore, we suffered, died, and rose again by Him, 
 so, in order to His so rising, He, as presenting of us in His person and suffering, 
 received for us remission of all our trespasses. A full discharge, therefore, was 
 in and by Christ received of God, of all our sins afore He arose from the dead, 
 as His resurrection truly declared, for ' He was delivered for our offences, 
 and raised again for our justification,' " Rom. iv. 25. — J notification by Imputed 
 Righteousness, Works, vol. i., pp. 301, 305. Blackie & Son"s edition, 1853. 
 
60 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 the Shepherd, said the righteous Jehovah, against the man who is 
 my fellow, and smite the Shepherd!" Was this possible on any 
 other conceivable ground but that of His bearing our transgres- 
 sions, and standing in our room] Our brethren talk of a 
 demonstration, a great public display, for the sake of vindicating 
 the moral government of Jehovah. It is impossible, unless Christ 
 be the Surety of His people, to conceive any. display so much 
 calculated to have the contrary effect — so much calculated to 
 impeach the government of Jehovah — to make it appear not a 
 moral but an immoral government, and to fill the minds of 
 rational beings throughout the universe with unutterable horror ! 
 I forbear to speak of this horror in the terms which occur 
 to me, because I feel it to be so painful. Most probably, how- 
 ever, I shall find it necessary to advert to it agahi at a future 
 stage of the discussion. 
 
 Section IV. — STIje Smbiour in bning sttsfawcb fbe relation 
 of a Substitute. 
 
 True, indeed, the word substitute occurs not in the Bible. That, 
 however, is of little moment; the thing signified by it occurs not 
 once but often. He "died for us," Rom. v. 8; He "died for 
 our sins," 1 Cor. xv. 3; "He hath borne our griefs and carried 
 our sorrows," Isaiah liii. 4; "He was wounded for our trans- 
 gressions, and bruised for our iniquities," verse 5; He "bare our 
 sins in His own body on the tree," 1 Peter ii. 24; He "suffered 
 for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to 
 God," 1 Peter iii. 18; and many other passages speak the same 
 language. Of course He occupied our room, or, in other words, 
 was our Substitute. 
 
 His substitution, rightly understood, is not to be distinguished 
 from His Suretyship. He was the Substitute of His people just 
 in so far as He was their Surety. Being their Surety, He was of 
 necessity their Substitute. Had He not been their Surety, His 
 being their Substitute would have served little purpose. His 
 death would have been no satisfaction for their sins, nor, of course, 
 would have secured their eternal salvation. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. Gl 
 
 This, however, as my readers are aware, is disputed. Many 
 hold the substitution of the Saviour, and even contend for it 
 zealously, who yet deny His Suretyship, or explain it so as to 
 make it mean nothing. "The substitution of Christ," says Dr 
 Jenkyn, " was two-fold — a substitution of His person instead of 
 the offenders, and a substitution of His sufferings instead of their 
 punishment.* " Salvation," says Dr Wardlaw, " is the lesson of 
 the Bible, and it is salvation by atonement, or substitutionary 
 suffering." + Yet, according to these writers, and the whole school 
 to which they belong, there was in the death of Christ no satisfac- 
 tion to justice in the sense usually attached to that expression. 
 The sentence of the law was not inflicted either on the Substitute 
 or on those in whose room he stood. " The law," says Dr W., 
 " was suspended, superseded, overruled," and much of Dr J.'s 
 volume is employed in asserting the same doctrine. One section 
 of it is entitled, " The suspension of a penalty consistent with 
 public justice," and another, " The death of Christ the ground of 
 suspending the penalty." 
 
 Substitution, therefore, is an equivocal term, and has very 
 different meanings. I refer to what has just been written in 
 the foregoing section. I am warranted to contend that the 
 blessed Jesus in being our Substitute was our Surety or Sponsor; 
 that He represented us in the covenant as Adam represented his 
 posterity; that we died in His death, and rose again in His resur- 
 rection; that while His deliverance from the grave was His own 
 justification it was also ours, intimating that He had acquitted 
 Himself of every obligation on our account as well as on His own. 
 I am entitled to say, let us hear no more of " substitutionary" or 
 of " vicarious" suffering, unless the words are taken in a more 
 Scriptural sense. Mr Balguy, the Arian, the author of the 
 Middle System, is more consistent. He considers the term 
 substitute as equivalent to proxy, and rejects both. "If Christ 
 suffered as ' our Substitute or Proxy,' " he says, " must it not be 
 understood in an indirect and improper sense" {Essay on Be- 
 
 * Extent of the Atonement, chap, ii., p. 35. 
 + Discourses on the Atonement, p. 19. 
 
62 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 demptkm, p. 17). "To the niind," says Dr Wardlaw, "that can 
 contrive to its own satisfaction to strip the Bible of the doctrine 
 of atonement by vicarious suffering, it might, in my apprehension, 
 be safely pronounced impossible to convey a divine discovery at 
 all, there being no terms conceivable that might not by such a 
 mind be explained away." I agree with him, only I maintain 
 that throughout the Bible, vicarious suffering means the suffering 
 of a Surety.* 
 
 Section V. — uTIjc Uabiour bicb as a ^ropitiatorg Sacrifice. 
 Under this head might be discussed with obvious advantage 
 the whole doctrine of the Christian redemption. Perhaps there 
 were no better point from which to set out in order to arrange the 
 arguments in a clear and satisfactory light. This has been done 
 by various writers Avith greater or less success. My object does 
 not require, nor do the limits I propose to myself allow, that I 
 should enter into the subject at much length. Of the origin of 
 sacrifices I say nothing, only I hold it to be next to demonstrable, 
 a matter hardly admitting of dispute, that such a practice must be 
 traced, not to the invention of men, but to a Divine institution. 
 Neither do I stop to advert to the well-known and not uninstruc- 
 tive fact, that sacrifices have abounded among all the nations of 
 antiquity — the most enlightened as well as the most rude — 
 piacular sacrifices — bloody sacrifices — consisting of animals the 
 least ferocious and the most useful to man — nay, horrid to say, 
 consisting not unfrequently of human victims, and among human 
 victims of those regarded as the most innocent — not presented, as 
 some would allege, merely as thank-offerings to the gods — much 
 less set forth, as others would yet more absurdly suggest, as feasts 
 in which the gods were understood to be regaled — but immolated 
 
 * In another place (Catholic Doctrine of Redemption Vindicated, chap, ii., 
 sect. 3) I have contented myself with objecting to the meaning which our 
 friends attach to the term substitution, and have used it as implying the 
 Saviour's Suretyship, with whatsoever He has done for us when manifested in 
 human flesh. I deem it better, however, that so important a term should be 
 clearly denned, and that those who differ from us so essentially should not, 
 when they employ it, be understood to mean what they do not mean in fact. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 63 
 
 by wretched men, blind and frantic men, trembling under the con- 
 sciousness of guilt, and seeking if possible to turn away from them- 
 selves the wrath of the Almighty. Much has been written on this 
 subject, many authorities have been produced, classical and 
 oriental, more ancient and less ancient, proving to the satisfaction 
 of every reasonable person that such a notion as this — I mean the 
 notion that the anger of heaven might be averted from transgres- 
 sors by the lives of other persons, or other animals being given 
 for their life — that such a notion has been nearly if not altogether 
 universal among the various tribes of mankind, in the earlier 
 periods of time. It is enough for me, however, to refer to the 
 sacrifices of the Scriptures, those which are admitted to have been 
 prescribed by the Most High, and offered by His accepted 
 worshippers during the patriarchal and Mosaic ages. These sacri- 
 fices are alleged — indeed, we may say more than alleged — 
 proved beyond all doubt by the writer of the epistle to the 
 Hebrews, and the other inspired penmen, to have prefigured the 
 sacrifice of our blessed Lord. Of course, by attending to them, 
 and ascertaining their import, we may learn some important facts 
 respecting His mediatorial work — its nature and its intention. 
 They were of various kinds ; burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, trespass- 
 offerings, and others. None of them, we are told, could take 
 away sin ; it was not in their nature to make a real expiation ; but 
 the taking away of sin was what they prefigured ; and how did 
 they prefigure it] By the blood of the victim being shed, by its 
 life being destroyed, by its carcase being consumed, in one word, 
 by its undergoing death — death which the harmless creature no way 
 deserved, but which was understood and confessed to be deserved by 
 the offerer. It is particularly worthy of notice that the victim was 
 substituted in the room of the offerer, and that to it the sin of the 
 offerer was solemnly transferred. " He shall lay his hand on the 
 head of the burnt-offering," was the significant rite always to be 
 observed (Levit. i. 4); required in the case of every individual, 
 whether he was a priest, or a ruler, or one of the common people 
 (ix. 4); recpiired also of the whole congregation, the elders 
 being appointed to act as their representatives (ver. 24); and once 
 
G4 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 in the year, on the great clay of atonement, the injunction respect- 
 ing the imposition of hands on the head of the victim and 
 the confession of sin over it, as the laying of sin upon it, ran in 
 the following terms : — " Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the 
 head of the live goat, and shall confess over him all the inicpiities 
 of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their 
 sins, putting them upon the head of the goat — and the goat shall 
 bear upon him all their iniquities, into a land not inhabited," 
 (xvi. 21, 22.) 
 
 In consequence of this transference of guilt by so expressive a 
 ceremony, the victim itself was regarded as a guilty thing. In 
 the language of the Bible it was "made sin" (2 Cor. v. 21), and 
 it had no other name but "sin" or "trespass." The words 
 ruon and dwn, rendered in our version, and justly rendered, 
 sin-offering and trespass-offering, literally denote merely sin 
 and trespass; a singular and most decisive proof of the 
 transference I speak of. The same strange idiom has passed from 
 the Hebrew language into the Greek, and d/mapria, which properly 
 signifies sin, is employed not unfrequently both in the Septuagint 
 and in the New Testament to signify a sin-offering. 
 
 It was not possible that the blood of bullocks and of goats 
 should take away sin. The gifts and sacrifices of the old dispen- 
 sation could not make him that did the service perfect, as per- 
 taining to the conscience. They were only carnal ordinances, 
 imposed till the time of reformation; but a sacrifice has now been 
 offered of a very different sort. Christ has loved us, and has 
 given Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling 
 savour. He has appeared once in the end of the world to put 
 away sin by the sacrifice of Himself; "and not by the blood of 
 calves and of goats, but by His own blood, has He entered in once 
 into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption," Heb. 
 ix. 12. The question then occurs respecting His union with us, 
 His substitution in our room, and the imputation of our sin to 
 Him as if it had been His own. If His sacrifice corresponded to 
 the sacrifices under the law, if it was properly shadowed forth by 
 them, He must have become sin for us; our sin must have been 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 65 
 
 laid upon Him, and He must have borne it in the strictest sense 
 of the words. And that all this was so, the Scriptures testify in 
 many places both of the Old Testament and of the New. " All 
 we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his 
 own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 
 Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: the 
 chastisement of our peace was upon Him. By His knowledge 
 shall my righteous servant justify many, for He shall bear their 
 iniquities. He was numbered with the transgressors, and He 
 bare the sin of many," Isaiah liii. " He hath made Him to be 
 sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the right- 
 eousness of God in Him," 2 Cor. v. 21. "Who His own self bare 
 our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin, 
 might live unto righteousness," 1 Peter ii. 21. Dr Wardlaw says 
 he holds the man who admits not the doctrine of vicarious suffer- 
 ing to be incapable of understanding anything about divine 
 subjects. I will not say what those who deny the doctrine of 
 imputation, among whom Dr W. himself is included, are capable 
 or not capable of understanding, but I certainly think, and hesi- 
 tate not to affirm, that they reject a doctrine perhaps the most 
 fundamental in the whole Bible — a doctrine which, if it be not 
 true, we may say with Paul, " our faith is vain; we are yet in our 
 sins." If there be no imputation, it seems to follow undeniably 
 that there is no expiation. Justice is not appeased, the law is 
 not fulfilled, nor is any provision made for God being just in 
 justifying the ungodly. 
 
 It is strange to think how very positively this is controverted. 
 In the face of all the passages just produced, and of many others 
 of similar import, it is affirmed with the utmost confidence, that 
 the imputation of sin, in the sense we attach to it, not only never 
 took place, but is a thing impossible. " If a translation of guilt," 
 says Mr Balguy, " a commutation of persons and vicarious 
 punishment, be insisted on, then I think it will be necessary to 
 conclude that Christ's oblation of Himself was not a real but a 
 figurative sacrifice" (Essay on Redemption, p. 13). "Guilt is 
 personal," says Dr Henry Taylor, " and cannot be transferred 
 
66 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 from one individual to another" {Ben. Mordecatfs Letters, p. 98). 
 " Neither guilt nor punishment," says Dr Magee, " can be con- 
 ceived but with a reference to consciousness which cannot be 
 transferred" (vol. i., p. 327). " A debt of property," says Dr 
 Wardlaw, " may be paid by another, a debt of obedience never 
 can. It is in its very nature untransferable" (Discourses on the 
 Atonement, p. 57). "Not that the righteousness of the Lord 
 Jesus is transferred to His people," says Albert Barnes — -" moral 
 character cannot be transferred." Who ever supposed that it 
 might 1 ? What bungler in theology ever confounded the Surety 
 righteousness of Jesus with moral character 1 Yet another great 
 authority of the sort, Dr J. Brown of Edinburgh, cordially 
 acquiesces in the statement of the American divine, styling his 
 words "the well considered words of Barnes" (Exposition of the 
 Galatians, chap, ii., verse 13). To the last quotation we may have 
 occasion to refer again.* 
 
 Now all this seems to me to be nothing less than asserting that 
 the grand fact revealed by God in His Word — the fact on which, 
 more than any other, the salvation of men depends — cannot 
 possibly be true, and asserting it in direct opposition to God's 
 own testimony. Perhaps, however, these writers and others who 
 agree with them in the main, may attach different ideas to the 
 language they employ, and may not all really mean what they 
 appear to mean. What is guilt, according to some of the leading 
 men of that school ] " Guilt," says Dr Jenkyn, who appears 
 almost to copy the words of Dr Magee, " Guilt is the conscious- 
 ness of having done wrong," p. 286. Now here there is manifestly 
 a blunder, and one of the grossest kind. The "having done 
 
 * Most men, I should think, must be struck, as I am, with the singular 
 resemblance between this objection to the great doctrine of the gospel, and the 
 well-known infidel objection to miracles. In both cases the objection is a 
 denial of fact — a denial than which nothing can be more confident, but nothing 
 certainly more groundless. " If they admit them (the miracles) to have been 
 performed, they must admit Christianity to be true ; hence they have fabricated 
 a kind of deistical axiom — that no human testimony cam establish the credibility 
 of a miracle. This, though it has been a hundred times refuted, is still insisted 
 upon as if its truth had never been questioned and could not be disproved." 
 —Bishop Watson's Apology for the Bible, Letter ii., p. 18. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. G7 
 
 wrong," and nothing else, is the guilt. The "consciousness" may 
 be the effect of the guilt, or may be the punishment of the guilt, 
 but the guilt itself it cannot be, and no man surely will call it so 
 who knows the meaning of words. Now, if the writers of this 
 school — generally speaking, those above quoted and others — think 
 as confusedly on the subject as Dr Jenkyn does, or as Dr Magee 
 does, their views about sin, and debt, and guilt, and desert, and 
 punishment, and all such matters, notwithstanding their positive 
 assertions, may be sufficiently vague and inaccurate. It is proper, 
 however, that we should come to some explanation, and should 
 try to ascertain exactly, not what this or that or the other author 
 means — for that is of extremely little consequence — but what the 
 Holy Scriptures mean when they speak of our blessed Lord being 
 made sin, and made a curse, and having iniquity laid upon Him, 
 and bearing it in His own body on the tree. 
 
 " In regard to the phrase, guilt of Adam's first sin," says 
 Professor Stuart of Andover, "it is well known that many great 
 divines have considered guilt as intending simply exposure or 
 liability to punishment " * (Letters to Dr Dana). " We commonly 
 employ this term (guilt)," says Dr Pye Smith, " both in the sense 
 of legal answer ableness (reatus) and of blameworthiness (culpa)." He 
 adds that it was in the former sense only, not by any means in 
 the latter, that it was employed by him (Discourses on Sacrifice). 
 This is saying nearly all that needs be said on the subject. That 
 criminality could be imputed to our Divine Lord, or that it could 
 possibly be assumed by Him, no sane person can for a moment 
 suppose. Our Divine Lord was the " Just One," the " Holy One 
 of God," " a lamb without blemish and without spot," the object 
 of His Father's ineffable delight, and never more the object of His 
 
 * Probably one of the " great divines " to whom Professor Stuart refers was 
 Dr Owen, who expresses himself on the subject in the following terms: — "That 
 what we affirm herein is, that our sins were so transferred on Christ as that 
 thereby He became q\e?n iiirodcKOS tSj 6e&, reus — responsible to God, and ob- 
 noxious to punishment in the justice of God for them. He was alienag culpa; 
 reus, perfectly innocent in Himself, but took our guilt on Him, or our 
 obnoxiousness to punishment for sin." — Works, vol. v., chap. 8, p. 200, Goold's 
 Edition. 
 
68 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 delight than when bearing our griefs, and carrying our sorrows. 
 Without this absolute purity, He could not have appeared in our 
 room, or answered for us — He must have answered for Himself. 
 But this absolute purity, together with His assumption of our 
 flesh and blood — His right to dispose of His own life as the inde- 
 pendent Jehovah — the consent of His Father in heaven, the 
 Almighty Judge who devised the scheme and appointed Him to 
 His office — His voluntary offering of Himself as the victim of our 
 transgressions, expressed by the words, " Lo, I come; I delight to 
 do thy will, my God " — and, to crown all, His being consti- 
 tuted one with us, our Head, our Surety, our Representative in 
 the covenant — these circumstances rendered it altogether just — a 
 transaction as equitable as it was gracious — expressive of infinite 
 righteousness as well as infinite love, that our iniquity should be 
 laid upon Him, should be transferred to His account, and that, by 
 bearing the punishment of it, He should take it away. 
 
 Having treated of tins subject at considerable length in another 
 place,* I shall not enlarge on it here, only I shall take leave to 
 confirm the sentiments I advocate by the following passage, which 
 my readers will perceive is as able as it is pertinent: — "Is it 
 objected to this reasoning," says Dr Brown of Langton,t "that 
 guilt is personal, and cannot be transferred from one individual to 
 another" (Dr Henry Taylor) 1 Is it even urged that some of the 
 most enlightened and zealous advocates of the doctrine of atone- 
 ment have relinquished the idea, acknowledging candidly that 
 " neither guilt nor punishment can be conceived, but with 
 reference to consciousness, which cannot be transferred" (Dr 
 Magee), "I answer, that if you understand by guilt merely liability 
 to punishment, and if you suppose that the person who consents 
 t ( > submit to it in the place of another is led to do so from cordial 
 choice and from motives of benevolence and that the magistrate 
 agrees to it, I cannot perceive how such a transference is not 
 perfectly conceivable and consistent with justice. The substitute, 
 I am aware, cannot have the slightest consciousness that he com- 
 
 * Catholic Doctrine of Redemption Vindicated. t Note C. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. G9 
 
 mitted the sin, or deserved the punishment, and consequently he 
 must be free from every feeling of remorse, but he may be 
 completely conscious that the punishment is fair, and that he 
 consented to bear it, and this may be all that is necessary to 
 qualify him for presenting the satisfaction which is required in the 
 place of the transgressor. Now, it is a transference of this kind 
 which is asserted to have taken place in the case of the Eedeemer, 
 and it can be no objection to the truth of this doctrine, if it be 
 revealed in the Scripture, that we are able to refer to nothing 
 analogous in the history of the world, for it is affirmed, as we have 
 seen, of the plan of salvation through the sufferings of Christ, that 
 it was such a scheme as had never been seen or heard of, or 
 conceived by guilty mortals (1 Cor. ii. 9). And that it is 
 distinctly revealed in the sacred volume I apprehend to be plain 
 from the whole of those passages to which I have appealed, and 
 from those of them especially where it is expressly declared that 
 ' the Lord laid on Him the iniquity of us all,' that He ' bare the 
 sins of many,' and that He was 'made sin,' or a sin-offering for 
 us, as really as we are ' made the righteousness of God in Him,' 
 or, ' as many by His obedience are constituted righteous,' Rom. 
 v. 19. Others may be able to explain these passages on a 
 different principle, and may hold in a more loose and indefinite 
 sense the doctrine of atonement, but I confess that it is a task to 
 which I feel completely unequal; and as I cannot consent to model 
 my views of any truth, and much less of a vital and fundamental 
 truth, so as to accommodate it to the tenets of human philosophy, 
 or to tell in any instance what Scripture ought to say, rather than 
 to endeavour to ascertain what it actually does say, I must still be 
 permitted to consider it as the fair and unsophisticated meaning of 
 these different passages — not one particle of which I can venture to 
 surrender to any individual — that Jesus died bearing the load of 
 human guilt, and sustaining those sufferings which were due from 
 the Almighty to human transgressors."* 
 
 * Sermon before the Society for Propagating Christian Knowledge, Edinburgh, 
 1827. — It is with a peculiar kind of pleasure I transcribe the above passage 
 from Dr Brown of Langton, who was the friend of my early life, with whom I 
 
70 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 It is almost needless to add that dying as a propitiatory sacrifice, 
 in the manner that has heen stated, our blessed Lord died not for 
 mankind in general, but for those whom he intended to save. If 
 He was their Surety, their Representative in the covenant, if He 
 sustained their persons, and had their sins imputed to Him, if, in 
 the yet stronger language of the apostle, He was made sin for 
 them, the inference we draw is quite unavoidable. 
 
 "For whom," says Mr Fuller, " did the priests under the law 
 offer up the sacrifice'? For those, surely, on whose behalf it was 
 sanctified or set apart for that purpose. Some of the Jewish 
 sacrifices were to make atonement for the sins of an individual, 
 others for the sins of the whole nation; but every sacrifice had its 
 special appointment, and was supposed to atone for the sins of 
 those, and those only, in whose behalf it was offered. Now, 
 Christ, being about to offer Himself a sacrifice for sin, spake in 
 this wise:—" For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also may 
 be sanctified through the truth." For their sakes, as though He 
 had said, who were given Him of the Father. I set myself apart 
 as a victim to vengeance, that I may consecrate and present them 
 faultless before the throne of my Father, John xvii. 9, 10. * 
 
 The same thing may be argued, not less conclusively, from the 
 connection between the sacrifice of our Lord and His intercession. 
 His intercession and His oblation belong to the same priesthood, 
 and, it is to be presumed, are of the same extent. The object of 
 the one is the object also of the other. The individuals concerned 
 in the one are concerned also in the other. Those for whom He 
 intercedes are those for whom He makes atonement; and those 
 for whom He makes atonement are those for whom He intercedes. 
 The Jewish high priest, on the great day of expiation, slew the 
 victim of sin-offering, in behalf of the congregation, after having 
 presented it in their name at the door of the tabernacle, and, in 
 
 spent many happy hours at the period when almost every hour is happy, with 
 whom I interchanged many thoughts on many subjects, for whom I entertained 
 a sincere regard while he lived, and whose memory I cherish now that he is 
 gone. 
 
 * Complete Works, p. 22 L 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 71 
 
 behalf of the same congregation, he proceeded with the blood into 
 the most holy place. It is not to be conceived, nor does it con- 
 sist with fact, that the shedding of the blood had respect to one 
 class of persons, and the sprinkling of the blood to another class. 
 The two actions were necessary to complete the same sacrifice; 
 there was no benefit resnlting from either separately — the benefit 
 resulted from the two together; and, in performing both, the 
 high priest appeared in the same holy garments, bearing upon his 
 heart the names of the twelve tribes of Israel, Lev. xii. What is 
 the inference to be drawn from this? Is there not a correspond- 
 ence between the type and the antitype? Or, if there is not, what 
 was the use of the Levitical dispensation ? How can it be called 
 a shadow, of which the body is to be found in Christ 1 ? Unques- 
 tionably, we must maintain, that for whomsoever the Saviour 
 gave Himself a sacrifice, for them, and for them alone, He entered 
 within the vail — for them, and for them alone, He appears before 
 the throne as a Lamb that has been slain. Deny this, and you 
 render the old economy " weak and unprofitable " indeed. You 
 abrogate the law, not as Christ has abrogated it, but in a new and 
 a much more sweeping sense. But admit this, and what follows? 
 It follows that the intercession and the atonement of our great 
 High Priest are of equal extent — that they have precisely the 
 same object, and that if the one be limited, the other must be 
 limited too. 
 
 We have, then, no difficulty in coming to our conclusion. That 
 the intercession is limited, seems to be asserted in the Scriptures 
 in so many words. It is not for the " world " the Saviour prays, 
 but for those whom "the Father has given Him." If He prayed 
 for the world, even our opponents themselves admit the world 
 would be saved, for He never prays in vain — " Him the Father 
 heareth always." Why is it that the Father hears Him always? 
 Why is it that He never prays in vain? Because His prayers are 
 the expression of His will. What He pleads for earnestly, He 
 earnestly desires, and His desires are always in unison with the 
 mind of His Father. Well ! Is His death no expression of His 
 will? Is the shedding of His blood in behalf of sinful men no 
 
72 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 indication of His desire to save them 1 ? Is it not the strongest of 
 all indications — incomparably stronger than the pleading of His 
 lips? How, then, if Christ died for all men, how is it possible to 
 avoid the inference that He must intercede for all men, and that 
 all men shall he saved? 
 
 Another question may be asked, and, indeed, has been asked 
 frequently, since it is so much more an easy matter to pray for a 
 person than to die for him— How is it conceivable that the 
 Saviour would refuse His prayers in behalf of those for whom He 
 was prepared to die? How is it conceivable that He would 
 approach the throne of His Father, and say, "I pray not for the 
 world," when for that very world, in the course of a few days, He 
 intended to lay down His life? Would He decline employing, in 
 behalf of perishing millions, what was to cost Him comparatively 
 so little, when He was ready to employ, in behalf of the same 
 millions, what was to cost Him everything? These are questions 
 which suggest themselves to every reflecting person. Let the 
 advocates of universal atonement answer them if they can. To us 
 they offer no difficulty, because we conceive the blood of our great 
 Propitiation was shed and is sprinkled for the same individuals. 
 
 Section YI. — £Ije Ikibiour \ xx bgxrtg gnbe |jimsclf its a Ransom. 
 
 His people are a "purchased possession," Eph. i. 14. The 
 church which He has " purchased with His own blood," Acts xx. 
 28. They are "bought with a price" — bought so as to be no 
 longer their own, but His property, and therefore bound to 
 " glorify God in their bodies and in their spirits, which are His," 
 1 Cor. vi. 20. He has " redeemed them, not with corruptible 
 things such as silver and gold, hut with His own precious blood, 
 as of a lamb without blemish and without spot," 1 Peter i. 18, 19. 
 Now, does this imply no special relation? Is it language which 
 may be applied to the world as well as to the church — not to those 
 only who have been redeemed from every kindred and tongue and 
 nation, but also to the nations and tongues and kindreds out of whom 
 they have been redeemed ? These are puzzling questions to the 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 73 
 
 advocates of the general ransom — questions indeed, which, if fairly 
 met, seem to admit of no reply. The people of Christ are bought 
 by His blood, not collectively only, but personally, not merely as 
 a church, but as individuals. They are bought in their body and 
 in their spirit — a purchase certainly of the most special nature. 
 
 1 . My readers are aware how this subject is treated by the leading 
 men among our opponents— what an outcry they raise about a 
 " commercial atonement — a pitiful pounds, shillings, and pence 
 principle." I shall not stop to rebuke the indecency— I might 
 almost call it the impiety — of this language. The principle is not 
 ours — we do not invent it — we find it in the Holy Scriptures — it 
 is God's own principle — the principle He employs, the principle 
 He avows in the transaction which, of all others we know of, is the 
 most glorifying to His name; and where is the man, or the class 
 of men, who will be daring enough to sneer at it and load it with 
 reproach'? I might use sharper words in reproving such conduct, 
 but I forbear. I content myself with saying that we are perfectly 
 aware of the difference between a debt and a sin, between a 
 transgression of God's law and a pecuniary obligation — perfectly 
 aware that it is not by corruptible things such as silver and gold 
 our blessed Lord has redeemed us. Yet we cannot, for all this, 
 give up the principle of commutation. We cannot give up with it, 
 for this simple reason, that we find it in the Bible, find it 
 pervading a great part of the Bible, and that the views suggested 
 by it are in the highest degree instructive and consolatory. We 
 contemplate with much reverence and much delight, and we are 
 sure not with half so much of either as we ought to cherish, the 
 Son of God " redeeming us with His precious blood — loving us, 
 and giving Himself for us an offering and a sacrifice — loving the 
 church, and giving Himself for it, that He might sanctify and 
 cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, and might pre- 
 sent it to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or 
 any such thing." We may add that we deem it cpute impossible 
 — a thing not to be conceived — the very imagining of which seems 
 most dishonouring to our Lord, that any one who has been so 
 loved by Him, and so purchased by His blood, should ever be lost. 
 
74 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 Is it not of such He says, " I give unto them eternal life; and they 
 shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my 
 hand. My Fathei', which gave them me, is greater than all ; and 
 no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand 1 ?" John x. 
 28, 29. 
 
 2. The reason why the advocates of the general atonement pour 
 so much obloquy on the principle of commutation is, that they 
 identify it, in a great measure, with what they call the exact 
 equivalent scheme, that is, the scheme "according to which the 
 expiatory sufferings of the Eedeemer possessed just as much of 
 atoning virtue, or substitutionary worth, as was an exact equiva- 
 lent — neither less nor more — for the merited punishment of all 
 who shall be ultimately saved." * This scheme, so far as I know, 
 is maintained by no one, so that fighting against it is only fighting 
 with a man of straw. For myself, I have expressly disavowed it 
 oftener than once, and I have no hesitation in disavowing it again. 
 How could the death of the Son of God be an exact equivalent 
 for any amount of human guilt? The merit of His death, we say 
 at once, was infinite; there were no limits to it; and when He 
 bowed His head and gave up the ghost, the guilt of all for whom 
 He was substituted, let them have been ever so numerous — 
 millions upon millions — worlds upon worlds — must have been 
 effectually blotted out. Nor could it be said that the merit, being 
 infinite, was in any degree exhausted. This, however, does not 
 induce us to discard the idea of purchase or commutation. It 
 does not hinder us from avowing, and rejoicing to avow, that the 
 adorable sufferer gave Himself for us, and that the greater the 
 intrinsic value of His suffering, the greater must be the impossi- 
 bility that any of His ransomed ones should ever perish. 
 
 3. When our Lord's death is considered as a ransom, an im- 
 portant question comes to be — " What is meant by His redeeming 
 us?" "We have redemption through His blood, even the for- 
 giveness of sins;" "He has redeemed us, not with corruptible 
 tilings," but with " His own precious blood." Does redemption mean 
 the payment of the ransom, or does it mean the deliverance which 
 
 * Wardlaw. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IX DYING. 75 
 
 is the effect of the payment? Something is written on this sub- 
 ject, as my readers will recollect, in an earlier chapter of this 
 treatise, and it is shown very clearly, as it was easy to do, from 
 numerous passages of the Xew Testament, that the word has 
 both meanings — the one its proper, the other its metonymical or 
 secondary meaning. The author of a pamphlet, having for title, 
 if I recollect rightly, "For whom did Christ die]" had asserted, 
 and asserted very positively, that the word means " deliverance," 
 and notlring else, and he had referred to Professor Stuart of 
 Andover as being of the same mind. In proof of his assertions, 
 he had produced a quotation from Mr Stuart, but unfortunately a 
 sadly mutilated quotation, giving a most unfair representation of 
 tins author's sentiments. In refutation of this, and to expose it 
 as it appeared to me to deserve, I gave, in a note, Mr Stuart's 
 sentiments at length, in which he distinctly states that the word 
 'airo\vrpw<ns has two acceptations — first, the payment of a price, 
 and secondly, the deliverance consequent on that payment. When 
 this note appeared, Mr James Morison, the author of the pam- 
 phlet referred to, instantly, and with great frankness, acknow- 
 ledged the mistake into which he had fallen, and thanked me, in 
 handsome terms, for having pointed it out. For his sake that 
 note is now expunged; but it must again and again have met the 
 eye of another individual, of whom I am about to speak, and 
 whose conduct in the matter has, to say the least, been the most 
 unlike imaginable to that of Mr Morison. The individual to 
 whom I refer is the late Dr Payne, who, writing years after, on 
 the subject of redemption, and animadverting with great asperity 
 on my treatise, proceeds to make his own assertions, as if no 
 statement of Professor Stuart's with regard to the matter, much 
 less of mine, had ever been heard of. " Redemption," he says, 
 '•'is the effect of atonement. It is the actual deliverance of its 
 subject from condemnation, sin, and misery." I had used the 
 words atonement and redemption as synonymous, aware that in the 
 Scriptures redemption means both the payment and the ransom, 
 and the deliverance consequent on that payment. Mr Haldane 
 had done the same thing. He had said, " Redemption is synony- 
 
76 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 mous with salvation, and is always limited to the people of God. 
 Election and salvation are evidently of the same extent. All the 
 chosen people are redeemed, and all the redeemed are chosen to 
 salvation." This provokes the wrath of Dr Payne, and he allows 
 himself to say, " I confess I find it difficult to reconcile this with 
 Christian candour and integrity. Both these gentlemen knew, or 
 ought to have known, that the writers whom they oppose are 
 very far, indeed, from identifying the two terms atonement and 
 redemption." We certainly knew that well enough; but we knew 
 also that they use neither the one term nor the other in a scrip- 
 tural sense. We knew that by atonement they mean something 
 which is neither the fulfilling of God's law, nor the enduring of 
 its penalty, and which, consequently, is not the expiation of sin; 
 and we knew also that by redemption they mean only deliverance 
 from sin, while the Scriptures, by that term, mean primarily, 
 though not solely, the price of that deliverance, or rather the 
 paying of the price. Our blessed Lord " has entered hi once into 
 the holy place by His own blood 'aiw^v Xvrpwa-iv ivpdp.evos having 
 obtained eternal redemption;" that is, having, by His death, 
 finished for ever the work of the atonement, Heb. ix. 12. By 
 means of death He is the Mediator of the new covenant; for 
 
 what end ? its ''airoXurpucnv t£>v 'eiri ry Trpwrj] Siadrjxv Trapapdaewv, for 
 
 the deliverance of the transgressions under the first covenant, 
 is it 1 ? — for the setting free these ancient transgressions from con- 
 demnation, is it 1 ? Xo; in spite of this most learned and most 
 judicious interpreter, we must say, for the expiation of these 
 transgressions. 
 
 The same is the meaning wherever we are said to be redeemed 
 or to have redemption through the Saviour's blood. There is 
 a reference to the ancient sacrifices in which expiation was made 
 by blood-shedding. The life of the animal was understood to be 
 in the blood. The shedding of the blood and the laying down of 
 the life meant the same thing. Our blessed Lord has givm His 
 life for us, and by doing so has wrought our redemption. We 
 have redemption through His blood — the consequence of which is 
 the forgiveness of our sins. He has redeemed us, that is, made 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 77 
 
 expiation for us, not Avith corruptible things, such as silver and gold, 
 but with His own precious blood. He has been slain, and has 
 redeemed the assembly of the blessed, that is, made expiation for 
 them, collected as they are out of every kindred and tongue and 
 people. " These writers," Dr Payne proceeds, that is, Mr 
 Haldane and I, " appear to believe and teach that by the shedding 
 of the Saviour's blood on the cross the elect were actually 
 redeemed, that is, actually rescued from the curse of the law." 
 Whatever Ave may appear to Dr P. to believe or teach, we better 
 understand our own doctrine. We know that it is one tiling for 
 Christ to purchase redemption for us, and another thing for the 
 Spirit to apply to us that redemption. We know the hackneyed 
 distinction between impetration and application; moreover, we 
 hold it to be a sound distinction, and Ave maintain, in opposition 
 to Dr P. and his associates, that the objects of these two processes 
 are the same individuals, and that though, perhaps, a long period 
 may intervene, to every one for Avhom redemption has been 
 obtained, redemption shall sooner or later be applied. " I deeply 
 regret," Dr P. goes on to say, "that Mr Haldane has not ansAvered 
 the pointed cpiestion of Dr Wardlaw in a manner so plain and 
 straightforward as to banish all doubt." " Are the elect," inquires 
 Dr Wardlaw, "in a state of salvation previously to the grace of 
 G-od applying the atonements Are they not, on the contrary, 
 described as being before that time children of wrath, even as 
 others'?" If Mr Haldane did not give so prompt or so satisfactory 
 a reply to this question as Dr P. expected, it certainly was not 
 because he could not. It was what any one holding the Adews of 
 Mr Haldane might have done at any time without an effort. It 
 is truly surprising, and somewhat lamentable, that men holding 
 some rank in the religious world should sIioav themselves so totally 
 unacquainted Avith the ordinary meaning of words, especially of 
 Avords found in the Scriptures and in the current language of 
 theology. The design, however, is sufficiently manifest. It is, if 
 possible, to establish the favourite theory, that the "place for 
 election lies in the application." The Bible says, those whom God 
 foreknew He also predestinated, and those whom He predestinated 
 
78 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 He also called, and those Avliom He called He also justified. These 
 writers, to make out their theory, affirm that men are first called 
 and justified, and then predestinated and foreknown. With the 
 same view, and urged hy the same dire necessity, they affirm that 
 redemption means deliverance, and never, in any instance, any- 
 thing else. Mr Haldane justly replies that, if this were the case, 
 salvation would he ascribed to the Spirit rather than to Christ, as 
 it is the Spirit applying the redemption who works the deliverance. 
 The cause is a desperate one, and is really maintained with 
 desperate effrontery ; yet what effrontery can succeed ] The 
 people of Christ are bought with a price, and that price is called the 
 price of their redemption. He has given himself \vrpov 'avrl woWuv, 
 Matt. xx. 28 — 'avTikvTpov vwep iravTwv, 1 Tim. ii. 6 — and Avhat is 
 that! Ask the lexicographers Schleusner, Pasor, Suicerus, and all the 
 rest. It is pretium rcdemptionis — quod pro aliquo solvitur — quod 
 datw ad aliguem cwptivum aid servum redimendum. What is paid 
 for any one or anything — what is given to purchase the liberty of 
 a prisoner or a slave. Such is the judgment of learned men 
 speaking as grammarians — having no concern in the controversy, 
 nothing to bias them one way or other, — and whose authority 
 will be held decisive, both among theologians and in the world of 
 letters, whatever our opponents may allege to the contrary. 
 
 3. To our doctrine on this subject the great objection is, that 
 it precludes the exercise of grace. If the sinner be bought with a 
 price, unless it be in some figurative and incomprehensible sense, 
 his deliverance must be an act of justice, not of goodness. The 
 great God, to whom the payment is made, is left without a choice. 
 The debt being discharged, the claim must be cancelled, and the 
 prisoner set free, else justice would not have its due. Where, then, 
 is the room for grace — the grace to which the Scriptures every- 
 where ascribe our salvation? Such is the objection. I have 
 answered it before, and shall not spend time in answering it 
 now.* Properly speaking, it is an objection against the Scrip- 
 tures rather than against any particular view of the atonement. 
 The Spirit of God, speaking in the Scriptures says, in one place, 
 * Catholic Doctrine of Redemption Vindicated, chap ii., sect. 2, pp. 80, 81. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 79 
 
 "Ye are bought with a price," and in another place, "By grace 
 are ye saved." The question is, how are these sayings to be 
 reconciled 1 ? Our opponents seem to think they are not to be 
 reconciled at all, for they positively affirm that if there be com- 
 mutation there can be no grace. To us, however, few" things 
 appear more easy. Our blessed Lord, in giving Himself for us — 
 giving His life in the room of our life — purchased our freedom 
 
 from the CUrse of the law; T^uas 'e^-qybpaaev 'eK ttjit Kardpas tov v6/j.ov — 
 
 He bought us off from the curse of the law, that is, from its 
 condemning sentence. The curse of the law was the grand 
 obstruction in the way of grace. The moment it was removed, 
 grace flowed forth freely and copiously; and never will it cease 
 to flow, for its fountains are inexhaustible. Accordingly it is 
 written, '-Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: 
 that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign 
 through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord." 
 Accordingly it is written also, "Mercy and truth are met to- 
 gether, righteousness and peace have embraced each other." The 
 attributes of the Godhead, which seemed at variance, are re- 
 conciled. Each finds its appropriate exercise, and earns for itself 
 its appropriate honours. 
 
 We may add that this suggests the answer to a question 
 which, upon the principles of our brethren, must be pronounced 
 unanswerable. If grace be universal, that is, if the atonement 
 of Jesus be a scheme for the salvation of all, how comes it to pass 
 that all are not saved 1 Mosheim,* the historian, speaking of the 
 doctrine of Amyraut, the doctrine avowed with scarcely any differ- 
 ence by our modern Universalists, says, the more he examined it 
 the more he was persuaded that it was "no more than Arminianism, 
 or Pelagianism, artfully dressed up in ambiguous expressions;" 
 and his translator, Maclaine, adds in a note, "the scheme has only 
 one defect, but it is a capital one. It represents God as desiring 
 a thing (i.e., salvation and happiness) for all, which, in order to 
 its attainment, requires a degree of His assistance and succour 
 which He refuseth to many." The great God is represented 
 
 * Works, vol. v., p. 375. 
 
80 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 as having nothing to prevent Him from saving every human 
 being, yet in reality He chooses to save only a limited number ! — 
 What an impeachment of His goodness ! What a blot upon His 
 gracious character! Our brethren may talk of "benevolent 
 sovereignty," yet what language can be more absurd? How can 
 sovereignty be really benevolent if there be nothing to hinder it 
 from acting, and yet it thinks proper not to act? The difficulty, 
 upon their principles, is insuperable. Upon ours, on the other 
 hand, there is no difficulty at all. Mercy flows abundantly, and 
 "vvdl never cease to flow, to every individual for whom the blessed 
 Jesus gave Himself a ransom. To as many as He has bought off 
 from the curse of the law, so soon as they are connected with Him 
 by faith, there is no condemnation, and grace magnifies itself in 
 their eternal happiness. The sphere where benevolent sovereignty 
 acts is in the appointment of the Saviour — subsequent to the fall — 
 prior to the reconciliation. With regard to men in this condition 
 the Most High says, as He has a good right to say, " I will have 
 mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion 
 on whom I will have compassion." And this determination 
 regulates His procedure when the ransom is paid, and grace begins 
 to flow forth reigning through righteousness unto eternal life. 
 
 Before leaving this subject it may not be improper to remark, 
 that it is one point among many from which an attack may be 
 made on the system of our brethren, which, one should think, 
 must, with all rational men, be regarded as fatal. That system, 
 as they repeatedly declare, is that the atonement was for God;* 
 that it was to put away sin, that it had no reference to persons, 
 but only such a reference to public justice, that is, the great 
 principles of God's moral government, as to render it consistent 
 with the honour of His name to pardon and save whomsoever He 
 would. How is this reconcileable with the fact th t our blessed 
 Lord gave Himself a ransom? — that He loved the Church, and gave 
 Himself for it? The two statements appear to me to be utterly at 
 variance, and if I assent to the one, as the express testimony of 
 the Scriptures, I must, of course, reject the other. I do not indeed 
 
 * Wardlaw. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 81 
 
 see the necessity of saying, or the propriety of saying, that the 
 Saviour, hy giving Himself a ransom for His people, laid the great 
 God under an obligation to pardon them, or made Him bound in 
 justice to pardon them. The idea may be Scriptural, but not the 
 language. The language, to my ear, is somewhat repulsive. The 
 Saviour, as I have said, in ransoming His people, bought them off 
 from the curse of the law, He removed the mighty obstruction 
 which prevented mercy from reaching them. The great God was 
 ready to pardon, was prepared to delight in mercy, so soon as the 
 claims of justice were satisfied, and the hand writing of ordinances, 
 as an apostle calls it, was taken out of the way. I would not 
 therefore say the ransom was an equivalent, which left no room 
 for grace; such language proceeds on a mistaken view of the 
 nature of the ransom; rather would I say it was the removal of an 
 impediment which hindered grace from flowing. One thing is 
 manifest, it was for sinners, it was a price paid for the redemption 
 of sinners, else it could with no propriety have been termed a 
 ransom at all. 
 
 Section VII.— £lje ga&iour Inib bofon f is fife for ffjos* fo(ra 
 are Smtctifiea. 
 
 " Both He that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all 
 
 of one: for which cause He is not ashamed to call them brethren," 
 
 Heb. ii. 11. This passage supplies us with an argument, and a 
 
 decisive one, in favour of the doctrine of particular redemption. 
 
 All I have to do, in making out that argument, is to explain the 
 
 terms, that is, simply to ascertain what is meant by him " who 
 
 sanctifieth," and by them "who are sanctified." Some of my 
 
 readers, perhaps, who have never attended to the subject, may be 
 
 somewhat startled when they are told that the one means " he 
 
 who makes expiation for sin," and the other, " they for whom 
 
 expiation is made;" or, which is the same thing, " he who atones 
 
 for sin, and they whose sins are atoned for." Allow that this is 
 
 the meaning of the terms, and all dispute about particular and 
 
 universal atonement must be at an end. The doctrine of definite 
 
 atonement must be clearly and undeniably the doctrine of the 
 
 L 
 
82 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 Bible. Not that there are not in the Bible plenty of other argu- 
 ments of the same sort, but that this must be admitted by all 
 candid persons to be one of the most conclusive. 
 
 To sanctify, it must be allowed, in the ordinary sense of the 
 expression, is to make holy, and sanctification is the process by 
 which men are renewed in the spirit of their mind, or conformed 
 to the image of God. The author of the process is God the Spirit, 
 and the instrument He employs in conducting it is the holy 
 Scriptures — the word of truth. In this sense Christ is said to 
 have given Himself for the church, that He might " sanctify and 
 cleanse it by the washing of water through the word;" in this 
 sense he prays, " sanctify them through thy truth — thy word is 
 truth;" and in this sense we are told in our Catechism that 
 " sanctification is a work of God's free grace, whereby we are 
 renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are 
 enabled more and more to die unto sin and to live unto righteous- 
 ness." None, however, will imagine that this is the sanctifying 
 spoken of in the place we are now considering. 
 
 To sanctify is also to separate, or set apart, some person or 
 thing from a common to a special, from a profane to a sacred use. 
 In this sense the Sabbath was sanctified, Gen. ii. 3. In this sense 
 the first-born were sanctified, Exod. xiii. 2. In this sense the 
 tabernacle and the temple were sanctified, and the priests, and 
 the altar, and the sacrifices, and whatsoever else was employed in 
 the divine service. 
 
 To sanctify, however, is likewise to expiate, or to offer an 
 atoning sacrifice. In this sense Job is said to have sanctified his 
 sons. " It was so, when the days of their feasting were gone 
 about, that Job sent and sanctified them, and rose up early in the 
 morning, and offered burnt-offerings according to the number of 
 them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned, and 
 cursed God in their hearts. Thus did Job continually," Job i. 5. 
 Accordingly Schleusner, in his Lexicon, remarks that " to sanctify 
 is to expiate or procure remission of sins, and he is said to be 
 sanctified who obtains this benefit." As an example of this use 
 of the word, he refers, of course, to the very passage on which I 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 83 
 
 am dCscanting — " he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified 
 are all of one." " That is," says this learned person, " Christ, who 
 has atoned for men by His death; and Christians, who are made 
 partakers of tins benefit, are all of one parent, namely, Adam."* 
 
 Even Macknight, who, when there is a right and a wrong 
 meaning, not unfrequently chooses the wrong, is constrained to 
 give nearly the same account: — " They who are sanctified, namely, 
 by the sacrifice of Christ, as is plain from Heb. ix. 14, x. 14, 29, 
 xiii. 12. As the Mosaic sacrifices and rites of propitiation cleansed 
 the Israelites from ceremonial defilement, and qualified them for 
 worshipping God with the congregation, so the blood of Christ, 
 which cleanseth believers from the guilt of sin, qualifies them for 
 worshipping God with His people on earth, and for living with 
 Him in heaven eternally." It would have been more correct to 
 have said, in fewer words, that, as the Mosaic atonements effected 
 a ceremonial purgation of persons and tilings, so the atonement of 
 Christ has effected a real purgation, by taking away the guilt of 
 sin. The main thing, however, is admitted, that to sanctify, in 
 this passage, and in several other passages, means to expiate. 
 
 This is satisfactory enough, but the writer who speaks to the 
 best purpose on the subject is Moses Stuart, a man who, though 
 not, perhaps, remarkably correct in some of his theological 
 opinions, is allowed, on all hands, to occupy the very highest rank 
 in Biblical literature. Not only does this eminent critic admit 
 our exposition of this plan, but he espouses it zealously, and sets 
 himself to vindicate it in a dissertation of some length. "The 
 word d7tafw," he says, " seems not to have been well understood 
 here by most commentators, and requires, in order to explain the 
 sense in which it is used in our epistle, a particular investigation." 
 He then proceeds to show, by a reference to numerous passages, 
 that it corresponds to the Hebrew ttr^tt, to consecrate, and even 
 n&3» the more ordinary word for expiation, both of which are 
 rendered in the Septuagint by 'ayidfa. " Our epistle," he adds (I 
 quote from his commentaiy on the Hebrews), " presents some 
 
 * Christus qui homines morte sua expiavit, et Christians qui hujus beneficii, 
 participes facti, unius parentis, Scilicet Adami, Soboles sunt. 
 
84 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 plain instances of the use of dyidfa in this sense. For example, 
 chap. x. 10, according to which mil ^yiaa /xivoi icr/xev, tve are atoned for, 
 i.e., expiation is made for us. How? The writer immediately 
 
 Subjoins, dia rrjs irpocrcpopas tov aufiaros 'I^crou 'Xpiarov e<pd.Tra£ (by the 
 
 offering of the body of Jesus Christ once), which necessarily refers 
 j]yiaa/j.ivoi to the propitiatory offering of Christ, and consequently it has 
 the sense which I have given to it. So chap. xiii. 11, 12, "For the 
 bodies of those animals, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary 
 by the high priest as a sin-offering, were burned without the camp. 
 Wherefore Jesus also ha ayido-y the people with His own blood, 
 suffered without the gate," where ayiaaj) plainly means to make 
 'don for, to atone for. Both of these passages compare well 
 with that under consideration, and all three predicate ayiacrfids of 
 the suffering and death of Christ; for, in our context, in the very 
 next preceding clause, the writer has spoken of Christ as reTeKenaixivov 
 81a iradrj/AdTuv (made perfect through sufferings). We may then 
 render 0, re ayidfav irai 81 dyia&fievoi, both he ivlio makes expiation for 
 sin, and they for whom expiation is made. The usas loquendi of the 
 epistle seems not merely to justify but to demand this in- 
 terpretation." 
 
 More needs not be said in favour of the exposition. It is 
 established beyond all reasonable dispute, and what a light does 
 it not throw on many passages throughout the Scriptures, par- 
 ticularly in the epistle to the Hebrews ! A few of these passages 
 I shall take leave to set down, and my readers will perceive that 
 every one of them is a decisive argument in refutation of what is 
 called universal atonement. " Both he who makes atonement, 
 and they for whom atonement is made, are all of one," Heb. ii. 11. 
 " By the which will atonement is made for us through the offering 
 of the body of Jesus once," Heb. x. 10. "By one offering He 
 has perfected for ever those for whom He has made atonement," 
 Heb. x. 14. "Wherefore, Jesus also, that He might make atone- 
 ment for the people'' — the 6' Xaos, the hVjd, the peculiar heritage — 
 "with His own blood, suffered without the gate," Heb. xiii. 12. 
 Is this the language of Universalism 1 Does it suggest the idea 
 that the blessed Jesus has made expiation for all alike? Does it 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 85 
 
 not, in as plain terms as could well be employed, assert the 
 contrary ? 
 
 It may not be improper to inquire a little into the oneness winch 
 subsists between him who makes atonement, and those for whom 
 it is made. They are said to be all £'£ evbs, of one, and the question 
 is, Of what one] The general reply is, "one father," and by the 
 father some woidd understand Adam, others Abraham. Mr 
 Stuart, instead of one father, would say, " one nature "—ivbs yevoffs — 
 and his opinion, perhaps, derives some colour from what is added, 
 "for as much as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also 
 Himself likewise took part of the same." To me, however, it appears 
 that this is not sufficiently explicit, and that we ought to say one 
 body, one company, one sodalitium, one modeo-la, one iraipela, or 
 something of that kind. It is manifest enough the apostle means, 
 not all who partake of flesh and blood, but the sons whom the 
 Captain of Salvation is conducting to glory, the children whom 
 God has given to the Saviour, the seed of Abraham, of whom the 
 Saviour has taken hold, &v eneXafieTo — not Abraham considered as 
 the father of the Jewish nation, but Abraham considered as the 
 father of those who believe. These persons form a particular 
 class; they belong to a certain brotherhood, a confederation, and 
 this is what constitutes their oneness with the Saviour, who 
 belongs to the same brotherhood. The only objection to this is, 
 that you can hardly find a Greek word to denote such a frater- 
 nity, and, at the same time, to agree with evbs, inasmuch as most 
 abstract nouns in that language are feminine. That, however, is 
 no objection at all, as when the adjective stands alone, leaving 
 one or other of several substantives to be supplied, the rule 
 requires that it be neuter, as evbs is. Yet if any one insists on 
 having a noun, he may take adp.aros. Take this view of the 
 passage, and it corresponds with all that we are taught throughout 
 the Scriptures respecting the relation which our blessed Lord 
 bears to His people. It is in consequence of their being one with 
 Him that their sins become His, and that He suffers in their 
 room, the just for the unjust. It is in consequence of His being 
 one with them that His righteousness is accounted theirs, 
 
86 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 and that the free gift comes upon them to justification of 
 life. 
 
 There is another passage in the epistle to the Hebrews where 
 sanctification by blood is spoken of, and which seems to require 
 more particular notice. It is chap. x. 29 — " Of how much sorer 
 punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath 
 trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood 
 of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, 
 and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace." What claims 
 our attention is, " the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was 
 sanctified." The question is, Does this mean, " wherewith atone- 
 ment was made for him 1 ?" I think it does. If it mean not that, 
 I know not what it means. So far as I can discover, there is no 
 reason why it should be supposed to mean anything else. 
 
 I am aware, indeed, that some Calvinistic writers, in order to 
 get rid of, what appears to them, a troublesome objection to the 
 doctrine of perseverance, have given another interpretation, but I 
 am satisfied it is an interpretation which will not stand. They 
 would refer the words, " wherewith He was sanctified," not to the 
 apostate of whom the apostle speaks, but to the Saviour whom the 
 apostate tramples under foot. " He," says Brown of Haddington, 
 in his Dictionary of the Bible, speaking of the Saviour, " He was 
 sanctified by His own blood — by the shedding of it He was set 
 apart, and fitted to be an everlasting and glorious intercessor and 
 Saviour." " They," says Mr Scott, on the place speaking of the 
 apostates, " they had esteemed the precious blood of the new 
 covenant, by the shedding of which Christ had been sanctified, or 
 consecrated to be the High Priest and advocate of sinners, in the 
 heavenly sanctuary, as if it had been an unclean thing." 
 
 This interpretation I am not inclined to admit. The objections 
 to it are not few nor of trivial moment. It seems to imply that 
 our blessed Lord was not properly a priest till He had consecrated 
 Himself by His death, from which it would follow that none of 
 His sufferings were expiatory except those which He endured on 
 the cross. It seems to run counter to the statement, so often 
 repeated, that He was made a Priest, not by any act of His own, 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IN DYING. 87 
 
 but by the oath of God, of whom it was said, in the book of 
 Psalms, " The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent. Thou art a 
 priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec." It seems to run 
 counter also to the other statement, that, as high priests taken 
 from among men were ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices accord- 
 ing to the law, so He, the great Apostle and High Priest of our 
 profession, was called of God like Aaron, and ordained to offer the 
 one sacrifice of which all the rest were but a figure ; the sacrifice 
 by which sin is taken away, which would not possibly be the case 
 if the offering of that sacrifice was itself His consecration to the 
 priestly office. What is more, it seems to imply that He needed 
 to offer something " for Himself," if, by His own blood, He was 
 "set apart, and fitted" for His office, contrary to the testimony 
 that He was such an High Priest as became us, holy, harmless, 
 undefiled, separate from sinners, and in all respects unlike those 
 high priests who "had infirmity." Lastly, it appears to me 
 that it would destroy the harmony or correspondence between the 
 type and the antitype. When the Jewish high priest, on the 
 great day of atonement, had slain the victim of the sin-offering, he 
 proceeded with its blood into the most holy place, not consecrating 
 himself anew, but acting on the consecration he had before; and to 
 suppose our blessed Lord to be consecrated by His own sacrifice, 
 seems to be introducing a new fact, and an important one, to 
 which there was nothing corresponding in the figure. 
 
 The words must, therefore, be understood, as 1 presume every 
 reader at first sight understands them, of the apostate by whom 
 the Son of God is trodden under foot, and despite is done to the 
 Spirit of grace. Such an apostate is said to have been sanctified 
 by the blood of the covenant, that is, as has been shown, atone- 
 ment has been made for him by the blood of the covenant. 
 But how can this be said of such a person, one who turns out to 
 be no Christian, one who falls away and makes shipwreck of the 
 faith 1 ? It is said of him, I answer in the judgment of charity, on the 
 presumption that his profession is genuine, and that he is a 
 Christian indeed. Eveiy real Christian is actually sanctified by 
 the blood of the covenant; for every real Christian the Saviour 
 
88 SPECIAL RELATIONS WHICH THE SAVIOUR SUSTAINED 
 
 has died; and so long as a man passes for a Christian, so long as 
 he makes a credible profession of the faith, so long it is to be 
 believed that he is a partaker of this high privilege. The passage 
 is exactly parallel to that which speaks of a weak brother perish- 
 ing for whom Christ has died. Not that any brother could 
 actually perish for whom Christ has died; not that Christ's word 
 could be falsified; " I give unto them eternal life, and they shall 
 never perish, neither shall any one pluck them out of my hand" — 
 but that the weak brother, through the uncharitable conduct of 
 those who had more knowledge than himself, might be emboldened 
 to sin — emboldened to do what his own conscience condemned — 
 and as all sin is in its nature destructive, as every sin, even the 
 smallest, involves perdition, the guilt of destroying him, destroying 
 him in the worst sense of the expression, bringing ruin upon his 
 soul, was to be charged upon his thoughtless seducers; guilt 
 magnified to an immeasurable degree, by the consideration that he 
 was a Christian brother, and therefore, in the judgment of charity, 
 to be deemed a person for whom Christ had died. The case before 
 us, as I have said, is exactly parallel. Every man who belongs to 
 the visible church, so long as he walks worthy of his vocation, is 
 to be regarded, judging favourably, as one sanctified by the blood 
 of the covenant, or whose sins have been atoned for by the great 
 propitiation. " "Wherewith he was sanctified," says Piscator, 
 "that is, by which he seemed to be sanctified, so long as he 
 confessed Christ. It is spoken from appearance or according to 
 estimation." * 
 
 As to the objection arising from this passage, to the doctrine of 
 the saints' perseverance, it is by no means formidable. It merely 
 amounts to the undeniable fact, that a man may make a false pro- 
 fession, that he may obtain credit for being what he is not, and 
 for possessing what he possesses not. Passing this, therefore, I 
 would direct the attention of my readers to what is of much 
 greater moment, the argument afforded by the passage in favour 
 
 * iv u> TiyidadT) id est, per quem videbatur esse sanctificatus quarndiu scilicet 
 confitebatur Christum. Dictum Kara d6£av Piscat : in loc. 
 
TO HIS PEOPLE IX DYING. 89 
 
 of the great doctrine that Christ has died for His people and 
 His people alone. Those who are believed to be His people are 
 believed to be sanctified by His blood. So long as they keep up 
 the favourable appearance, they have credit for partaking of this 
 privilege — a privilege, however, which is understood to be con- 
 fined within the limits of the church, which is never for a moment 
 supposed to belong to the world in general. Were a heathen or a 
 Turk a worshipper of Mahomet, or a worshipper of Brahma, to 
 be found indulging in all manner of vice, and exhibiting himself 
 before the world as the most worthless of mankind, would it ever 
 be said that he had counted the blood of the covenant an unholy 
 tiling, or that he had done dishonour to the atonement by which 
 he was redeemed] The person would be thought a madman who 
 should speak of him in such terms; and yet, if the doctrine of 
 universal atonement be true, heathens and Turks have the same 
 interest in the blood of Christ as Christians have, and are as really 
 sanctified by that blood as Christians are. 
 
 Upon the whole, let it be remembered that this passage, Heb. 
 x. 20, is parallel to Eoin. xiv. 15, and to 1 Cor. viii. 11, which 
 speak of the weak brother perishing for whom Christ has died. 
 The man who perishes is presumed to be one for whom Christ 
 has died, solely on the ground of his being a Christian brother. 
 Were he not a Christian brother, or believed to be a Christian 
 brother, there would be no ground for the presumption that Christ 
 has died for him — all which, as every reader must perceive, is 
 utterly at variance with the supposition that Christ has died for 
 the whole human race. 
 
 Especially let it be remembered that those whom Christ has died 
 for are the " sanctified," and that these, so far from being the 
 whole human race, are the children whom God has given Him — 
 the sons whom He is bringing to glory — the seed of Abraham, of 
 whom He has taken hold — the brethren whom He is not ashamed 
 to acknowledge, and for whom He has prepared a city. 
 
 M 
 
CHAPTER IY. 
 
 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 It may be thought, perhaps, that, in treating of the atonement, 
 the necessity of it might have been considered sooner. Certainly 
 it might, yet it seems to come in our way at this stage of the 
 discussion properly enough. We have spoken of the relations 
 which the Saviour in dying bore to His people; now we have to 
 speak of the relation He bore to the divine law. The divine law, 
 or the divine justice, more properly the latter, as in the case of 
 the Almighty Kuler, His law is nothing but the emanation of His 
 justice. It will be found that the two opposite theories of the 
 atonement — the definite and the indefinite — involve A 7 ery different 
 views with regard to this subject. The advocates for the indefinite 
 atonement mean one thing by law and by justice; the advocates 
 for the definite atonement mean another and a totally different 
 thing. 
 
 That the great God, the Ruler of the universe, cannot forgive 
 sin without some kind of satisfaction, seems to be very generally 
 admitted. Indeed, it is admitted by all except the Socinians, or 
 Unitarians, as they are more usually called, who contend that the 
 Most High is a being of pure benevolence, that He loves all His 
 creatures, that He loves none more dearly than sinful men, who 
 are only frail and erring, that He has no fixed hatred of sin, no 
 determination to punish it, and that all He requires of the dis- 
 obedient is that they cease from their disobedience, and confess 
 they have done wrong. The great majority, however, see clearly 
 enough that if they receive the Bible at all, they cannot but allow 
 that, in showing mercy to sinners, the Most High proceeds only 
 on the ground of a satisfaction, though what the nature of that 
 satisfaction is, or why it is deemed necessary, are points with 
 regard to which they are far from being agreed. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 91 
 
 Scarcely need I say, after what has been said already, that by 
 the satisfaction of Christ I mean His fulfilling the law in the room 
 of His people. Sin is the transgression of the law; the penalty of 
 the law is death — " the soul that sinneth shall die " — and Christ 
 has died the just for the unjust. The necessity of this satisfac- 
 tion I argue upon three grounds — first, the holiness of God; 
 secondly, His justice; and lastly, His truth. 
 
 Section I.— £{je Holiness of (boh. 
 
 The holiness of God usually denotes the combination of His 
 moral attributes — the beauty, the excellence, the loveliness of His 
 character. Of course it includes both His justice and His truth. 
 At present, however, I take it in a more limited sense, meaning 
 by it His purity alone — His infinite superiority to everything like 
 taint or defect of a moral nature. " Thou art of purer eyes than 
 to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity," Habak. i. 13. 
 " Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness; neither 
 shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall not stand in thy 
 sight: thou hatest all workers of inicpiity," Psa. v. 4, 5. " Who is 
 like unto thee, Lord, glorious in holiness, fearful hi praises, 
 doing Avonders," Exod. xv. 11. "I saw also the Lord sitting upon 
 a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple. 
 Above it stood the seraphhns: each one had six wings; with twain 
 he covered his face, with twain he covered his feet, and with 
 twain he did fly. And one cried unto another, and said, Holy, 
 holy, holy, is the Lord of hosts: the whole earth is full of His 
 glory," Isaiah vi. 1-3. " And the four beasts had each of them 
 six wings about liim; and they were full of eyes within: and they 
 rest not day and night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God 
 Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come," Rev. iv. 8. 
 
 The spotless nature of God does not, perhaps, recpiire the 
 punishment of sin, except in so far as exclusion from His favour 
 may be regarded in that light. The punishment of sin is required, 
 strictly speaking, only by His law, and, of course, will fall to be 
 considered under another head. His holiness, however, leads Him 
 to hate sin, to regard it with unutterable aversion, to look upon 
 
92 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 it as an abominable tiling — " Oh, do not tins abominable thing 
 that I hate," Jer. xliv. 4. Consequently His holiness renders it 
 impossible that sinners should stand in His sight, or should enjoy 
 His favour, or should be admitted to dwell where He is. " What 
 communion hath light with darkness, what fellowship hath right- 
 eousness with unrighteousness 1 ?" The heavenly Jerusalem pre- 
 pared for the saints is a holy place. It is spotless as God Himself, 
 whose abode it is. " There shall in no wise enter into it anything 
 that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh 
 a lie," Eev. xxi. 27. 
 
 Can I help remarking that from this holy place those whom our 
 brethren of the new school call saints, and by whom the benefit 
 of the atonement, according to' their view of it, is fully enjoyed, 
 must for ever be excluded 1 ? Those who enjoy the benefit of the 
 atonement, according to their view of it, are still guilty. No 
 penalty of the law has been endured for them, no surety right- 
 eousness is imputed to them, no justice has been satisfied for 
 them, except public justice — the justice which has, or is said to 
 have, some kind of relation to the general good. "The sinner, in 
 himself considered," says Dr Wardlaw, " can never cease to be 
 guilty. That which has been done can never be undone, and that 
 which has been deserved by the doing of it can never cease to be 
 deserved" (Discourses on the Atonement, p. 57). " Whom nothing," 
 says Dr Payne, "no, not even the blood of Christ itself, can 
 rescue from the desert of punishment, though it does preserve from 
 the punishment itself" (Lectures, p. 2G0). "Though a thousand 
 substitutes should die," says Dr Beman, " the law in itself con- 
 sidered, and left to its own natural operation, would have the 
 same demand upon the transgressor which it always had. This 
 claim can never be invalidated — this penal demand can never be 
 extinguished" (Wood's Old and Neio Theology, p. 95). "He that 
 is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven," says Barnes, " will 
 go there admitting that he deserves eternal death." Not that he 
 has deserved — that is totally a different thing — that every Chris- 
 tian will admit, and rejoice to admit, to the praise of the glory 
 of divine grace — but that lie deserves at the very moment he is 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 93 
 
 entering heaven, and after lie is in heaven — that he still deserves 
 eternal death. And to this, as we have already seen, Dr J. 
 Brown, of Edinburgh, lends his entire sanction, pronouncing the 
 words — "The well considered words of Barnes" {Exposition of the 
 Galatians, chap. ii. 16). 
 
 Now, I do not hesitate to repeat what I have just said, that, as 
 God is holy, not one such individual can ever be admitted into 
 the kingdom of heaven. A creature guilty ! — a creature not freed 
 from the penalty of the law — a creature under the desert of sin, 
 and yet admitted into heaven! Was ever such a thought con- 
 ceived — such a shocking impossibility'? What is guilt 1 These 
 writers themselves allow it is the obligation to punishment. The 
 creature who is involved in guilt, and in the desert of sin, is 
 a creature liable to punishment, liable to be consigned to outer 
 darkness, where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Conceive 
 such a creature appearing where the glory of the Lord God and of 
 the Lamb always shines ! — where angels cover their faces, and cry 
 Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty ! What will these writers 
 be advancing next 1 ? Certainly, were there any truth hi what they 
 allege, heaven, instead of being a blessed and glorious, would be a 
 most undesirable place. What could it be but a kind of convict 
 colony! — a region of acquitted felons! — or, rather of felons not 
 acquitted, but only allowed to go at large with their sentence un- 
 repealed! Can anything be more degrading to the work of 
 Christ, who has given Himself for us, that He might redeem us 
 from all iniquity — who has loved the church and given Himself 
 for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it by the washing of 
 water, through the Word, and might present it to Himself a 
 glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing. ? Can 
 anything be more at variance with the testimony of the Scriptures, 
 which declares, that to those who are in Christ there is " no 
 condemnation," — that they are "justified freely," — justified by a 
 judicial sentence, the sentence of Him whose judgment is always 
 according to truth; that by the obedience of Christ they are 
 " made righteous," nay, not only righteous, but righteousness, and 
 not only righteousness, but the " righteousness of God." 
 
94 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 True, indeed, what has been done can never he undone. True, 
 it must always he a fact that the saints on high have sinned, but 
 is it not also a fact that Christ has put away their sin, and put it 
 away not partially, but completely— put away the guilt of it by 
 bearing it in His own body on the tree, and by becoming Himself 
 their righteousness — put away the stain of it by creating them 
 anew after His own image, and making their very bodies, as well 
 as their souls, the temples of His Spirit 1 ? We know not yet what 
 we shall be; we cannot tell to what dignity we shall be advanced, 
 or with what honour we shall be crowned in the celestial world; 
 but surely it is not unreasonable to conceive that those whom the 
 Son of God has redeemed by the shedding of His blood, and has 
 received into personal union with Himself, constituting them the 
 members of His mystical body, shall be the most glorious, as well 
 as the most happy of created beings. Shall they not shine forth 
 as the sun in the kingdom of their Father 1 ? Shall they not be 
 exalted in the exaltation of Him who has overcome, and has sat 
 down with the Father on His throne 1 ? What a miserable concep- 
 tion of their dignity and their happiness to fancy them never 
 ceasing to be guilty, and never ceasing to deserve what they have 
 deserved in the days of their ungodliness! What a miserable 
 theology, and how worthy of contempt, which prompts its dupes, 
 otherwise rather sober-minded persons, to throw out sentiments 
 not only so irrational, but so revolting! The words of Mr 
 Haldane on the subject are worth repeating. Like most of his 
 words they are wise and scriptural. "Both Drs Payne and 
 Wardlaw " — he might have added Drs Brown and Barnes — " tell 
 us a guilty creature can never become innocent, but the contrary 
 is the mystery of the gospel. An innumerable multitude of 
 Adam's race who were sinners by his disobedience, shall stand 
 before an assembled universe in a robe of righteousness brighter 
 than the robes of angels — theirs is the righteousness of God." 
 
 It is not difficult to perceive how our friends are led to enter- 
 tain the very exceptionable doctrine on which we have just 
 commented. It follows as a natural consequence from their other 
 principles. With them there is no surety-righteousness, no im- 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 95 
 
 potation, no justification in the proper sense of the word. They 
 talk, indeed, of the righteousness of Christ, but they do not mean 
 by it His fulfilling the law. They talk also of a sinner's justifi- 
 cation, but they do not mean by it his being justified hi fact, but 
 only his being treated as if he were justified. Upon the whole, it 
 comes to this, that with them there is no righteousness but 
 personal righteousness, and no ground of a man's admission into 
 heaven but his own holiness, whatever the measure of that 
 holiness may be. No wonder that they should speak of their ill 
 desert, and their guilt, in the eternal world — guilt and ill desert 
 which are never to be removed — Avhich the blood of Christ itself 
 cannot take away. True, they discourse largely about divine 
 grace, and about pardon flowing to the guilty, but how pardon can 
 flow to any human being who has not been " delivered from the 
 law," by dying with Christ in His death, is to us incomprehensible. 
 The law of God is the moral law. It is as immutable as His nature. 
 If He suspended or overruled that law, He would divest Himself 
 of His essential glory. Not to make void, but to establish that 
 law, is the object of the gospel. 
 
 The necessity of the atonement will come more directly before 
 us in the next section. 
 
 Section II.— CIjc $ttsti« of (gob. 
 At first sight one would be apt to think that there could be few 
 subjects more simple or less likely to create difference of opinion 
 than divine justice. It turns out, however, to be quite otherwise. 
 Scarcely is there a subject more intricate, or, at all events, more 
 fruitful of discord. Whoever shall determine what justice is, 
 what place it holds, or what form it takes in the divine administra- 
 tion, particularly in that department of the divine administration 
 which regards the salvation of sinners, will go far to solve the 
 mighty problem with which we are now engaged — the nature and 
 extent of the Christian atonement. Something I have said on 
 this subject in another place which I shall not now repeat.* Let 
 
 * Catholic Doctrine of Kedemption Vindicated, chap. ii. 
 
96 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 it speak for itself to those who have read, or who shall read, 
 that publication. The question is yet as open for discussion as if 
 it had never been discussed at all. Let us examine it with some 
 degree of care, for it is more, perhaps, than anything else, the 
 very hinge of the controversy. 
 
 1. A pretty common definition of justice is, that it is "goodness 
 directed by wisdom." Tins is the definition of Bishop Stillingfleet, 
 of Emanuel Swedenborg, of Mr Gilbert in his work on the atone- 
 ment, and, generally speaking, of the new school theologians. A 
 Aviser man, however, than most of these theologians, the profound 
 Bishop Butler, has said that before this definition be adopted it 
 should first be proved. "Some men seem to think the only 
 character of the Author of nature to be that of simple, absolute, 
 benevolence. And supposing this to be the only character of God, 
 veracity and justice in Him would be nothing but benevolence 
 conducted by wisdom. Now, surely this ought not to be asserted 
 unless it can be proved; for we should speak with cautious rever- 
 ence on such a subject." So far from its being proved, however, 
 or being in any degree probable, the Bishop proceeds to ask, 
 "AVhether in the constitution and conduct of the world a righte- 
 ous government be not distinctly planned out, which necessarily 
 implies a righteous governor 1 ?" (Analogy, part i., chap. 3). 
 
 The definition of justice I choose to adopt is much more tenable, 
 and at the same time, I believe, somewhat moi'e common. I call 
 that justice in the great God by which He " renders to every one 
 his due," or by which, in the language of the Bible, He " does 
 what is right" — "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" 
 Now, I contend that sin being committed, this justice recpiires 
 tli at it be punished — punished in every instance — punished to the 
 extent of its demerit; and if this be granted, which it seems 
 scarcely possible to deny, the necessity of a satisfaction, in case of 
 sin being pardoned, appears to follow of course. Nay, it appears 
 to follow, of course, that the satisfaction for the sin can be neither 
 more nor less than the punishment — what is due to it, and what 
 is denounced against it in the divine law. This seems very 
 obvious. Perhaps, however, it is rather too soon to come to this 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 97 
 
 conclusion. Probably we will have something more to say on the 
 subject afterwards. 
 
 The great God is the Maker, and being the Maker, is the Ruler 
 and the Judge of every rational creature. The existence of a 
 rational creature implies the existence of a law requiring him to 
 love, and serve, and honour the Author of his being. The 
 moment he swerves from that law he sins, and what must be the 
 consequence. The consequence might, perhaps, be gathered from 
 reason, but the Scriptures tell us that it is death—" The soul that 
 sinneth shall die." Now, before sin is forgiven, in any case, this 
 law must be enforced. Of every sinner it may be said — " Die he, 
 or justice must." There seems, at first sight, no alternative. 
 Nay, we are warranted to say, there could have been no alterna- 
 tive had not the wisdom of God devised the method by which 
 justice is satisfied, and the sinner saved. We are warranted to 
 add, that justice has not been satisfied, and could not be satisfied, 
 without the penalty of death. The sinner has died in the person 
 of his Surety. 
 
 Strange, that it should be made a question whether justice is 
 essential to God, that is, whether the reason for punishing sin is 
 to be found in the nature of God, or only in His will. That it is 
 His will, indeed, to punish sin we do not deny; we believe it is 
 His will to punish it wherever it exists, nor can we conceive the 
 case in which His will acts more freely, but that is not the 
 question. The question is, whether the motive to His willing be 
 not supplied by the absolute rectitude of His nature, and 
 whether that motive, so supplied, be not uniform and pre- 
 dominant, always operating, and alway resistless. It seems 
 essential to His character, as the Judge of all, that this should be 
 the case. Suppose it otherwise, and His character is tarnished. 
 He is no longer the righteous Jehovah, nor is He worthy to 
 receive blessing, and honour, and glory. " God," says Dr Owen, 
 "must needs maintain unimpaired His own glory. He loves 
 Himself by necessity of nature, and declares in His Word, that 
 ' He will not give His glory to another.' Yet where were the 
 glory of His righteousness, or of His holiness, or of His supreme 
 
98 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 dominion, if sin were not in every instance visited with punish- 
 ment."* As to justice being founded solely in the Divine will, 
 the same writer asks, " whether the great God, by an act of His 
 will, can cease to be our Maker and Judge, or can give up the 
 claim upon us, which necessarily arises from the relation we bear 
 to Him as His rational creatures." t "We reprobate the indif- 
 ferent will," says a Dutch divine, " and assert that God's will 
 inflicts certain punishment when the rational creature has sinned. 
 The Supreme Judge must do what belongs to His office. Being- 
 invested with the office, He must execute its duties. In the 
 Scriptures He is extolled as righteous because of punishing, Psa. 
 ix. 5; xi. 7; Dan. ix. 14; Rom. ii. 5; Eev. xix. 11. Yet when 
 this punishment depends on an indifferent will He cannot be 
 praised because of it." J "With the Supreme Proprietor," says 
 John Howe, " there cannot but be inalienable rights inseparably 
 and everlastingly inherent in Him, for it cannot be but that He, 
 who is the Fountain of all rights, must have them primarily 
 and originally in Himself, and can no more quit them as to make 
 the creature absolute and independent, than He can make the 
 creature God. Therefore God did owe it to Himself primarily as 
 the absolute Sovereign and Lord of all, not to suffer indignities to 
 be offered to Him, without animadverting upon them, and, there- 
 fore, to determine He would do so. Besides that stricter notion 
 of God's justice, as it is conversant about and conservative of His 
 own rights, we may also consider it in a larger and more compre- 
 hensive notion, as it includes His several moral attributes and 
 excellencies, and answers to that which, among men, is called 
 universal justice, and reckoned to contain in it all virtues. For, so 
 taken, it comprehends His holiness and perfect detestation of all 
 impurity, in respect whereof He cannot but be perpetually inclined 
 to animadvert with severity upon sin ; both because of its irrecon- 
 cilable contrariety to His holy nature, and the insolent 
 affront which it therefore directly offers Him; and because of the 
 implicit, most injurious representation of Him which it con- 
 
 * Diatriba de .Justitia Divina, cap. 7. t Hid, cap. 9. 
 
 J Allinga on the Satisfaction of Christ, pp. 27, 28 — Bell's Translation. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 99 
 
 tains in it, as if He were either kindly or more indifferently 
 affected towards it; upon which accounts we may well suppose 
 Him to esteem it necessary for Him both to constitute a rule for 
 punishing it, and to punish it accordingly; that He may both 
 truly act His own nature, and truly represent it."* "Some have 
 maintained," says a more modern author, who, perhaps, affects 
 less of the philosopher than Howe, but who is equally profound, 
 and incomparably more luminous — " Some have maintained that 
 God might have pardoned sin without an atonement, others that 
 He could not. The language of Scripture on this subject is strong. 
 * Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look 
 upon iniquity.' ' Thou art not a God that hath pleasure in 
 wickedness; neither shall evil dwell with thee. The foolish shall 
 not stand in thy sight : thou hatest all the workers of iniquity.' 
 ' He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, 
 even they both are abomination to the Lord.' ' Our God is 
 a consuming fire' (Hab. i. 13; Ps. v. 4, 5; Prov. xvii. 15; Heb. xii. 
 29). To suppose that nothing is intended, but that God has 
 formed a resolution to punish sin, while He might have pardoned 
 it, is to give a strange turn to expressions which certainly 
 suggest at first view a very different sense. The obvious in- 
 ference from them is, that sin is contrary to His nature; 
 that there is an eternal repugnance between them; that He can 
 never be reconciled to sinners considered hi themselves; that He 
 is led to punish them, not indeed by the same necessity by which 
 fire consumes combustible materials, but by a moral necessity as 
 natural and irresistible. It is allowed that there is intrinsic 
 dement in sin. This postulate all will grant who are not atheists, 
 or who — not much better than they — imagine a Deity to whom 
 human actions are indifferent, and subvert all religion by denying 
 moral distinctions. If there is intrinsic demerit in sin, it is just 
 to punish it; and to suppose that it might not be punished — that 
 God, if it had seemed good to Him, might have suffered it to pass 
 with impunity — is to suppose that He might have done what is 
 not consistent with justice. Men impose upon themselves when 
 
 * Living Temple, part ii., chap. 7. 
 
100 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 they talk of justice which may punish or not, according to its 
 pleasure. The admission of this alternative destroys the idea of 
 justice. What is called justice is not justice but will, sometimes 
 exerting itself in acts of kindness, at other times in acts of severity. 
 It is expediency consulting, not what the case abstractly demands, 
 but what will be the best mode of managing it with a view to a 
 particular end. The world, according to this hypothesis, might 
 have been redeemed without the blood of Christ, but the wisdom of 
 God judged that it would be better to make His sacrifice the means. 
 The plan is illustrative rather of providence than of justice."* 
 
 The sentiments advanced by these distinguished men seem to 
 carry their own evidence — one would say they are incontrovertible. 
 Yet admit them to be true, and what becomes of the system on 
 which I am animadverting? what becomes of the doctrine which 
 takes the gospel to be a scheme not for fulfilling the violated law 
 of God; not for repairing the injury done to it, in the only way in 
 which it can be repaired, by enduring its penalty; but for super- 
 seding it and putting it out of the way 1 ? If avenging justice be 
 essential to God, if He punish sin not from expediency but from 
 necessity of nature, such a doctrine cannot be supposed, and those 
 who argue for it argue for an impossibility. 
 
 2. My readers may now take a view of justice as it is ex- 
 pounded by a distinguished writer on the other side, who is not 
 unknown to them. "What is justice?" says Dr Wardlaw. "We 
 formerly defined its province and its characteristics to be that of 
 rendering to all flair due; and according to the ground we assume, 
 on which to determine what is due, will our conceptions of the 
 meaning of justice be the more strict or the more comprehensive. 
 By some it has been resolved into benevolence, being defined, 
 'goodness directed by wisdom' (Stillingfleet). Now, it is true 
 that, because of the injury which results from sin to the creatures 
 of God, goodness, whose gratification is in the happiness of its 
 objects, must necessarily set itself against it. But then that 
 which does produce the injury to the rational creature is not sin 
 merely on this account. This would make utility to the creature the 
 * Dick's Lectures on Theology, vol. i., pp. 400, 4G1. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 101 
 
 sole foundation of morality or virtue. Bat there are principles of 
 immutable rectitude of which the origin is to be sought — it being 
 impossible to trace them further — in the necessary nature of the 
 eternal God. These principles are transferred from His nature to 
 His law" (Discourses on the Atonement, p. 50). 
 
 So far so good. Nothing could be sounder, or more satisfactory; 
 but is this the view of justice to which the author adheres 1 ? Is it 
 the view he gives when he comes to put the question, What is 
 meant by the satisfaction of justice? The justice, according to 
 him, which is satisfied in the death of Christ is — not commutative 
 justice — not distributive justice — but something of a different 
 nature called public justice; and what is that? "The third, or 
 public justice, includes those great essential principles of equity, 
 according to which, in indissoluble union with benevolence, the 
 Sovereign Ruler, governs the intelligent universe — those principles 
 which bear relation to the great general end of all government — 
 the public good" (Ibid, p. 55). I ask, What is the difference 
 between the "public good" and " utility to the creature?" They 
 are identical. Yet the one is denounced and the other avowed in 
 the course of a few pages. Was there ever a more direct contra- 
 diction ? Did ever a writer of great reputation, or, indeed, of any 
 reputation at all, more completely stultify himself? What advan- 
 tage can the cause derive from support of this kind? Does not 
 such support amount to a fair confession that it is not supportable ? 
 Dr W., if I mistake not, has been regarded, by pretty general 
 consent, as the great champion of the new theologians. What 
 will they do for a champion when their Goliah turns his arms 
 against himself? It would be wrong to exult in the case of so 
 eminent a man, yet it is of consequence to the cause of truth that 
 the contradiction should be exposed. One thing is clear, and it 
 is a thing of some importance, that the authority of Dr W. on 
 this great question must henceforth be regarded as amounting to 
 nothing ! 
 
 3. This, perhaps, is the place to advert to the lucubrations of 
 another writer who has exerted himself with some zeal to dissemi- 
 nate the views of the same party — I mean the late Dr Payne. 
 
102 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 The strictures, indeed, in his appendix, in which he has done me 
 the honour to rank me with the late Mr Haldane — a venerable 
 name — are perhaps bitter enough and supercilious enough, but to 
 me that is of no moment. The asperity of manner, or the want 
 of courtesy, instead of adding anything to his argument, rather 
 enfeebles it; and as he has been deservedly reproved by Mr Hal- 
 dane while he was yet in life,* and especially as he has now gone 
 down to the grave, it may be as well to let him rest. According 
 to the account of Mr Haldane, who seems to have had some per- 
 sonal knowledge of the man, Dr P.'s great ambition was to be 
 regarded as a philosophical divine, and certainly his writings 
 abound with some things which, for aught I know, may be attri- 
 butable to that cause. To me, indeed, they are the tokens, not of 
 a philosophical, but rather of a frivolous and conceited mind. Yet 
 to others they may appear in a different light. The question is of 
 no moment, or less than no moment, only perhaps it may serve to 
 account for a fact or two. 
 
 What we have at present to discuss with Dr P. is divine justice, 
 a subject on which he expatiates at some length. One of his 
 " Notes " is headed " Justice," and in the framing of said " Note " 
 something of his strength seems to be put forth. After intimating 
 his suspicion that the Ultra-Calvinists — a designation with which 
 he is pleased to honour Mr Haldane and me — after avowing a 
 strong " impression on his mind " that, on the subject of justice, 
 we are " playing at logic with words," what does he proceed to do? 
 " I propose," he says; " I propose in this note to exhibit the opinion 
 which ought to be held on the subject!" Very modest, certainly — 
 the language of a great philosopher, which Dr P., it seems, con- 
 ceived himself to be. He goes on to remark that, " in the view of 
 Dr Marshall, justice binds the Divine Being as necessarily to 
 punish the rebellious as to reward the obedient subject." Quite 
 right; this is really Dr M.'s " view." "Many writers on ethical 
 subjects," adds Dr P., "doubt this. They maintain that a threat- 
 ening does not bind as a promise docs. It is not necessary, how- 
 ever," he proceeds to say, in a controversy with Dr M., "to go 
 
 * Appendix, to Second Edition of his work on the Atonement. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 103 
 
 into a full examination of this point." Not necessary by any 
 means. Dr M. believes the great God to be a God of truth and 
 without iniquity, and if the threatening He uttered be an uncon- 
 ditional threatening, it will most certainly be inflicted. To sup- 
 pose the contrary, whatever Dr P. and his " writers on ethical 
 subjects " may think, were to suppose the great God to be some- 
 thing else than a God of truth. 
 
 What follows is more serious, and will require a little more of 
 my reader's attention. " The sentence of the divine law is the 
 clue of the transgressor, and essential justice binds," he says, " the 
 Divine Being — by its own force, without any consideration of 
 consequences, it would appear — to give to every one, and con- 
 sequently the sinner, his due — binds him to the exact and literal 
 execution of the curse of the law — to the infliction of its penalty 
 upon the transgressor exactly as it is denounced. Now, if this be 
 indeed the case, no mercy can be extended to any transgressor. 
 Every man who violates the law must suffer personally — and suffer 
 the idem — the very thing which the law denounces — that is, he must 
 endure remorse, and despair, and misery, for ever; for the law 
 says, the soul that sinneth shall die — the sinner is to die, and to 
 die the death." 
 
 This passage, the substance of which is repeated over and over, 
 with no great variation of language, throughout these " Notes," 
 exhibits, if I mistake not, the chief points of difference between 
 the system maintained by Dr P. and his associates on the one 
 hand, and that maintained on the other by Mr Haldane and me — 
 that is, in other words, between the new and the old theology. 
 It will be necessary to examine it with some minuteness. 
 
 First of all, I object to the expression — "binds the Divine 
 Being." Dr P., as may be observed, puts this language into my 
 mouth. I do not recollect ever to have used it ; if I have, at any 
 time, it must have been inadvertently. It is language not to be 
 vindicated. The Most High is of all beings the most free. He 
 necessarily wills, indeed, according to His nature — He necessarily 
 acts according to His law, but He is infinitely superior to all 
 constraint, and can with no propriety be said to be bound. If, in 
 
104 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 any case, the expression may be used, it can only be in reference 
 to His promise and His oath, the " two immutable things by 
 which it is impossible that He should lie." 
 
 Next, I would animadvert on the words — " without regard to 
 consequences, it would appear." Does Dr P. suppose that the justice 
 or injustice of the divine law depends on consequences ? In other 
 words, does he maintain that essential justice as it exists in the 
 Deity is modified one way or other by what may possibly happen 
 to transgressors 1 This, indeed, is what was to be expected of Dr 
 P. It is nothing but the new school notion of justice — that 
 notion of justice which his friend Dr Wardlaw affirms and denies 
 in almost the same breath. It makes justice to spring from 
 "utility to the creature" — or from those "great principles," — 
 rather indefinite principles — which have " relation to the general 
 good." 
 
 We may next advert to what Dr P. advances on the subject of 
 the penalty being inflicted on transgressors exactly as it is de- 
 nounced. To this he recurs again and again, as if it supplied him 
 with a triumphant argument, or as if nothing more than the 
 repetition of it were necessary to put me to silence, if not to 
 shame. There is, however, more to be said on the subject than 
 perhaps Dr P. or his friends are aware of. Does Dr P. really 
 suppose that the great God, who is always in earnest, has given 
 to His creatures a law, without the intention that it should be 
 exactly fulfilled, or that the threatening annexed to it should be 
 exactly inflicted? Does he suppose that, in dealing with men 
 about matters of infinite importance — about what concerns their 
 duty to Him, and their eternal happiness — this infinitely wise and 
 righteous Being speaks equivocally — saying one thing and mean- 
 ing another 1 What would Dr P. think, or what would the world 
 think, of the human government which should issue its laws, with 
 penalties annexed to them, which it did not mean to be exactly 
 inflicted] What would he or any of us think of the parent who 
 should warn his children in positive terms that if guilty of such 
 and such actions, they should certainly be visited with such and 
 such a punishment, yet who should not only fail to inflict that 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 105 
 
 punishment, but should never intend it to be inflicted] Does the 
 great God deal in empty menaces'? Is His law only a bluster — 
 vox et prater ea nihil — designed to terrify, but not to punish'? Such 
 would seem to be the legitimate consequences of Dr P.'s doctrine. 
 What reproach it brings upon the Most High — what reproach 
 upon His law, and upon all His dealings with mankind, I need 
 not say. To me it appears an impious doctrine, and subversive of 
 all morality. 
 
 One thing about which Dr P. carps not a little is what he calls 
 the idem. The doctrine of the idem he regards as a doctrine to be 
 treated with scorn, and he represents me as having made certain 
 concessions respecting it — concessions which he considers as fatal to 
 my system. Dr Wardlaw, to whom I was replying when I made 
 the concession to which he refers, takes the idem to mean an exact 
 equivalent, and in that sense I disavow the idem. The sufferings 
 of our Lord were more than the exact equivalent. Being the 
 sufferings of a Divine person, their value was without bounds. I 
 am also ready to admit that the sufferings of our Lord were not 
 the idem, inasmuch as they were the sufferings of a substitute. 
 Every person must see that the sufferings of a substitute cannot 
 be the idem in one sense, although they may be so in anotlier and a 
 more important sense. The truth is, much of what is said about the 
 idem is nothing better than quibbling, or, as Dr P. himself else- 
 where calls it, "playing at logic with words." The great fact 
 never to be lost sight of is, that the substitution of our Lord in 
 the room of His people involves in it what divines have called a 
 commutation of persons — He and they, in virtue of the substitution, 
 are mystically one. This makes His sufferings to be really the 
 idem in a sense which would hardly have been thought of, yet a 
 sense sufficiently intelligible and most consolatory. 
 
 What we maintain is, that the blessed Jesus, in dying for us, 
 has suffered substantially what we should have suffered — has been 
 made under the law which we violated, that He might endure its 
 penalty, and in this way make satisfaction to justice, which 
 requires that the " soul that sinneth shall die." Without this, we 
 contend there can, properly speaking, be no atonement. There 
 
106 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 may be what Dr P. and others call a " demonstration " — there 
 may be something of a " display " — but it cannot be a display of 
 justice. It can only be a display of arbitrary procedure, not 
 worthy of God, nor calculated to serve the ends of His govern- 
 ment. In other words, the sufferings of the Redeemer, in order 
 to be of any avail — in order to have the smallest tendency to 
 answer the purpose for which they were endured — must have been 
 the idem, that is, the punishment which was due to us. 
 
 Dr Owen has treated of the subject with his usual force of 
 argument, in his work on the Death of Christ, chap, vii., p. 152. 
 After answering, one by one, the objections of Grotius, which are 
 exactly the objections now advanced by Drs Wardlaw, Payne, 
 and others, he adds, " The death of Christ made satisfaction in the 
 very tiling required in the obligation. He took away the curse by 
 being made a curse, Gal. iii. 1 3. He delivered us from sin by being 
 made sin, 2 Cor. v. 2 1 . He underwent death, that we might be 
 delivered from death. All our debt was in the curse of the law, 
 which he wholly underwent. Neither do we read of any relaxa- 
 tion of the punishment, but only a commutation of the person, 
 which being done, God condemned sin in the flesh of His Son, 
 Rom. viii. 3." 
 
 The commutation of persons is what Dr P. does not admit. 
 According to him, it may be true analogically, but not hi reality. 
 Indeed, it would appear that, in his estimation, all the great 
 truths of religion are not, properly speaking, truths. They are 
 only approximations to truth, or what may be called semblances 
 or shadows of truth. They are truths as it icere, truths as if, 
 which plainly enough implies that they are not truths, but some- 
 thing else. Christ is the representation of His people, he says, as 
 if He legally represented them, His righteousness is counted theirs 
 as if they possessed it, and "this result passes over to them, not on 
 the principle of a legal commutation of persons, but — on a moral 
 basis." 
 
 Such is the style in which he talks of commutation (see his 
 Lectures passim., particularly p. 3G5). And no wonder, because 
 the principle of commutation, if admitted, is subversive of his 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 107 
 
 system. Grant the legal commutation of persons between Christ 
 and His people — grant that He occupied their room, having 
 assumed them into mystical union with Himself, as the whole 
 Bible asserts, and what follows as the necessary consequence 1 — 
 His death is their death, His resurrection their resurrection, 
 whatever He did, whatever He suffered, when manifested in their 
 nature, may be said, and is said, to have been done, and to have 
 been suffered, by them. They are crucified with Christ, dead with 
 Christ, buried with Christ, risen with Christ. They have ascended 
 also in His ascension, and they sit and reign with Him in the 
 heavenly places. 
 
 This has been the faith of the Church in every age. Even at 
 periods comparatively dark, when it would hardly have surprised 
 us if so glorious a truth had been partly lost sight of, we find it 
 avowed, not by one individual, but by many, and in terms to the 
 beauty and correctness of wliich nothing can be added. What 
 can be more finely expressed, or, for the most part, in fewer 
 words, than the passages relating to this subject, which may be 
 selected, in vast numbers, from the writings of such men as 
 Eusebius, Cyprian, Augustine, Chrysostom, and many others, men 
 living in different ages, and different quarters of the world, but all 
 holding the same faith and guided by the same heavenly teacher? 
 " How did He make our sins to be His own, how did He bear 
 our iniquities] Is it not as we are said to be His body, as, says the 
 apostle, ye are the body of Christ and members in particular"* — 
 "Christ bore us all as He bore our sins."t "We hear the voice 
 of the body from the lips of Him who is the head — the church 
 suffered in Him when He suffered for the church." % To these we 
 may add a single sentence from the justly celebrated composition, 
 — of unknown origin but of great antiquity — usually styled the 
 
 * irCis 8e ras -tyueVepas a/xaprias e^oiKeiovrai ; kcli tt&s <pepew Xeyerai rds 
 avofuas ij/xwv; ij Ka$' o crw.ua diTov iivai Xeyofxeda. — Eusebius. 
 
 T " Nos omnes portabat Christus, qui et peccata nostra portabat." — 
 Cyprianus. 
 
 X " Audimus vocem corporis ex ore capitis — ecclesia in illo passa sit quando 
 pro ecclesia patiebatur." — A ugustinus. 
 
108 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 epistle to Diognetus, and for the most part bound up with the 
 works of Justin Martyr. " Oh sweet permutation ! Oh process 
 unsearchable! Oh benevolence exceeding all expectation, that 
 the iniquity of many should be hidden in one just One, and 
 that the righteousness of one should make righteous many 
 wicked!"* 
 
 This is not only as it were the faith of the church, but it is 
 what has actually been the faith of the church in all past time, 
 and, what is more, I will venture to affirm, it is what will be 
 the faith of the church in all future time, so long as men have the 
 same Bible and are taught by the same Spirit. 
 
 As to what Dr P. says about enduring " remorse, and despair, 
 and misery for ever," insinuating that these must have been 
 suffered by the Redeemer if He bore the punishment due to us, it 
 is not worthy of him — not worthy of any candid or honourable 
 man — it has been so often and so satisfactorily answered. If it 
 was the Son of God who suffered, how could He suffer for ever 1 ? 
 If it was the Just One who suffered for the unjust, how could He 
 know anything of remorse or of despair 1 ? " The satisfaction made 
 by Christ," says Owen, " was a full compensation to the justice of 
 God for all the sins of those for whom He made satisfaction, by 
 undergoing that same punishment which, by reason of the obliga- 
 tion that was upon them, they themselves were bound to undergo. 
 When I say the same, I mean essentially the same in weight and 
 pressure, though not in all accidents of duration and the like, for 
 it was not possible that He should be detained by death " (Salus 
 Electorum Sanguine Jesu, pp. 152, 153). With regard to the alle- 
 gation that, upon our principles, " no mercy can be extended to 
 any transgressor," we shall by-and-by have another opportunity 
 for considering it, and, I would hope, with greater advantage. 
 
 My readers, perhaps, may not be unwilling to see a specimen 
 or two of Dr Payne's philosophy. There are plenty of specimens 
 in these ''Notes" on the subject of divine justice, and they may 
 
 * & rrjs y\vK€ias auTdX\ay9js\ w tt)s ave^ixvlacrTOv Sr/fuovpylas ! & twv airpocrhoKr)- 
 rOiv evepyeaiuf ! iW dvo/xla p.kv ttoWuv iv 8tKai(p eVi Kpvfifj, St-Katoavvr] de e'fds 
 iroWovs dvofxovs SiKaiway." — Epist. ad Diognetum. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 109 
 
 be selected almost at random. " I do not believe that any perfec- 
 tion exists in God — any tendency or feeling of any kind whatever, 
 which would lead Him to append sanctions to His law, and a 
 fortiori to execute them, were it not that the necessities of moral 
 government require it, that is, if He could secure the end of moral 
 government without it." That is, God would have no feelings or 
 perfections that would append sanctions to His laws, if He could 
 do without them; they are resorted to — helpless Being! — only as 
 a matter of necessity ! In other words, God had no such feelings 
 or perfections till about six thousand years ago, when He created 
 man, and began moral government, and if they exist in Him now, 
 it must be the world alone that has produced them. Consequently 
 these feelings and perfections, although they are divine — existing 
 in the Deity — are only the creature of a creature ! Rare philo- 
 sophy this, is it not 1 ? Yes ! and not less rare divinity. The divinity 
 and the philosophy are worthy of each other. Take another sample. 
 "Law emanates from God, not as a person or being, but as a 
 moral governor." Of course it would appear a moral governor is 
 neither a person nor a being. " If the great God were not our 
 Moral Governor, He could possess no more right or power to 
 punish men than one man has to punish another." Who gave 
 Dr P. the " right " or the " power " to conceive of God as not our 
 Moral Governor 1 ? Pascal, who was something of a philosopher too, 
 and rather a more approved one than Dr P., says somewhere, " I 
 can easily conceive of a man without hands and without feet — I 
 could conceive of him, too, without a head, did I not learn from 
 experience it is by the help of this he thinks." Pascal understood 
 that a man without a head would not be a man at all, and there- 
 fore he would not suffer so absurd a conception to enter his mind. 
 Not so Dr P. He conceives of the great God as not our Moral 
 Governor, and, of course, as having no right or power to punish us ! 
 Of the same character is his definition of atonement, and the 
 groundwork of his whole treatise, — " That which shall preserve to 
 the moral government of God that powerful control over its sub- 
 jects which the entrance of sin endangered." Endangered! — the 
 government of God endangered ! For the government of God to 
 
110 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 be endangered, I conceive, is the same thing as for God Himself 
 to be endangered; and I would ask any man, philosopher or not 
 philosopher, if such language may be employed with propriety, or 
 even with innocence? It may be difficult to have philosophy 
 without absurdity, but by all means let us have it without impiety, 
 or not at all. Strange enough Dr Wardlaw quotes this language 
 with approbation, and pronounces it accurate — "the accurate 
 language of Dr Payne." Of course he also must think that God 
 has been endangered by the introduction of sin. 
 
 Few of the new school theologians have written so systemati- 
 cally as Dr P., or done more, perhaps, to advance the tenets of the 
 party. On this account he may be entitled to the greater notice; 
 and I cannot help remarking, what has often occurred to me, and 
 what I have hinted at already, that in the views he advocates 
 there is a strange want of substance or reality. In the primitive 
 times, we are told, there was a class of heretics called the Docetce, 
 referred to by Tertullian and Theodoret, and supposed to be re- 
 ferred to by the apostle John, when he speaks of men not " con- 
 fessing that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh." Milner says " they 
 held that the Son of God had no proper humanity, and that He 
 died only in appearance on the cross." They seem to have been 
 nearly of the same sentiments with Bardesanes, and some other 
 Gnostics in a later age, who maintained that our Lord had only 
 an aerial body, and that he lived and died, acted and suffered, 
 only as an aerial being. Is it too much to say that Dr P. and his 
 followers and coadjutors are to be classed Avith these Docetse? 
 According to him the great facts of the gospel are not facts, but 
 appearances. They are facts, as if — facts, as it were — as we have 
 already shown. Mr Haldane rebukes him with some severity, but 
 most deservedly, on the subject of justification. When he is 
 saying, that for God to justify a man is to "treat him as if he 
 were righteous, or to declare that the divine government will so 
 treat him," Mr Haldane replies, " A man must be either righteous 
 or guilty, and the government which does not treat him according 
 to his real character is not a just government." With similar 
 severity may he be rebuked on the subject of our Lord's Suretyship. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. Ill 
 
 "When he affirms, as he does, in a place already quoted, that our 
 Lord is a Surety only analogically, or as if He were so, his mouth 
 may simply he stopped, and stopped with some confusion, hy the 
 simple remark that the Bihle is the "Word of God, and that the 
 Bihle affirms of our blessed Lord that He was made a Surety — not 
 the semblance of a Surety — but a real Surety, and that " not with- 
 out oath." From all this it follows, obviously enough, that the 
 disciples and associates of Dr P.— who are understood to exist in 
 vast numbers among the dissenting churches of this country, both 
 in North and South Britain — are to be regarded as nothing better 
 than a body of modern Docetai, persons holding that the great 
 God, in framing the system of our religion, and in propounding to 
 us its doctrines, deals not in truths but in figments, not in realities 
 but in semblances. 
 
 4. So much space have I allotted to Dr P., partly because he is 
 a writer of some note on his own side of the question, partly 
 because he controverts with so much confidence the received 
 doctrines on the subject of divine justice, it is now time that I 
 were bringing forward the arguments which must be regarded as, 
 of all others, the most conclusive on the subject — the express 
 testimony of Scripture. "Whom God hath set forth to be a 
 propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His justice in 
 the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of 
 God; to declare, I say, at this time His justice; that He might be 
 just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus," Rom. iii. 
 25, 26. Previous to the appearance of Jesus in the flesh, God 
 forgave the sins of believers, on the ground of that satisfaction to 
 justice which was to be made in the fulness of time; and since 
 that period, He has forgiven them on the ground of the same 
 satisfaction actually made. Had He done so on any other ground 
 in time past, His justice would have been impeached, and it would 
 also be impeached, and impeached with good reason, were He 
 doing so on any other ground now. What can be a more decisive 
 proof that His justice forbids, and has always forbidden, the for- 
 giving of sin without a satisfaction ? The words I have quoted 
 show, as clearly as words can do, that the atonement of Jesus 
 
112 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 declares the justice of God, and that in virtue of that atonement 
 alone, God is just in justifying those who believe. Standing in our 
 room, acting as our Surety, charged with our guilt, the Holy One 
 of God bore our griefs and carried our sorrows, endured the 
 penalty of the law we had violated, and redeemed us from the 
 curse of it, being made a curse for us. This is what justice 
 required, this is what, through the amazing condescension and 
 grace of the great Surety, justice has obtained, and hence it is 
 said that His being set forth as a propitiation declares the right- 
 eousness of God. For this reason the blessed Jesus is styled, 
 " The Lord our righteousness," Jer. xxiii. 6; for this reason it is 
 said, " The Lord is well pleased for His righteousness' sake; He 
 will magnify the law, and make it honourable," Isa. xlii. 21; for 
 this reason it is said also that He would " finish transgression, and 
 make an end of sin-offerings, and bring in everlasting righteous- 
 ness," Dan. ix. 24; and, in fine, for this reason is the church 
 taught to rejoice and say, " Mercy and truth have met together; 
 righteousness and peace have kissed each other," Psa. lxxxv. 10. 
 The mighty barrier is broken down; the Avail, stronger than 
 adamant, which hindered the mercy of heaven from reaching us, 
 is removed, and Avhere sin abounded, grace much more abounds. 
 Such is the harmony of the divine attributes effected by the Cross, 
 the reconciliation of justice and mercy, which sin had apparently 
 placed in antagonism, rendering it impossible for the one to find 
 egress till the other was satisfied. 
 
 It were easy to confirm what has now been stated by the autho- 
 rity of respectable writers well known for their soundness in the 
 faith, but it is needless. I content myself with giving Mr Scott's 
 version of Rom. iii. 25, 26: — "Whom God hath before appointed " 
 — so he reads wp6e0ero — "to be a propitiation through faith in His 
 blood for a demonstration of His justice, on account of the passing 
 by of sins that had been committed in former times, through the 
 forbearance of God — I say, for a demonstration of His justice in this 
 present time, in order that He might be just and the justifier of 
 him that believeth in Jesus." This " demonstration of justice," 
 independently of all other arguments, proves the proposition laid 
 down in this section. 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 113 
 
 Section III— %\g (Trail* of (Sob. 
 
 That the truth of God forbids the pardon of sin without a 
 satisfaction, follows clearly and unavoidably from what has been 
 already said. If God be opposed to sin — irreconcileably opposed 
 to it; if it be the abominable thing which His soul hates; if the 
 rectitude of His nature require that it be punished — punished in 
 every instance — punished to the extent of its infinite demerit; 
 His law, which is nothing but the emanation of His rectitude, and 
 which, being expressed in words, takes the name of " truth," must 
 require the same thing. His truth is the attribute of His nature 
 by which he cannot lie — cannot deny Himself — cannot recede in 
 one jot or tittle from what He has spoken — but ever remains, and 
 ever must remain, in all circumstances, on all occasions, faithful 
 to His promises and faithful to His threatenings. " Is He a man 
 that He should lie, or the son of man that He should repent] 
 Hath He said it, and shall He not do it? hath He spoken it, and 
 shall He not make it good]" 
 
 What, then, has He said respecting sin? He has said that it 
 shall be punished. The terms of His law are, " The soul that sin- 
 neth shall die;" and who will venture to affirm, who will be so 
 rash as to imagine, that on any ground, or by any evasion, this 
 sentence shall be rendered void? It may indeed be thought, may 
 even be asserted, that this sentence is virtually evaded, nay, is 
 actually set aside, when a substitute is admitted, and Christ dies 
 the just for the unjust. We hold that this is not the case. We 
 hold that by the grand device of the gospel — the wisdom of God in 
 a mystery, the hidden wisdom ordained before the creation of the 
 world to our glory — we hold, that by this amazing contrivance 
 Christ is substituted for us in such a way, is so mystically united 
 with us in nature and by the divine constitution, that His deatli 
 is our death, that His sufferings are our punishment, that the 
 sentence executed on Him is executed on us, and that the result 
 is, the law of God has not been set aside — it were monstrous to 
 think of what is utterly impossible — not set aside, but effectually 
 
11 4: THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 established. "Do we, then, make void the law through faith? 
 God forbid ! yea, we establish the law." 
 
 The law says nothing of a substitute — gives no intimation that 
 substitution is possible. It denounces the curse, it dooms the 
 sinner to destruction ; and who could have expected, knowing that 
 God is true, that He cannot lie, that His word, like His nature, 
 changeth not — who could have expected any other result than the 
 sinner's destruction 1 To the astonishment of men, however — to 
 the astonishment, we may presume, of the principalities and powers 
 in the heavenly places — the " manifold wisdom of God " has shown 
 us how this riddle may be solved, how justice may be satisfied, 
 and yet mercy exercised ; how sin may be punished, punished to 
 the uttermost, and yet the sinner saved, — and we are prompted to 
 say, when we think of the procedure — " Oh the depth of the riches 
 both of the wisdom and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are 
 His judgments, and His ways past finding out. Who can utter the 
 mighty acts of the Lord, who can show forth all His praise 1 He 
 is wonderful in counsel and excellent in working!" 
 
 What do our brethren of the new school say to all this. Their 
 doctrine on the subject not only differs from ours, but is directly 
 the reverse. They turn the truth of God into a lie — they make 
 void the law — a proceeding with regard to which the apostle 
 utters the exclamation, God forbid! as if He had said, Ah, the 
 shocking impiety! let not such a thought enter into the minds 
 of men ! They contend that in the whole process of forgiving sin 
 the law is set aside — literally set aside ! — " suspended, superseded, 
 overruled." Nay, Dr Payne goes so far as to say that the law not 
 only does not reveal a substitute, but does not admit of one. 
 "Why," says he, "does Dr Marshall use the phraseology, 'the 
 law makes no mention of any satisfaction except that supplied by 
 the punishment of the sinner,' — the law says, 'the soul that 
 sinneth shall die, and this is more than not mentioning a substitute, 
 it is virtually forbidding it'" (Lectivfes, p. 412, foot note). I 
 referred before to this writer's asserting that upon the principles 
 taught by Mr Haldane and others, " no mercy can be extended to 
 any transgressor," and I intimated that an opportunity might 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 115 
 
 occur for considering the assertion with greater advantage. Now, 
 it seems to me we have this opportunity. The doctrine of our 
 opponents is palpable. The mystery of the gospel, according to 
 them, is not a scheme for vindicating the truth of God — vindicat- 
 ing His truth in conjunction with His mercy — hut it is a scheme 
 for destroying His truth, and consequently for destroying His 
 whole moral character — the moral character of Deity! Our 
 blessed Lord says, " think not that I am come to destroy the law 
 or the prophets ; I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily 
 I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle 
 shall in no wise pass from the law tUl all be fulfilled." The 
 Levitical part of the law was fulfilled by its abrogation — not so 
 the moral part. The moral part will outlast the heavens and 
 the earth; it can suffer no abrogation — no more than the nature 
 of God Himself. 
 
 "When man bad fallen and incurred the sentence, Milton repre- 
 sents the great God as impairing of the angelic hosts how man 
 might be redeemed, but the question was unanswerable — " all the 
 heavenly choir stood mute, and silence was in heaven." * Had Dr 
 P. and his coadjutors been considted, they would have been at no 
 loss for an answer. They would have seen no mystery in the case, 
 and would have stepped in confidently where angels feared to 
 tread. Some of them could have replied to the Almighty Majesty 
 — " Why, you never intended that the sentence of your law 
 should be exactly or literally fulfilled." Others of them, or, perhaps, 
 the same individuals, would have said, " Your law is no mighty 
 impediment — you have nothing to do but to put it out of the 
 way, by suspending, or superseding, or overruling it." Their lips 
 might have been closed — if anything would close the lips of 
 persons so presumptuous— by the Avords which the same divine 
 poet puts into the mouth of the great Supreme — 
 
 " Die He, or justice must, unless for Him 
 Some other able and as willing, pay 
 The rigid satisfaction, death for death, "f 
 
 It comes obviously in the way to remark here, although, perhaps, 
 * Paradise Lost, Book iii., line 217. t Ibid., line 210. 
 
116 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 it has been remarked before, that the atonement contended for by our 
 brethren is no atonement at all. It is clearly not the fulfilling of 
 the law. The law is set aside. The law does not admit of a 
 substitute — the law positively excludes a substitute — so that 
 whatever is done in the way of procuring salvation for sinners, 
 is clone without any reference to the law. Of course without any 
 reference to the holiness, or righteousness, or truth of God, of 
 which the law is the exponent, and Iioav it can be called an atone- 
 ment, or a satisfaction to justice, seems incomprehensible. Our 
 brethren themselves call it, as we have seen, a demonstration, or a 
 display — something that may affect the minds of men, some- 
 thing that may afford a moral lesson, that may preserve the 
 government of God (or God Himself, which such language 
 implies) from being "endangered" by the entrance of sin. 
 Their atonement, I say, is something of this sort. They do not 
 speak of it, or of the purpose it serves, in very definite terms; and 
 what I would take leave to say is, that, upon their own showing, 
 it is something unsubstantial — not real, but apparent — an ex- 
 pedient, a deception. Does it never occur to them that the whole 
 truth must be declared some time or other 1 ? In the world to come 
 the veil must be removed, the deception, if there be a deception, 
 must be detected, the real state of matters must be disclosed, and 
 how will the great God look upon His creatures then, or how will 
 they look upon Him, when every fallacy is done away, when all 
 eyes are opened, and men and things stand out in their true 
 nature 1 ? It seems impious to indulge in such speculations — there 
 is, in fact, no ground for them — but if men do indulge in them, 
 whose fault is it 1 "Who talk of displays and demonstrations 1 
 
 It may also be asked, before taking leave of the subject, if the 
 Christian atonement was nothing but a display, in what aspect it 
 differed from the atonements under the law. The atonements 
 under the law, it is admitted, were actually a display — not a real 
 satisfaction for sin, but something like a satisfaction — such a 
 representation of it as suited the purposes of that figurative 
 economy. The confession of sin over the head of the victim, 
 together with the imposition of the offerer's hands, or those of the 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE' ATONEMENT. 117 
 
 priest in his room, was something like a translation of guilt, though 
 a real translation it could not he, the victim being only a brute 
 animal. The death of the victim, as the substitute of the offerer, 
 the shedding of its blood, with the burning of its body, or some 
 portions of its body, on the altar, seemed very like the punishment 
 which the offerer deserved, and certainly prefigured it most im- 
 pressively; while the fire, which came down from heaven and 
 consumed the sacrifice — a fire of no human kindling — seems, as 
 Mr Scott justly remarks, very significantly to have " represented 
 the avenging justice of God." The whole was a well-contrived 
 exhibition, and, considered as a type or figure, was complete in all 
 its parts, as the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews has well 
 demonstrated. But if there was no real translation of gudt in the 
 case of our Lord, if our sin was not actually laid on Him, and if 
 there was no demonstration of avenging justice in the shedding of 
 His blood, a question obviously arises, what was the meaning of 
 the legal atonements, or what purpose did they serve 1 They 
 must have been nothing more than the display of a display — the 
 shadow of a shadow; and while it is perfectly clear that they 
 could never take away sin, it is just about as clear that neither 
 could sin be taken away by the atonement of Christ. If the one 
 shadow was empty and valueless, so must the other. 
 
 From the desultory nature of the opinions and reasonings I 
 have had occasion to notice in the course of this chapter, my own 
 reasonings, I am aware, have been somewhat desultory. It may 
 serve a purpose, perhaps, to give the amount of them, or what is 
 nearly the amount of them, in a few concluding remarks. 
 
 First, admitting the view of divine justice which I oppose, it 
 seems not possible to account for such an event as the death of 
 Christ; putting the extent or the design of His death entirely out 
 of view, and regarding it simply as a fact occurring under the 
 divine government, it appears inexplicable. Christ was a person 
 altogether innocent; " He knew no sin;" He was a " Lamb with- 
 out blemish, and without spot." His sufferings were inflicted by 
 His Father in heaven; " it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, and 
 to put him to grief" — "Awake, sword, against my Shepherd, 
 
118 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 against the Man who is my fellow, saith the Lord of hosts: smite 
 the Shepherd." "What a display of rectitude — the subliniest, the 
 most adorable rectitude, according to our doctrine ! "What a 
 shocking outrage, what an act of cruel and wanton tyranny, 
 according to the doctrine we oppose ! 
 
 Secondly, this doctrine goes to divest the Almighty of His 
 essential righteousness. If it be true, justice, in the proper sense 
 of the Avord, is none of His attributes. He does not necessarily 
 punish sin — not necessarily maintain the honour of His law — not 
 necessarily make good what He has said. On the contrary, He 
 suspends, and supersedes, and overrules His law. "Where, then, 
 is either His righteousness or His truth'? 
 
 Thirdly, according to this doctrine, the Unitarian theory of 
 atonement must be the only right theory. If the law may be 
 suspended or overruled, justice required no atonement, and if 
 the intelligent creation clamoured for something of the kind — 
 something that might have the appearance of it at least — they 
 were entitled to no regard, inasmuch as, instead of being intelli- 
 gent, they must have proved themselves, by the very' fact, to be 
 altogether the reverse. 
 
 Fourthly, I might direct the thoughts of my readers to the 
 bearing of this doctrine on the established course of things; I 
 mean on the righteousness of God as it appears in the government 
 of the Avorld. If there was no justice in the cross of Christ — no 
 justice in the proper sense — can there be any justice in the various 
 and sore calamities which embitter the lot of man — any justice in 
 the plans and operations of that avenging providence which 
 is constantly unfolding before us something like the prophet's 
 scroll, inscribed with the characters of "lamentation, and mourn- 
 ing, and woe?" 
 
 Fifthly, I would direct the reader's thoughts to the bearing of 
 this doctrine on the whole subject of morals. If the great God be 
 not strictly just in his procedure towards us — especially, if He be 
 not strictly just in that most stupendous branch of His procedure 
 towards us on which depends our happiness in another state, how 
 can He expect, or how can He fequire, that we should be strictly 
 
THE NECESSITY OF THE ATOXE^IEXT. 119 
 
 just in our procedure towards Him, or towards one another? 
 What then becomes of human society 1 Where shall we look for 
 the foundation of morals] Or rather, where shall we look for 
 morals at all, either foundation or superstructure] 
 
 Finally, I would here advert to the trite objection so often 
 brought forward by our opponents, sometimes more covertly, 
 sometimes more openly — the objection, that if a surety was 
 admitted at all, there must have been a departure from the strict- 
 ness of the law, and that divines of the most approved orthodoxy — 
 Rivet, for example, and Dick, and others, in treating of the subject, 
 use the word relaxation. True, indeed, the word relaxation is used by 
 the ablest divines, but how ] With the view to guard against the 
 very error I am opposing, they explain themselves fully, and give 
 us to understand in what sense they use it. They draw a distinc- 
 tion between what is relaxable in the law, and what is not 
 relaxable. The punishment in His own proper person of the 
 individual who has sinned they hold to be relaxable, inasmuch as 
 they hold the admission of a surety; but the punishment itself, 
 the real and true punishment denounced by the law, they hold to 
 be irrelaxable. The one thing they say, and say truly, depends on 
 the will of God, which is free; the other depends on the nature of 
 God, which, though bound by nothing extrinsic, nothing without 
 itself, is yet unalterably bound by its own perfection. The union 
 of the Surety with us, and the imputation of our sins to Him, 
 made His punishment our punishment, and the satisfaction 
 rendered by Him in all respects as genuine — as truly ours, as if it 
 had been rendered by ourselves in our own persons, while, for 
 obvious reasons, it was infinitely more glorious. * 
 
 * " Relaxari potuit pimitio ipsius personse peccantis, punitio simpliciter 
 considerata, seu peccantis personae rationem habens; sed sponsoris pro ipsa 
 satisfacientis — absolute fuit irrelaxabilis. Diversitatis autem istius ratio est, 
 quod prius quidem a voluntate Dei simpliciter pendeat quae libera est, posterius 
 at ipsa Dei natura et proprietate quae ipsi est essentialis." — Riveti Dispntationes 
 Tredecim, p. 255. 
 
 " Ita nee legis facta est abrogatio, vel derogatio, sed explicatio kclt'' iwieiKhav 
 ut quod nobis debebatur ex rigore juris, id ex speciali Dei gratia in Christum 
 transferretur." — Turrctin. Instit. TheoL, Pars ii., p. 458. Edit. 1682. 
 
120 THE NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 To complete the argument for the necessity of the atonement, 
 we might refer to the simple fact of its having taken place. The 
 simple fact, duly considered, clearly proves its necessity. Had it 
 not been required by some kind of necessity, never would the 
 blessed Jesus have died, never should we have heard the amazing 
 statement that " God has not spared His own Son." On this, 
 however, I do not insist. "While it concludes decisively enough 
 against the class called Unitarians, it does not, perhaps, conclude 
 quite so clearly against Pelagians and Arminians, and others of 
 that description, with whom, in the present discussion, we have 
 chiefly to do. 
 
CHAPTEE V. 
 
 THE ORDER OF THE DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 At the close of the second chapter I promised to examine some- 
 what more particularly, at a future stage of the discussion, the 
 theory of a twofold love in providing the atonement — a general 
 and a special — a rectoral and a saving love — a love emanating 
 from the Most High as a Moral Governor, and a love emanating 
 from Him as a Sovereign Benefactor. " To me it appears," says 
 Dr Warcllaw, " that in providing the atonement, there was in the 
 contemplation of the divine mind a double object; there was an 
 object pertaining to the general administration of His government 
 as the Moral Ruler of the world — and an object of a more special 
 kind belonging to the distribution of His favours as a Sovereign 
 Benefactor; and there is in correspondence with this twofold pur- 
 pose a general and a peculiar love." * 
 
 The distinction of the divine purpose into two parts — the one 
 general, the other special, the one connected with salvation, the 
 other not — is only a different form of the scheme which inverts the 
 order of the decrees, putting the atonement first and election last. The 
 peculiar love alone is saving love, and that comes not into operation 
 till after the remedy has been provided. It is in the application of 
 the remedy, and there only, that it finds its proper sphere. The 
 substitution of the Son of God in our room — the preparing of a 
 body for Him of our flesh and blood — the sending Him forth at 
 the fulness of time, made of a woman, made uuder the law — the 
 laying upon Him the inicpxity of us all — the wounding and bruising 
 and putting Him to grief — the making His soul an offering for sin 
 — all this was the work of the general or rectoral love, the love 
 which regarded the whole race alike, and had no particular con- 
 nection with the salvation of any. 
 
 * Essays on Assurance and Pardon, p. 289. 
 
122 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 My readers, I presume, are aware that this is a corner-stone of 
 the new doctrine — a fundamental principle of the system I am 
 opposing, and which I call a new doctrine, because, long as it may 
 have prevailed in certain quarters, and familiar as it may have 
 been to various classes in our own land, it has only of late lifted 
 up its head among the churches of our country. It may not be 
 improper to try the solidity of tliis coruer-stone. To me it appears 
 not very secure, and if it be overturned, the whole fabric which 
 our friends have raised upon it must be laid in ruins. I beg 
 the reader's attention to the following objections : — 
 
 1. I object that, according to this doctrine, there are two divine 
 purposes respecting the final destiny of men — a first and a second 
 — a general and a special — one having reference to all men. and 
 the other having reference only to some. The Scriptures, however, 
 I venture to say, know nothing of such a distinction. The Scrip- 
 tures speak of the divine purpose as one and indivisible. We read 
 of " the called according to His purpose? Rom. viii. 28; of the 
 "purpose of God according to election," ix. 11; of the "purpose of 
 Him who worketh all things after the counsel of His will," Eph. i. 
 11; of the "eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord," iii. 1 1 ; and of His " own purpose and grace, which was 
 given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," 2 Tim. i. 9. 
 Such are the terms in which the Scriptures speak in reference to 
 this subject, and I am not aware that they ever speak in any 
 other. 
 
 This purpose may indeed be a complex one. It may embrace 
 the means as well as the end. "We believe and teach that it does 
 embrace the means as well as the end, but that is far from 
 destroying its unity. It is not the less one purpose that it is 
 somewhat complex, and I ask where is the warrant for dividing 
 it 1 Do they speak according to the Scriptures who represent it 
 as consisting of two distinct branches — so distinct as to have a 
 reference to different objects, and to terminate in different results? 
 Our brethren profess great deference for the Scriptures. Let them 
 show the deference which they profess. 
 
 2. I object that, according to this doctrine, that is made a 
 
DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 123 
 
 subject of secondary arrangement which the Scriptures teach us 
 was first in the Divine mind; I mean the clwice of those who shall 
 ultimately enjoy salvation. "While we have to complain of our 
 brethren for dividing the Divine purpose, we have to complain of 
 them still more for transposing it. If we will listen to the Spirit of 
 God speaking in His AVord, if we will receive the truth on this 
 mysterious subject, as He is pleased to announce it, we shall 
 believe that the choice of sinful men to salvation was the end 
 contemplated, and that the appointment of Him who " was in the 
 beginning with God," to be their Saviour, was the means by 
 which that end was to be accomplished. " Chosen in Him before 
 the foundation of the world. Predestinated to the adoption 
 of children, by Jesus Christ to Himself," Eph. i. 4, 5. "Elect 
 according to the foreknowledge of God, through sprinkling of 
 the blood of Jesus," 1 Pet. i. 2. Such is the language of the 
 Holy Ghost, and I submit if it do not abundantly confirm what 
 has been stated. I submit farther, if it be not in accordance with 
 the well-known passage in our Catechism — or rather, if the passage 
 in our Catechism be not in accordance with it; — " God having out 
 of His mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to ever- 
 lasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out 
 of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of 
 salvation by a Redeemer 1 ?" 
 
 The following remarks of a respectable writer are confirmatory 
 of both the above objections. "As this view involves in it all 
 the absurdities of the Arminian scheme respecting the divine 
 decrees, and the extent of our Lord's death with regard to its 
 objects, so it renders the subject still more perplexed and absurd. 
 It evidently goes to overthrow the unity of God's purpose respect- 
 ing man's salvation, and to pervert the natural order of the events 
 fixed by it. The Scriptures represent the election of a certain 
 number of our race to salvation, and our Lord's preordination to 
 redeem them by His death, as one purpose, including the end 
 and the means by which it was to be carried into effect; and 
 instead of placing election last in the order of nature, they 
 assign to it the first place, and make the death of Christ the 
 
124 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 means provided by God for carrying the purpose of election into 
 effect." * 
 
 3. My next objection appears to me much more serious. The 
 doctrine of our brethren, as has already been stated, supposes a 
 twofold love on the part of the Most High — a rectoral and a 
 saving love — a love proceeding from Him as a Ruler, and a love 
 proceeding from Him as a Benefactor. Farther, it supposes that 
 it is to the rectoral love we are indebted for the atonement, while 
 to the saving or peculiar love we are indebted for the gift of the 
 Spirit, and the other blessings of eternal life. Now, I object to 
 this doctrine, that it ascribes the more important effects to the 
 inferior love, and the less important effects to the more stupendous 
 love. It makes that love which seems incomparably the greater 
 of the two, which is displayed by means incomparably more 
 magnificent than the other, and which, if we may say it without 
 presumption, would indicate in the divine mind incomparably 
 stronger emotion than the other; it makes that love totally 
 inefficient, totally unproductive of good to its objects — multitudes 
 of whom shall perish eternally, multitudes of whom have perished 
 already — while the only efficiency in the whole process, the only 
 power of bestowing good, or by which good actually is bestowed, 
 exists in the other and inferior species of love— the species of love 
 which is exerted with comparatively little display, which indicates 
 comparatively little emotion in the divine mind, and which com- 
 mands, and is calculated to command, comparatively little rever- 
 ence, or wonder, or praise, from the intelligent universe ! 
 
 It is the rectoral love, according to this doctrine, that sends the 
 Redeemer; it is the rectoral love that made Him to be sin for us, 
 though He knew no sin; it is the rectoral love that spares Him 
 not, but delivers Him up for us all; that commands the sword to 
 awake and smite Him, that takes pleasure in bruising Him, and 
 putting Him to grief, and that cuts Him off out of the land of the 
 living. The rectoral love, however, saves no man; the rectoral 
 love delivers no man from sin, and brings no man to glory; the 
 rectoral love is utterly powerless, utterly inefficacious, and leaves 
 * Stevenson on the Offices of Christ, p. 212. 
 
DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 125 
 
 its objects exactly where it finds them. Millions upon millions of 
 wretched men, upon whom this love has exhausted all its re- 
 sources, have from age to age been " lying in wickedness," and 
 through eternal ages shall he in misery ! 
 
 I ask any considerate Christian, 1 ask any man who reads the 
 Bible, if this be not an absurdity — a great and shocking absurdity 
 — contrary to all the ideas we would naturally form of the conduct 
 of a wise and good being, and especially contrary to what is 
 revealed in God's holy word. The gift of God's Son is His " un- 
 speakable gift." " God commendeth His love toward us, in that 
 while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." " Herein is love, 
 not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to 
 be the propitiation for our sins." " In this was manifested the 
 love of God toward us, that God sent His only-begotten Son into 
 the world, that we should live through Him." 
 
 The greatest love, therefore, which the God of all grace has ever 
 displayed — the greatest love of which we can form any conception 
 — is the love manifested in the cross of Christ; yet, according to 
 our brethren, that love of itself avails nothing — it is lavished to 
 no purpose — it is a boundless expenditure for no end, unless it be 
 followed up by another species of love of a totally different nature 
 — a love which emanates from the Most High under a totally 
 different character — and which gives birth to what they call "a 
 separate arrangement." According to them, the great demonstra- 
 tion of love — that demonstration, the fruit of which is, " God 
 manifest in the flesh," He who was "rich" become "poor," He 
 " who was in the form of God, and who counted it not robbery to 
 be equal with God, made of no reputation," clothed with the "form 
 of a servant," and "humbled to death, even the death of the cross " 
 — according to them, this transcendent love which prompts every 
 rational being to cry, " Who can utter the mighty acts of the 
 Lord?" — this most amazing and unutterable love is only an exhi- 
 bition of general benevolence, a common favour conferring a com- 
 mon benefit, like the sun which shines on the evil and on the 
 good, like the rain which descends on the just and the unjust, 
 including nothing peculiar, nothing descriminatory, but embracing 
 
126 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 all alike — the heirs of perdition and the heirs of glory, Nero as 
 much as Paul, Judas as much as Peter, those Avho are tormented 
 in the flame without a drop to cool their tongue, not less truly, or 
 in a less degree, than those who are repairing to the living foun- 
 tains of water, and drinking of the river, clear as crystal, which 
 issues forth from the throne on high. 
 
 They may helieve this who can find in their hearts so to do 
 — whose fondness for a favourite theory is large enough to 
 swallow the most revolting absurdities. For my part, I will 
 ascribe the greater effect to the greater cause — the most transcen- 
 dent of God's works to the most transcendent of His counsels. I 
 will believe that the gift of Christ was the gift of salvation, and 
 that He who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for 
 us all, will assuredly with Him also freely give us all things. 
 
 Mr Fuller, whose views it would seem, at one time, led him to 
 oppose what I am now asserting, argues against it in the following 
 terms, speaking in the person of one of the interlocutors in a Dia- 
 logue : — " It was no diminution of the love of God towards Israel 
 in bringing them out of Egypt, that the great body of them 
 transgressed and perished in the wilderness, nor could it be truly 
 said that the bringing of Caleb and Joshua into the land of 
 promise was a greater expression of love than that which had been 
 bestowed on them, and the whole bodies of their contemporaries, 
 in liberating them from the Egyptian yoke."* With all due 
 deference to this writer, who, generally speaking, is eminently 
 candid as well as judicious, I must take leave to say that the 
 matter is not quite correctly stated. In the first place, the 
 deliverance from Egypt, which was effected with a strong hand, 
 and an outstretched arm, and witli signs and wonders, and mighty 
 works, did not exactly correspond to the death of Christ. It 
 rather corresponded to the actual salvation of sinners, their release 
 from the bondage of sin and Satan, for which the death of Christ 
 laid the groundwork. And, in the second place, it is not the con- 
 ducting of Caleb and Joshua alone into the land of promise that is 
 to be contrasted with the deliverance from Egypt, or to be regarded 
 * Complete Works, p, 31 G. 
 
DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 127 
 
 as the great expression of God's love; but it is the conducting 
 of these two individuals into that land along with the young 
 race, the new generation, that had grown up in the wilderness. 
 It was in this that the Holy One of Israel displayed the truth of 
 His promise, and proved to the nations of the heathen, as well as 
 to the Jews themselves, that He had respect to His great name. 
 
 Mr Fuller adds, in the language of his Dialogue, "let me entreat 
 you to consider whether your principles would not furnish an apology 
 for the unbelieving Israelites, viz., of the following tenor: — 'There 
 was little or no love in God's delivering us, unless He intended withal 
 to prevent our sinning against Him, and actually to bring us to the 
 good land — but there was no good land for us. Would to God we 
 had died in Egypt.' "* The respondent in Mr F.'s Dialogue might, 
 perhaps, be puzzled with this, but I am not puzzled. My 
 principles afford ground for no such apology as he supposes. Had 
 I been addressing the Israelites with my principles, I would have 
 said, " There is a good land for you — a land sufficient for you all, a 
 land flowing with milk and honey; believe, and you shall enter in." 
 And, hi like manner, with the same principles, I can say to every 
 sinner under the gospel, there is salvation for you in Christ — a rich 
 salvation, a complete salvation, sufficient for all, offered to all; 
 believe, and it shall be yours. The fallacy which leads Mr F. astray 
 is his confounding what is known with what is hidden; the 
 revealed will of God with His secret counsel. He supposes the 
 Israelites, while yet in the wilderness, and yet on their way to 
 Canaan with the hope of reaching it, to know all about them- 
 selves, which came to be known only after they had perished and 
 fallen short of the promised rest. It is almost needless to add 
 that the same fallacy enters into all the reasoning about the 
 incongruity of addressing the invitations of the gospel to those 
 who have not been elected to life. 
 
 4. This objection, besides being of great force, suggests several 
 
 others of a similar nature. " Behold what manner of love the Father 
 
 hath bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God ! 
 
 therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not," 
 
 * Complete Works, p. 316. 
 
128 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 1 John iii. 1. The "manner of love" here spoken of is Christ's 
 " dying for the ungodly," His being " not spared, but delivered up 
 for us all," His being "made sin for us, though He knew no sin, 
 that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." This 
 is proved clearly enough, if it needed any proof, by the latter part 
 of the verse, "Therefore the world knoweth us not, because it 
 knew Him not;" the very terms, or nearly the very terms, in 
 which the same apostle speaks of the blessed Jesus in another 
 place: — " He was in the world, and the world was made by Him, 
 and the world knew Him not," John i. 10. 
 
 What, then, is the import of the passage, " Behold, what manner 
 of love ?" Is it not an appeal to the death of Christ, as being the grand 
 demonstration of the divine goodness — that to which we are indebted 
 for all our spiritual privileges — that by which we are called, i.e., 
 setting aside the Hebraism, made, or constituted sons of God, 
 brought into an intimate and endearing relation to the Most High 
 — such a relation as warrants us to cry to Him, Abba, Father, and 
 gives us a title to the heavenly inheritance, a joint title with Him 
 who is the " heir of all things?" The love of " the Father bestowed 
 on us " accomplishes all this — that love which He has displayed in 
 the mission and death of His only -begotten Son; and to this the 
 apostle appeals as something universally known, something visible 
 to all, and worthy to command the attention of all. 
 
 Now, I would ask, can our brethren, consistently with their 
 principles, join in the apostle's appeal 1 ? Can they point to our 
 sonship and say, Behold the manner of love that has accomplished 
 this? Consistently with their principles, I deny that they can. 
 The death of Christ, according to them, procures no sonship. The 
 death of Christ, according to them, belongs to the damned as 
 much as to the saved. The love which makes men " sons of God " 
 is a love altogether different — proceeding from the Most High under 
 a wholly different character, and operating in a wholly different 
 way. The love which makes men " sons of God " is the love which 
 bestows the Spirit, the love which regenerates the heart, turning it 
 into an heart of flesh, and implanting in it the principle of faith. 
 But is that a great demonstration of love — an open, public demon- 
 
DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 129 
 
 stration of love? Is it a process visible to all — commanding tlie 
 attention of alii — a process to which we may appeal with the 
 apostle and say, Behold, what manner of love? I deny that it is. 
 On the contrary, it is a process silent and nnperceived. The work 
 of the Spirit is a secret work. No man can tell where it is going 
 on. Often the subject of it himself cannot tell. It resembles the 
 operation of leaven, or the growth of a plant. " So is the kingdom 
 of God, as if a man should cast seed into the ground; and should 
 sleep, and rise night and day, and the seed should spring and 
 grow up, he knoweth not how," Mark iv. 26, 27. 
 
 5. It follows from what has been said, that salvation should 
 not be ascribed to Christ, strictly speaking, but only to the Spirit. 
 Christ comes not from the peculiar, but from the rectoral love. The 
 mission and death of Christ are the work of God, not in the character 
 of a kind benefactor, but in the character of a moral governor, and 
 have an equal respect to the whole human race. The peculiar 
 love which proceeds from Him as a benefactor comes in, and 
 begins to operate, only after the death of Christ is past — in con- 
 secpience of the separate arrangement — in fulfilment of the second 
 part of the divine purpose — that part which, in the order of the 
 decrees, succeeds to the atonement ! The peculiar love finds room 
 for itself at this stage. The peculiar love enlightens, and 
 renovates, and saves the sold. So our brethren are pleased to say. 
 Such is their theory of the divine decrees, and of the whole plan 
 of salvation. Now, I ask, if it be so, why is Christ called the 
 Saviour % Why is that title not bestowed on the Spirit, and on 
 the Spirit alone, for He, it is manifest, does the whole saving- 
 work 1 As for Christ, to be sure He dies, but of what avail is His 
 death] He gives Himself a ransom, but millions upon millions 
 for whom the ransom is given are never set free ! He sheds His 
 precious blood — the blood as of a lamb without blemish and 
 without spot — but millions upon millions for whom that blood is 
 shed are never washed or made white ! Why, then, I ask again, 
 if this be so — as our brethren affirm it is — why do we hear so 
 much of the salvation of Christ 1 Why is He called Jesus, and 
 said to save His people from their sins'? Why is His name said 
 
130 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 to be the only name under heaven by which we can be saved 1 ? 
 Or why do the saints and angels above direct their song of salva- 
 tion to Him, crying, " Worthy is the Lamb 1 " 
 
 Let my readers judge of the merits of this theory. Let them 
 say whether it is scriptural or unscriptural — honouring to the 
 great Redeemer or dishonouring. 
 
 6. Lastly, it may be observed of this scheme of doctrine, that 
 it never has been reduced, or perhaps is not reducible, to any fixed 
 standard. It is so fluctating as to take different forms in different 
 hands. It changes its shape so often that you might almost say 
 " it shape has none." Scarcely two of its abettors think or speak 
 alike. Each forms his own theory, and propounds it after bis 
 own fashion, detailing what he conceives to have been the train of 
 thought, and of purpose, in the divine mind, a proof that they are 
 guided pretty much by conjecture, without any certain " light to 
 their feet, or lamp to their path." Dr Wardlaw, as we have seen, 
 supposes a rectoral and a saving love, the love of a ruler and the 
 love of a benefactor, each giving birth to its appropriate course of 
 action, the one connected with the general government of the 
 world, the other with the ultimate salvation of those who are not 
 of the world, but chosen out of it. 
 
 Bishop Davenant differs not far from this, perhaps, in the main, 
 although he expresses himself in other terms. He supposes two 
 " ordinations " of God the Father, and two " intentions " on 
 the part of Christ, the one indiscriminate, the other special. 
 "Christ," he says, "in offering of Himself, had a general intention 
 conformed to the ordination of the Father, namely, that He might 
 deliver any persons whatsoever, indiscriminately, from the guilt of 
 their sins, provided they should believe on Him; and in this sense 
 He is said to have offered up Himself for all. He had also, as 
 conscious of the divine predestination, a special intention conformed 
 to the secret and eternal good pleasure of the Father, namely, that 
 He might obtain, through the merit of His death, for His sheep, 
 who were given to Him according to the decree of election, and 
 might give them faith, salvation, and all things."* 
 
 * Dissertation on the Death of Christ, Allport's Translations, vol. ii., chap. 
 iii. ; p. 398. 
 
DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 131 
 
 Camero, again, the founder of the sect, and certainly not the 
 least gifted among them, a man of whom, compared with his 
 successors, we might almost say, as Milton has said of Adam, 
 compared with his posterity — 
 
 " The goodliest man of men since born, 
 
 His sons" 
 
 this celebrated person supposes not fewer than four several 
 decrees respecting our redemption, or four distinct branches hi one 
 general decree. First, a decree concerning the restoration of the 
 divine image in fallen man, de restauranda imagine Dei in creatura. 
 Secondly, a decree concerning the appointment of the Saviour, de 
 mittendo Filio. Thirdly, a decree concerning the publishing of the 
 gospel, or the bringing men to believe, de reddendis hominibus idoneis 
 ad credendum. And, lastly, a decree concerning the salvation of 
 those who do believe, de scrvandis crcdentibns. 
 
 All this indicates, as every reader must perceive, a certain vacil- 
 lation of thought on the part of those who support this scheme of 
 doctrine, a certain tendency to speculate and theorise, not the 
 characteristic of truth which is uniform, but rather of error which 
 is various. The statement of Davenant, indeed, might be admitted 
 as good and sound, provided it were reversed — provided it put 
 the first of the two " ordinations " last, and the last first. The 
 Scriptures tell us that the Saviour loved the church, aiid gave Him- 
 self for it — that He laid down His life for the sheep — and it seems 
 natural to conceive, nay, exceedingly unnatural not to conceive, 
 that "in offering up Himself" this was the first and most impor- 
 tant object present to His thoughts; while what concerned the 
 rest of mankind, who had not been given to Him in the same way, 
 and whom He did not love with the same affection, occupied only 
 the second place. By enduring the curse, indeed, by fulfilling the 
 law, by dying for sin, so dying for sin as to render it consistent 
 with the honour of God and the purposes of His government to 
 forgive sin; by doing this He might be said to have opened the door 
 of mercy to all — to have made an atonement sufficient for all — and 
 the consequence is, that, in the adorable counsel of heaven, which 
 
132 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 it is not for us to fathom, wherever the gospel comes, mercy is 
 freely proclaimed to all. This was doubtless a glorious design; 
 and who can tell how widely it may extend, or of how many 
 happy consequences it may be productive 1 ? Yet, unquestionably, 
 it can never be deemed superior, but, on the contrary, subordinate, 
 to that which actually yields the fruits of salvation, and peoples 
 heaven with a race of ransomed men. 
 
 As to the views of Camero, they are liable to other and still 
 more serious objections. By separating the decree respecting the 
 death of Christ from the decree respecting the salvation of 
 believers, he separates two things which are indissolubly con- 
 nected, and of which it cannot be affirmed that the one was prior 
 to the other. The decree concerning the mission of the Saviour 
 was, according to Camero, the second in order; that concerning 
 the bringing men to believe was the third. The Saviour died 
 simply to make atonement, without any special regard to one class 
 of men more than another. The purpose to bring a particular 
 class to believe, and, by doing so, to avail themselves of the 
 benefit of the atonement, was, if we may so speak, an afterthought, 
 a matter altogether of subsequent arrangement ! What places the 
 absurdity of this in the strongest possible light, is the fact that 
 the Saviour, by dying, purchased faith for all who believe. Not 
 only were the persons present to His mind, but He stipulated for 
 them, that, in virtue of His dying, the grace of faith, and all the 
 other blessings of salvation, should in due time be theirs. What 
 less does He intimate when He says to the twelve, presenting 
 them with the cup in the holy supper, "This is my blood of the new 
 covenant, shed for many, for the remission of sins." I do not enter 
 into any discussion respecting the nature of the new covenant; I 
 do not inquire how or when it was made; I only say it was sealed 
 with the Saviour's blood — the Saviour's blood confirmed it, and 
 made all its provisions sure to those for whom He died. What, 
 then, are its provisions'? One of them is remission of sins. "I 
 will be merciful to their unrighteousnesses; their sins and their iniqui- 
 ties will I remember no more," Heb. viii. 12. Another of them is 
 spiritual knowledge, the saving knowledge of God. "They shall 
 
DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 133 
 
 teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, 
 saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least even 
 to the greatest of them, saith the Lord," Jer. xxxi. 34. But to crown 
 all, another is, a new heart and a right spirit. " i" icill sprinkle 
 clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, 
 and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will 
 I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; I will take away the 
 stony heart out of your flesh, and will L give you an heart of flesh," 
 Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26. Does not this include regeneration, which again 
 includes faith and every other grace; and if the covenant, of which 
 these are the provisions, was sealed by the Saviour's blood, may it not 
 be affirmed that faith and every other grace are procured by His 
 blood? How, then, could the purpose of His death be prior to 
 the purpose of saving those who believe, when the very faith of 
 those who believe was purchased by His death 1 ? How could the 
 decretum de mittendo Filio be one determination in the divine mind, 
 and the decretum de reddendis hominibus idoneis ad credendum, be 
 another and a subsequent decree ? If ever there was an absurdity 
 in conception or in argument, this certainly is one. 
 
 Whether, therefore, we take the views of those who support 
 this theory separately, or whether we take them together, and 
 mark their mutual inconsistency, we are led to the conclusion that 
 it is a theory not well digested, nor agreeable to truth. Truth 
 is, in all cases uniform and coherent, and the more closely it is 
 investigated, the more prominently will these characteristic qualities 
 be brought out. The opposite qualities belong only to systems 
 where truth is wanting, or where a small portion of it only is 
 blended with a portion of something different. I will not speak 
 of this theory in such terms as it has been spoken of by some. I 
 will not say with the Dutch theologians, who submitted the 
 opinion of Camero to the judgment of the " divines of England," 
 that it is " a hydra of errors," that it subverts the " necessity of 
 the Christian religion," or that it ought to be " expelled from the 
 Keformed churches." Nor will I say with Mosheim, that it is 
 " nothing more than Arminianism or Pelagianism artfully dressed 
 up, and ingeniously covered with a half transparent veil of 
 
134 DIVINE DECREES FARTHER CONSIDERED. 
 
 specious but ambiguous expressions;" but I will say, that to me it 
 appears a departure, to a certain extent, from the wholesome 
 words of sound doctrine, that its prevalence in the "reformed 
 churches," particularly in the church to which I belong,* I regard 
 with feelings of deep regret, not unmixed with a portion of fear, 
 and that had I influence to make my voice heard, I would say to 
 all who are hankering after it, " Thus saith the Lord: Stand ye in 
 the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths where is the good 
 way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest to your souls." 
 
 * The great body of that church went out from the Author, abandoning both 
 him and their own vjrinciples, as was decided by the highest judicial authority 
 in the kingdom. 
 
CHAPTER VI. 
 
 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT AS OF A GENERAL 
 NATURE — HOW TO BE INTERPRETED. 
 
 Section I.— |)rcltmhrarg Statement. 
 Every reader of the Bible must be aware that in not a few places, 
 both of the Old Testament and of the New, the atonement is 
 spoken of as universal — extending to all men, and to the world. 
 The passages where such language occurs are many in number, 
 and so familiar are they that it is almost needless to 
 quote them. A few may be put down by way of specimen. 
 "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the 
 world." " God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten 
 Son, that whosoever believeth in Him might not perish, but have 
 everlasting life." " God sent not His Son into the world to con- 
 demn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved." 
 "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself, not 
 imputing their trespasses unto them." "And He is the propi- 
 tiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
 whole world." " Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came 
 upon all men to condemnation, even so, by the righteousness of 
 one, the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." " For 
 the love of Christ constraineth us, because we thus judge, that if 
 one died for all, then were all dead; and that He died for all, that 
 they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but to 
 Him who died for them, and rose again." " For there is one God, 
 and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, 
 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time." 
 "We see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for 
 the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that He, 
 by the grace of God, should taste death for every man." 
 
13G TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 These passages, as I have said, are numerous, and the language 
 in which they speak is sufficiently explicit. The question is, how 
 are they to he reconciled with those which we have already cited, 
 and on which we have founded an argument, proving the design 
 of the atonement to he absolute and limited? Certain we are the 
 two classes of passages cannot be essentially at variance. Certain 
 we are that the appearance of opposition between them must be 
 in appearance, and nothing more. Proceeding, as they do, from 
 the same Author, standing, as we find them, in the same inspired 
 record, they must both be true, or in accordance with matter of 
 fact; and there must be some principle, or principles, if we can 
 only discover them, by which they may be really and satisfac- 
 torily harmonized. What these principles are it behoves us to 
 inquire. 
 
 In connection with the texts which represent the design of the 
 atonement as general, or universal, it is proper for us to notice 
 the invitations of the gospel, which are confessedly unrestricted. 
 " Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that 
 hath no money: come ye, buy and eat; yea, buy wine and milk with- 
 out money and without price." "Incline your ear, and come unto 
 me: hear, and your soul shall live." " Go ye unto all the world, 
 and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth, and is 
 baptized, shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned." 
 " As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must 
 the Son of man be lifted up; that whosoever believeth on Him 
 should not perish, but have eternal life." " Be it known unto 
 you, men and brethren, that, through this Man is preached unto 
 you the forgiveness of sins, and by Him all that believe are 
 justified." "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, 
 through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the 
 remission of sins." "If the word spoken by angels was steadfast, 
 and every ti*ansgression and disobedience received a just recom- 
 pence of reward; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salva- 
 tion; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and 
 was confirmed unto us by them that heard Him." " For if they 
 escaped not who refused Him that spake on earth, much more 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 137 
 
 shall not we escape, if we turn away from Him that speaketh from 
 heaven." " This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal 
 life, and this life is in His Son; he that hath the Son hath life; 
 and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." " The Spirit 
 and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. 
 And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let Mm 
 take the water of life freely." 
 
 Such is the testimony of the gospel, the tidings of great joy to 
 all jwople, the record which every man is called to believe, and the 
 belief of which is connected with salvation. The great God, the 
 author of this record, is the living and true God; in His dealings 
 with His creatures He must be sincere, the tidings He addresses to 
 them can be no mockery, the fountain to which He invites them 
 to repair must actually flow with the water of life ; in other words, 
 there must be forgiveness through • the blood of Jesus for sinners 
 of every class; in His mediatorial work a foundation must be laid 
 for the salvation of all who believe — such a foundation as warrants 
 the offer of mercy to all; that is, warrants at once the justification 
 of him who believes, and the condemnation of him who believes 
 not. How, then, may these things be 1 ? That is the point which 
 demands our attention, and from which we must not shrink. How 
 they may be, consistently with the doctrine which we have already 
 laid down, and have confirmed by such an amount of scriptural 
 evidence, is indeed no easy question. On the contrary, it is a 
 question of transcendent difficulty, as it is of transcendent import- 
 ance, yet I conceive it admits of a satisfactory answer. 
 
 Section II. — |lriirarjle of Interpretation. 
 The passages which represent the atonement as universal are 
 chiefly of two classes; first, those which speak of it as extending 
 to the world and to the whole world; and, secondly, those which 
 speak of it as extending to all men and to every man. The 
 question is, How shall we account for the use of such terms? and, 
 not to consume time, I answer at once, It is fully accounted for by 
 the transition from the old to the new dispensation; from the 
 local religion, which had hitherto prevailed, to the universal 
 
138 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 religion which was now to be introduced. The Mosaic economy- 
 was altogether exclusive — not intended for all nations, but for one 
 only. God showed " His word unto Jacob, His statutes and His 
 judgments to Israel; He hath dealt not so with any nation;" 
 God was "known in Judah, His name was great in Israel." "For 
 behold, darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the 
 people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee: and His glory shall be 
 seen upon thee." The institutions of Moses, especially the more 
 important of them, were strictly territorial, having a reference to 
 the comparatively narrow country of Judea, beyond which they 
 were never meant to be extended. This was the character of 
 the whole system of worship connected with the temple; while 
 many of the minor rites, such as those creating a distinction 
 of meats, and attaching ideas of ceremonial defilement to some 
 of the commonest actions and situations of life, cut off the Jews 
 from anything like free intercourse with their neighbours, and 
 shut them up within their own borders as a distinct people. 
 Accordingly, their law was styled, and justly styled, the " middle 
 wall of partition," — a wall of brass could hardly have proved a 
 more impassable barrier; and, as a natural consequence, it was 
 styled also " the enmity," the same causes which separated the two 
 descriptions of people serving to engender between them senti- 
 ments of dislike. The Gentiles looked upon the Jews as morose, 
 unsocial, malevolent, and scrupled not to apply to them such 
 opprobrious epithets ; while the Jews, on their part, were but too 
 forward to regard the Gentiles with contempt, if not with loathing, 
 as a polluted and abandoned race whom God had rejected, and 
 who knew not God. 
 
 Both parties were to be divested of this ill-founded preju- 
 dice. Both were to be divested of the feelings to which that 
 prejudice had given birth. What is more, both were to be imbued 
 with other and better feelings, were to be formed into " one new 
 man," and to be " reconciled unto God in one body." The Jews 
 were to be told that they were not, as they imagined, the exclusive 
 favourites of heaven. They were to be cured of the fond conceit, 
 that the great God had loved them, and them alone; they were to 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 139 
 
 be made acquainted with the important fact, not very palatable to 
 them, but most consolatory to the rest of mankind, and eminently 
 worthy of the great Parent of all, that the blessing of Abraham had 
 come on the Gentiles, that the covenant with Abraham (Gen. xvii. 
 4) included millions who had never sprung from him according to 
 the flesh, and that he was to prove the " heir of the world," Rom. iv. 
 1 3, not in a literal, but in a mystical sense, by being the father of a 
 believing seed, resembling the stars of heaven for multitude, or the 
 sand that lies by the sea-shore. This our blessed Lord Himself, 
 who best knew the objects of His own mission, was the first to 
 disclose. This was what He meant to intimate, and what He did 
 intimate most plainly, when He uttered the memorable words, 
 " God so loved the world" — not one family, but all the families of the 
 earth — not one nation, but all nations, and kindred, and tongues 
 — " that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth 
 on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." As if He 
 had said, I am not the Saviour of the Jews only, but of the 
 Gentiles also. It has been foretold concerning me, "it is a light 
 thing that thou shouldest be my servant, to raise up the tribes of 
 Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel." I contemplate, 
 therefore, other and nobler objects; I have come on a mission of 
 more extensive benevolence, for it is written of me, " I will give 
 thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation 
 unto the end of the earth," Isaiah xlix. 6. 
 
 This comprehensive language of our Lord — meant to be nothing 
 more than comprehensive of all kindreds and tribes indiscrimi- 
 nately — was exactly in accordance with the language of the 
 prophets in the Old Testament Scriptures, who, so often 
 as they speak of saving blessings, the blessings of Messiah's reign, 
 being extended beyond the limits of Judea, speak of them as 
 bestowed indiscriminately on all nation* and all flesh. "All the 
 ends of the world shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all 
 the kindreds of the nations shall worship before Him." " Yea, all 
 kings shall fall down before Him, and all nations shall serve Him." 
 " His name shall endure for ever, His name shall be continued as 
 long as the sun; men shall be blessed in Him; all nations shall call 
 
140 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 Him blessed." " I will shake all nations, and the desire of all 
 nations shall come, and I will fill this house with glory." " Oh, 
 thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come." " The 
 glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it 
 together." " It shall come to pass, that from one new moon to 
 another, and from one Sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to 
 worship before me, saith the Lord." " I will pour out my Spirit 
 on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy." 
 " Thy Maker is thy husband, the Lord of Hosts is His name; the 
 God of the ivhole earth shall He be called." 
 
 Are not these terms quite as universal as the terms employed 
 by our Lord, or those employed afterwards by any of His apostles, 
 yet who will say that these terms were meant to include every 
 individual man in every quarter of the world? If every individual 
 man in every quarter of the world was to be a subject of Messiah's 
 kingdom, and a partaker of saving blessings, what will follow] 
 Clearly the doctrine of universal salvation, a doctrine which our 
 brethren hold not, but disavow. No such doctrine was taught by 
 the prophets. The language of the prophets was indefinite 
 language. So it was meant to be understood — so it has been 
 interpreted by infallible authority. " This is that which was 
 spoken by the prophet Joel," said the apostle Peter, on the 
 day of Pentecost, when the gift of tongues had fallen — not 
 certainly on all flesh, literally speaking — hardly on what might 
 be called a sample of all flesh — but on a few individuals collected 
 from various quarters. " This is that which was spoken by the 
 prophet Joel, It shall come to pass in the last days, saith 
 God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons 
 and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see 
 visions, and your old men shall dream dreams." 
 
 The same divine teacher who suggested to Peter the right 
 interpretation of this one prophecy, by-and-by opened his mind, 
 and the minds of his fellow-apostles, to other matters, and par- 
 ticularly to what they had previously no just conception of, the 
 liberal nature of the new dispensation. By-and-by, a vision taught 
 him that he ought not to "call any man common or unclean;" 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 141 
 
 and in the presence of Cornelius, a Roman soldier, and of other 
 uncircumcised men, he was constrained to say, " Of a truth I 
 perceive that God is no respecter of persons, but that in every 
 nation he that feareth Him and worketh righteousness is accepted 
 with Him." As he spake the word to the centurion and his Gen- 
 tile friends, the Holy Ghost fell on them as he had fallen on the 
 believing Jews at the beginning, and breaking through the preju- 
 dices which had hitherto fettered him, he took leave to ask, " Can 
 any man forbid water that these should not be baptized, who have 
 received the Holy Ghost as well as we? — and he commanded them 
 to be baptized in the name of the Lord." The tidings of the 
 transaction quickly reached the ears of the apostles and brethren 
 in Judea, and Peter, of course, was called to account for what he 
 had done. He had only, however, to " rehearse " the matter, and 
 to '•' expound " it briefly, in order to satisfy them that he had done 
 right, and that, if he had done otherwise, he would have withstood 
 God. Having heard his statement, we are told " they held their 
 peace, and glorified God, saying, ' Then hath God also to the Gen- 
 tiles granted repentance unto life.' " 
 
 The mystery hidden from ages and generations was now dis- 
 closed. It was manifest to all that the wall of partition was 
 broken down, that the national distinctions which had hitherto 
 existed were abolished, and that there was no longer to be either 
 Jew or Greek, either circumcision or uncircumcision. The dis- 
 covery, as was to be expected, had a heart-stirring effect on the 
 minds of the apostles. They saw, in a new light, the import of 
 their commission, and gloried in Him " by whom they had received 
 grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations." 
 In particular, Paul, to whom was given a special " dispensation of 
 the grace of God " towards the Gentiles, conceived himself to be 
 invested -with no ordinary distinction. " Inasmuch," he said, " as 
 I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." " To me, 
 who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I 
 should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ." The idea of the " love and kindness of God to man " 
 having appeared — of a Saviour, not for one nation, but for all — 
 
142 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 not for the Jews only, but for the Gentiles also — for every kindred, 
 and tribe, and people — this idea, operating on a mind like his, 
 awakened sentiments of the loftiest order, and supplies us with 
 the key to some of the finest and most instructive passages to be 
 found in his epistles. He saw that every mouth was stopped, that 
 the whole world were guilty before God, that both Jews and Gen- 
 tiles were concluded under sin; but at the same time he saw and 
 could proclaim that the righteousness of God, by the faith of Jesus 
 Christ, was unto all and upon all without difference — unto all as 
 a matter of revelation, upon all as the matter of a gift — and that 
 through this righteousness as many as believed, whether Gentiles 
 or Jews, should be justified freely. 
 
 Enough has been said, perhaps more than enough, on this topic. 
 Every reader must perceive in what manner our Lord and His 
 apostles, led by the circumstances in which they stood, were 
 induced to employ the universal expressions referred to, and to 
 speak of the great salvation they announced as being for all men, 
 and for every man — for the world, and for the whole world, when 
 they intended nothing more than to convey the general meaning 
 that it was salvation for Gentiles as well as for Jews. It now 
 remains that we put this principle to the proof, by applying it to 
 particular passages. 
 
 Section III.— §lpjjUcjuiott of % principle. 
 I. The first passage that demands our attention, is that to 
 which we have already adverted. " God so loved the world, that 
 He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him 
 should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not 
 His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world 
 through Him might be saved," John iii. 16, 17. The question is, 
 did our Lord, on tins occasion, speak definitely or indefinitely! 
 Did He mean by the world every human being that had been, or 
 was, or should be; or did He mean only mankind in general, 
 Gentiles as well as Jews'? I submit, if the latter be not the only 
 meaning we can attach to His words. No other was true in fact, 
 and no other was natural in the circumstances in which He stood. 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 143 
 
 I say, no other was true in fact. The object of His mission was 
 salvation. He came into the world, that the world might be saved. 
 Did He come to save every human being] Does He intimate, 
 either here or anywhere else, that this Avas His design] He inti- 
 mates no such thing. He only intimates that some should be 
 saved — those who believed, that is, those, as it were not difficult 
 to demonstrate, in whose name He should fulfil the terms of the 
 new covenant, and for whom, by doing so, He should procure the 
 grace of faith (Matt. xxvi. 28). 
 
 It was, however, true in fact, that He had come to save the 
 world, generally speaking, the Gentiles as well as the Jews, and 
 to make this announcement was, in the circumstances in which 
 He stood, altogether natural. Whether He addressed Himself to 
 Nicodemus alone, or whether, as is more probable, to Nicodemus 
 in company with others, He addressed Himself to Jewish preju- 
 dices. His object was to unfold the nature of the " kingdom of 
 heaven," that is, of the new dispensation, to those who, whether 
 masters in Israel or not, were sufficiently contracted in their 
 views — so contracted as to imagine that that kingdom should 
 belong exclusively to themselves — who had no idea of its ever 
 being extended beyond the limits of Judea, or ever including any 
 besides the seed of Abraham, according to the flesh. "What so 
 natural as for the Great Teacher to combat this mistake 1 ? What 
 so incumbent on Him, at the commencement of His ministry, as 
 to lay the axe to the root of a prejudice so false and so pernicious] 
 It was time that the minds of men should be opened to more 
 liberal views. It was time that they should be given to under- 
 stand that the religion of heaven was not intended for one nation 
 only, but for all nations, and kindreds, and tongues. 
 
 I forbear to give other meanings of the word world, as it occurs 
 in the Scriptures, because I conceive it is unnecessary. Nothing 
 indeed could be more easy, were it to serve any purpose. Dr 
 Owen, in his Work on Redemption, has pointed out five or six 
 distinct meanings, and I rather think his enumeration is not quite 
 complete.* In the following sentence the word occurs three 
 
 * Book iv., chap. i. 
 
144 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 different times, and each time in a new meaning. " He was in 
 the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew 
 Him not." In the last instance the world means mankind; and 
 were we to argue from it as our brethren argue, we could prove 
 that during His ministry on earth our Lord had not so much as a 
 single disciple. The world, they say, means every individual of 
 mankind. Of course, if the world knew Him not, not an in- 
 dividual knew Him. 
 
 Perhaps it is not out of place to mention that there is a ivorld 
 for which our Lord does not pray. " I pray for them: I pray not 
 for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me; for they 
 are thine." According to our view of the matter, this passage is 
 in perfect harmony with John hi. 16, because God's loving both 
 Jews and Gentiles indefinitely, and sending His Son to bring 
 salvation to both, in that sense, is perfectly consistent with the 
 existence of a world, whose salvation, strictly speaking, He does 
 not seek, and will never accomplish. According to our brethren's 
 view of the matter, however, the passages present a case of 
 irreconcileable contradiction. If the Son of God so loved every 
 individual in the world as to come and die for every individual, 
 how can there be a world for whom He will not pray? Is it con- 
 ceivable that He would decline praying for those on whose account 
 He had laid down, or meant to lay down, His life? 
 
 I know not whether it be necessary to advert to a rule of 
 interpretation, which some Calvinists have applied to the passage 
 we are considering, and upon which our brethren, not I confess, 
 without some reason, are accustomed to pronounce, what in other 
 cases they are sufficiently unfond to hear of — a sentence of repro- 
 bation. " Ever since I was able to think at all upon such subjects," 
 says Dr Wardlaw, " I have felt myself far from satisfied with a 
 common way of interpreting some of those texts which express 
 the extent of the atonement in universal terms by means of a 
 convenient supplement. According to this method of explanation, 
 the world is in such occurrences of it made to signify the elect 
 world, the word elect being inserted, as a supplement, conceived to 
 be necessary for the consistency of Scripture. An elect world, 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 145 
 
 indeed, has become a phrase in common use with a particular 
 class of commentators and divines, and from them among private 
 Christians of the same caste; being employed with as much matter- 
 of-course freedom as if it had actually had the sanction of ordinary 
 usage in the sacred volume. But it is not to be found there."* 
 
 It certainly is not to be found there, and, upon the whole, I admit 
 there is some grounds for this censure. At the same time I am 
 not aware that the practice Dr W. condemns is by any means com- 
 mon. On the contrary, were I to judge from my own observation, 
 I should think it extremely rare. Although I have all my life 
 mingled with what are called Calvinistic preachers, I do not recol- 
 lect of ever hearing it from the pulpit, and, I presume, it were 
 not easy to point out a modern treatise of any reputation where 
 it occurs. Examples of it, indeed, I believe, may be found in 
 works of considerable name as far back as the seventeenth cen- 
 tury, yet, for my own part, I could specify none except a small 
 tract, otherwise of great excellence, which has for title, The Sum 
 of Saving Knowledge, and which is usually bound up with the 
 Westminster Confession of Faith. 
 
 The language, however, occur where it may, cannot be justified. 
 In preaching the gospel, the terms world and elect ought never to 
 be brought together. There is reason to suspect that whoever 
 brings them together misunderstands both. The doctrine of elec- 
 tion is indeed to be taught, and to be taught not sparingly, 
 because it pervades the whole Bible. Without it there can be no 
 just conception, either of God or of ourselves. It is a doctrine 
 which peculiarly enforces the precept: " He that glorieth, let him 
 glory in the Lord," and that prompts us to adopt the apostolical 
 doxology: " Of Him, and through Him, and for Him are all 
 things, to whom be glory for ever. Amen!" When, however, 
 the term world occurs in connection with the overtures of divine 
 mercy to men, any reference to election is totally out of place. 
 The term world is an indefinite term. It is purposely chosen, 
 because it is indefinite, and to qualify it by joining it with a 
 definite term, is to defeat the very end for which it is chosen. 
 
 * Essays on Assurance and Pardon, pp. 277, 278. 
 T 
 
14G TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 W hat makes the practice the less excusable is, that it is totally 
 uncalled for. The world which God has loved, and which Christ 
 has come to save, is not the Jews only, but other nations as well 
 as they; it is mankind in general; it is every man to whom the 
 gospel is addressed, provided he will hearken and incline his ear. 
 If there be a man who, when he hears the gospel, hesitates to 
 embrace it, and puzzles himself with the secret purposes of God, 
 he is, to say the least, greatly misled; and if there be any one bear- 
 ing the character of a teacher, who, by a reference to such matters, 
 contributes to mislead him, he is unquestionably unworthy of his 
 office; he is a workman who needs to be ashamed, and who ought 
 to be ashamed, for he divides not rightly, but rather perverts, the 
 word of truth. * 
 
 2. The next passage to which we may advert is John i. 29 — 
 "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the 
 world." On this it is not necessary to bestow more than a few 
 words. The Baptist knew that he was " the voice of one crying 
 in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the Lord, as said the 
 prophet Esaias." Of course he knew that the Saviour, to whom 
 he bore witness, was to be the Saviour, not of one, but of all 
 nations; not of the seed of Abraham alone, but of "all flesh." 
 He knew that the voice which cried, " Make straight in the 
 desert a high way for our God," was to cry also, " The glory of 
 the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together, for 
 the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it." Invested as he was with 
 this commission, what could he do less than point to the Lamb of 
 God as a sin offering for the world 1 ? Of course, however, it was 
 the world indefinitely taken, for had he meant it otherwise, what 
 he affirmed would not have been true in fact. 
 
 3. The next passage is one on which great stress is laid by our 
 brethren. It is 1 Juhn ii. 2, "He is the propitiation for our sins, 
 and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world." 
 The question is, by whom was this spoken? and whom was he 
 
 * " The invitations of the gospel are addressed to men, neither as elect nor 
 as non-elect, but as sinners exposed to the righteous displeasure of God." — 
 Fuller's Memoirs of Pearce, p. 142. 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 147 
 
 addressing? And the answer, in spite of every cavil, is, it was 
 spoken by a Jew who believed in Christ, and he was address- 
 ing other Jews, his brethren, who also believed in Christ. That 
 Christ was a propitiation for the sins of believing Jews was 
 admitted on all hands, and the speaker, in this place, gives his 
 brethren to understand that He was a propitiation also for the 
 sins of believing Gentiles — for the sins of mankind in general, 
 without regard to national distinctions. This is the natural inter- 
 pretation of the place, and it is an interpretation which our 
 brethren, with all their ingenuity, are unable to set aside. The 
 epistle, indeed, it will be allowed, has not the ordinary form of an 
 epistle. It begins without any inscription, and ends without any 
 salutation. What then'? Call it, if you please, with Michaelis, 
 not an epistle, but a book or treatise,* still you must admit that 
 it was written by the apostle John, and that it was addressed to 
 his countrymen the Christians of Judea. Macknight has shown, 
 both by external and by internal evidence, that it is a work of 
 John, and has assigned satisfactory reasons for concluding that 
 the 'eo-xctri? iipa, or " last hour," when it was written, was not simply, 
 as Grotius would have it, the period of Daniel's fourth beast, or 
 the Roman Empire, nor, as Michaelis would have it, the closing 
 part of the apostolic age, but the period immediately preceding 
 the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Roman armies were gather- 
 ing around that city, and the other signs predicted by the Saviour 
 were beginning to appear. The opinion of Macknight,T which 
 indeed may be regarded as the only probable opinion, is, that 
 John found himself in Judea when the troubles of that country 
 commenced, and that he wrote this treatise and left it in the hands 
 of his Hebrew friends, before setting out for the Lesser Asia, 
 whither he retired. At all events, it was an epistle of John, who 
 was a Jew, who was an apostle of the circumcision, and who was 
 more accustomed than any of the other apostles to speak of the 
 blessed Jesus as the Saviour of the world. It is he who has 
 recorded the testimony of the Baptist, " Behold the Lamb of God," 
 
 * Introduction to the New Testament, vol. vi., chap. xxx. 
 + Preface to First Epistle of John. 
 
148 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 etc. It is he who has recorded the memorable words of the 
 Saviour Himself, " God so loved the world, that He gave His only- 
 begotten Son," etc. And, what is yet more to the purpose, it is 
 he also who has preserved and who has explained the singular 
 prophecy of Caiaphas the High Priest. " Ye know nothing at 
 all," said Caiaphas, addressing the Council, " nor consider that it 
 is expedient for us that one man should die for the people, and 
 that the whole nation perish not." " And this spake he," adds the 
 apostle — and the words of the apostle are to be particularly noted 
 — -" this spake he not of himself : but being high priest that year, 
 he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for 
 that nation only, but that also He should gather together in one the 
 children of Cod who were scattered abroad," John xi. 51, 52. Could 
 we obtain from any lips a juster, a clearer, a more satisfactory 
 exposition of the passage we are now considering — " Not for ours 
 only, but for the sins of the whole world " — than is supplied by 
 the explanation here given of the High Priest's prophecy — " not 
 for that nation only, but for the children of God scattered 
 abroad 1 ?" Allow the apostle to be his own interpreter. For my 
 part, I prefer him far to all our brethren put together. 
 
 As to the expression the whole tvorld, which is often repeated 
 by our brethren, and repeated with an air of triumph, it does not 
 necessarily denote every man in the world. It is an expression 
 which occurs in more places than one, and as often as it occurs 
 the extent of its application is more or less restricted.* I say 
 nothing of Luke ii. 1, which speaks of a decree going forth from 
 
 * The following extract from " A Treatise on the Forgiveness of Sins, as the 
 Privilege of the Redeemed, in Opposition to the Doctrine of Universal Pardon," 
 by the late Rev. Dr Smyth, of Free St George's, will be valued by the friends 
 of the excellent and esteemed author, not only for its intrinsic weight, but also 
 as a memorial of his judicious expositions of Scripture, sacred learning, and 
 profound piety : — 
 
 " The untenableness of the scheme of interpretation, which affixes absolute 
 universality to the terms ' the world,' ' the whole world,' is demonstrable not 
 only from the contexts to which they are related, but from many portions of 
 Scripture, in which even the supporters of general pardon are necessarily at 
 one with us in limiting them. Of such passages the following are examples : — 
 
 " John xii. 19, ' The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 149 
 
 Cesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed, because, 
 although all the world in that passage can only denote the Eoman 
 Empire, yet the passage is not to our purpose, as the phrase 
 in the original is peculiar, viz., wao-av rr\v \iKov(j.ivy,v. A case in 
 point, however, is 1 John v. 19, " We are of God, and the 
 whole world lieth in wickedness," or in the wicked one. The 
 "we," at least, are exceptive of, and not included in, the 
 "whole world;" our brethren themselves must admit that — 
 and who are the "we?" Unquestionably the whole church of 
 God as it then existed — the united church of Jews and Gentiles, 
 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Another 
 case in point is Eev. xvi. 14, "They are the spirits of devils, 
 working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of 
 the whole world, t9j<t 'oiKov/j.ei>ys 8\ys, to gather them to the battle 
 of that great day of God Almighty." The " earth," as all inter- 
 preters admit, is the prophetic name for the Eoman Empire, or 
 the kingdom of the beast, and the whole world are other inhabited 
 lands beyond the pale of that kingdom. The prophecy intimates 
 that not Europe only, but others beyond the boundaries of Europe, 
 shall be concerned in the transactions of that great day. This 
 it intimates, but what more? The wildest visionary never 
 
 how ye prevail nothing? behold the world has gone after Him' (t'Se 6 k6<t[ios 
 oiriau avrov dirrjXdev), i.e., ' A great concourse of people are his followers.' 
 
 " John xvi. 20, ' Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and 
 lament, but the world shall rejoice' ('o 5e Koafj-os x a PV°~£ TaL )> l - e -> 'The 
 unbelieving part of mankind shall rejoice.' 
 
 " Romans i. 8, ' First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that 
 your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world' {iv 6\w ry koct/xoi), ' Your 
 faith is a very general subject of conversation.' 
 
 " Colossians i. 6, ' Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world' Kadws 
 /ecu ev iravrl t$ Koafj.ii}), i.e., ' As it is now in course of general promulgation.' 
 
 "1 John v. 19, ' And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth 
 in wickedness,' in the wicked one (ko.1 6 Koafios 6\os ev ry Trovrjpu? Keirat), i.e., 
 ' The whole unregenerate world, in contradistinction to Chi'istian disciples.' 
 
 " It requires only moral fairness to admit that, as numerous and clear proofs 
 can be thus brought in regard to the very general and varied meaning of the 
 terms, ' the world,' ' the whole world,' — to affix to them absolute universabty 
 wherever the atoning love or forgiving grace of God is mentioned, is to place the 
 assumed universality of these doctrines on a truly slender foundation." — P. 60. 
 
150 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 imagined that the whole human race, the children of men without 
 exception, are to he then gathered together. 
 
 In corroboration of these remarks, I have pleasure in subjoining 
 the following from Mr Fuller: — "John, the writer of the epistle, 
 was a Jew, an apostle of the circumcision, in connexion with 
 Peter and John, Gal. ii. 9. The epistles of Peter and James were 
 each directed to the Jews (1 Pet. i. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 1 ; James i. 1); 
 and Dr Whitby acknowledges, concerning this epistle, that ' being 
 written by an apostle of the circumcision, it is not doubted but it 
 was written to the Jews.' The same is intimated by several 
 passages in the epistle itself. The fathers to whom he writes 
 (chap. ii. 13, 14), knew Christ from the beginning. In verse 18 of 
 the same chapter, he appears plainly to refer to our Lord's 
 prophecies concerning the awful end of the Jewish nation, and to 
 the false prophets who should come into the world previous to 
 that event." * 
 
 II. Having disposed of the principal passages in which the 
 terms world and whole world occur, it remains that we take some 
 notice of those in which we meet with the equivalent expressions 
 all men and every man. It will be found that the same rule of 
 interpretation is applicable to them. Indeed, it might be shown 
 by countless examples, both from the Scriptures and from all other 
 writings, that the expressions all and all men are frequently em- 
 ployed only in a limited sense. Nothing were more easy than 
 this. It has been done times without number, and done with 
 complete success, by Calvinistic writers in their disputes with the 
 Arminians. To me, however, it is not necessary. My object is 
 to show that, in reference to the extent of the Christian salvation, 
 the apostles of our Lord use the expressions all and all men, not 
 so much in a limited as in an indefinite sense. They look upon 
 mankind as consisting of two great classes — those to whom the 
 grace of God was restricted under the Old Testament, and those 
 to whom it is extended under the New. The one class was 
 limited, comprehending the Jews alone, the other is unlimited, 
 comprehending every kindred, and tribe, and people; in other 
 * Complete Works, pp. 227, 228. 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 151 
 
 words, when the apostles of our Lord speak of the Christian atone- 
 ment or Christian salvation, as being for all men or all people, the 
 meaning is not for all individually, but for all without regard to 
 national distinctions, for Gentiles and for Jews alike, the seed of 
 Abraham and the seed of the stranger. 
 
 1. The first passage to be noticed is Rom. v. 18, "Therefore, as 
 by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemna- 
 tion; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon 
 all men unto justification of life." This seems one of the most 
 decisive passages to which our brethren can appeal. The all men 
 in the one case must correspond in extent with the all men in the 
 other. If it did not, there would be no proper parallel, and the 
 whole force and beauty of the passage would be destroyed. It is 
 easy to see, however, that no absolute universality can be intended 
 in either case. If it were, consequences would follow which are 
 not true, and which our brethren repudiate as much as we. It 
 would follow, not only that there is atonement for all, but that all 
 shall eventually be saved. Justification of life, it will be admitted, 
 means nothing less than eternal salvation, and justification of life, the 
 apostle affirms, is secured for all men to the extent in which he 
 uses the expression in both clauses of the verse. What, then, are 
 our brethren compelled to do? They are compelled to acknow- 
 ledge that the all men in both clauses must be restricted. Dr 
 Wardlaw distinctly admits that it must be so, and labours to 
 prove, at considerable length, that while the two branches of the 
 parallel must be co-extensive, neither can denote "all men without 
 exception," but each must denote " all men without difference." * 
 What is the meaning of this language, " not all without exception," 
 but "all without difference?" It means, in plain English, not all 
 individually, but all classes and descriptions; or, if you select two 
 classes, it means both of them alike, the one as much as the other. 
 Of course, this is granting all we contend for. It is granting that 
 the universal expressions must not be understood universally; in 
 other words, that they must be taken, not in an absolute, but in 
 an indefinite sense, which, as every one must see, is abandoning 
 * Essays on Assurance and Universal Pardon, p. 304. 
 
152 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 the argument for universal atonement, in so far, at least, as this 
 passage is concerned. 
 
 If it be asked to what classification of men the apostle refers, 
 when he asserts that the " righteousness of one " extends to them 
 as the "offence of one" had done, not without exception, but 
 without difference, there can be little room for demurring with 
 regard to the answer. He can refer only to that classification of 
 men of which he has spoken so often and so explicitly in the pre- 
 ceding part of the epistle. He has " before proved," with regard 
 to " both Jews and Gentiles, that they were all under sin." By 
 an appeal to facts he has demonstrated, in the first chapter, that 
 the Gentiles having " sinned without law," were liable to " perish 
 without law;" by an appeal to some passages in the Old Testament 
 Scriptures, he has demonstrated in the third chapter that the 
 Jews, whose privilege it was to be "under the law," Avere in a 
 similar condition; and as these two classes comprehended the whole 
 race, he deemed himself warranted to say that " every mouth was 
 stopped," and that the "whole world was guilty before God." 
 Consequently, all were in equal need of the great salvation 
 revealed in the gospel, the salvation by the faith of Jesus Christ, 
 which was " unto all, and upon all," that believed, " without 
 difference," that is, without regard to national distinction. 
 
 In the fifth chapter, he traces the universal perdition of man- 
 kind to its primary source, the fall of Adam, our common father, 
 to whom Jews and Gentiles were equally related, and in doing so he 
 is naturally led to run the parallel between Adam and Christ, the 
 first and the second man, showing that as Jews and Gentiles were 
 exactly on the same footing with regard to the " one offence," so 
 were they exactly on the same footing also with regard to the "one 
 righteousness;" as the former had involved both in "condemna- 
 tion," the fruit of which was " death," so in the latter there was 
 provided for both " justification," the fruit of which was " life." 
 
 I say nothing of the " representation" of the first and the second 
 Adams, because I conceive any reference to that subject here 
 would be away from the purpose. It is usual, I know, for Cal- 
 vinistic writers to say that the "all men" on whom condemnation 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 153 
 
 comes, are those whom Adam represents, and the all on whom 
 justification comes are those whom Christ represents. Each has 
 his "seed;" the one a natural, the other a spiritual seed, who 
 share respectively in the merits or demerits of their respective 
 "heads." This, I believe, is a fact, and a fact of no ordinary 
 importance, yet it is not what the apostle means to affirm when 
 he employs the universal terms we are now considering. What 
 he means to affirm, as has already been stated, is, that as Jews and 
 Gentiles bore the same relation to Adam, and had the same fatal 
 interest in his offence, so they also bore the same relation to 
 Christ, and had the same happy interest in His salvation. 
 
 Enough has been said, I should think, to establish this point; 
 but there is another argument suggested by the passage before us 
 — an argument bearing on the general question between us 
 and our brethren, which must not be overlooked. Among the 
 numerous circumstances of resemblance, or of contrast between 
 the offence of the first Adam and the righteousness of the second, 
 none is more important, none more worthy of notice, than 
 the connection which each has with its appropriate results. 
 The offence of the first Adam infallibly brings death — nay, in point 
 of fact, it has actually brought death upon our entire race. Now, 
 has the righteousness of the second Adam no such efficacy, no 
 such certain connection between it and its fruits] So our brethren 
 are accustomed to say. According to them, the atonement does 
 nothing but remove obstructions. It leaves the Divine Being at 
 liberty to choose and to save, but that is all. It secures no justi- 
 fication, no life, no benefit of any sort. If benefits come, they come 
 not from it, but in consequence of a subsequent determination, " a 
 separate arrangement" on the part of the Most High. I ask if this be 
 doing justice to the " obedience" of the second Man, the Lord from 
 heaven 1 I ask if it be even doing justice to the apostle, who, on 
 comparing that "obedience" with the "disobedience" of the first 
 man, gives it the preference in every respect — representing it as 
 mightier far for the production of good, than that has been for the 
 production of evil] Wherever our brethren may have learned 
 their theology, it is pretty manifest they have not learned it in the 
 
154 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 school of this apostle. It is not his practice, in any part of his 
 writings, to represent the dying love of the Redeemer as destitute 
 of efficacy. Witness his language in another part of this very 
 chapter: " God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we 
 were yet sinners, Christ died for lis. Much more then, being now 
 justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. 
 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
 death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved 
 by His life." If there be meaning in language, a connection is 
 here asserted — an infallible connection — between the death of 
 Christ, and the eternal salvation of those for whom He died. 
 Deny this, and what a shock must you give to the comfort of 
 many a believing soul 1 Destroy such foundations, and what shall 
 the righteous do ? 
 
 2. Once I thought another passage to which this principle may 
 be applied is 2 Cor. v. 14, 15, "The love of Christ constraineth 
 us, because we thus judge, that if one died for all," etc. I had 
 written on this passage to the following effect : — " The all who were 
 dead, for whom the Saviour died, were mankind indefinitely con- 
 sidered, Gentiles as well as Jews — not Jews alone, as many in the 
 primitive churches might be apt to imagine, but Gentiles and Jews 
 together. The key to the whole passage is to be found in the 
 lGth verse, 'Wherefore, henceforth know we no man after the 
 flesh; yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now 
 henceforth know we Him no more.' That is, as Macknight has 
 well paraphrased the place: — 'From this time forth, in the 
 exercise of our ministry, we show respect to no man on account of 
 his being a Jew more than to another; and even if we have formerly 
 esteemed Christ on account of his being a Jew, yet now Ave esteem 
 him no more on that account.' As if he had said, since God has 
 revealed to us, the apostles, by His Spirit, the liberal nature of the 
 new dispensation, since we have come to understand that ' the wall 
 of partition' is broken down, that the Lord in Ilis mercy has visited 
 'the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name,' and that 
 there is no longer ' either Jew or Greek, circumcision or uncircum- 
 cision,' but that 'all' are 'one in Christ Jesus;' especially since we 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 155 
 
 have come to regard the blessed Jesus Himself, not simply as a 
 minister of the circumcision sent to raise up the tribes of Judah, 
 and to restore the preserved of Israel, but as '■ the desire of all 
 nations,' 'given for salvation to the ends of the earth,' destined to 
 ' gather together the children of God who are scattered abroad' 
 since we came to entertain these more enlarged views, the office 
 of the apostleship is exalted in our estimation, and in the exercise 
 of it 'the love of Christ constraineth us.' How noble is the 
 purpose for which He died 1 ? What obligations has He not imposed, 
 on all who live, to live to Him?" 
 
 If our brethren insist that the all for whom the Saviour died 
 are all men without exception, all who have been, or are, or shall 
 be, let them account for the introduction of this 16th verse. Let 
 them show how His dying, in this unlimited sense, afforded a 
 ground for the apostles declaring, or for Paul, in particular, declar- 
 ing, that he would henceforth disregard all Jewish distinctions — 
 that he would pay no more respect to a man for being a Jew than 
 for being a Gentile; nay, that he would not even think of the 
 blessed Jesus Himself as the Messiah of the Jews, but would 
 think of Him, and preach Him as the Saviour of the world. If 
 our brethren's interpretation of the text be admitted, they may be 
 called upon, they may be fairly challenged, to assign a probable 
 reason for this proceeding on the part of the apostle. 
 
 It may be expected, perhaps, that I should notice some critical 
 remarks which have been offered on the passage, from its being 
 observed that all who were dead are called the all, Si w&vTes, and 
 that those who live are called the living, 61 frvres. With regard to 
 this I would only say, that more has been made of the use of the 
 article in these cases than it will fairly bear. The Si wavres is 
 merely the antithesis of the «s, the one who dies for all and the 
 6't f cDvres is, in like manner, the antithesis of the rep airodavbirn ko.1 iyepdivn. 
 One thing, however, is worthy of notice, that " those who live " 
 are only a portion of the "all who were dead," and the idea 
 is suggested, that while Jews and Gentiles both were dead 
 in the most absolute sense, the Saviour died for both in an 
 indefinite sense, that out of both a living people might be 
 
156 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 collected, whom He should form for Himself to show forth His 
 praise. 
 
 On more mature consideration I am satisfied that the expression 
 were dead ought to be read " have died." If one died for all, than 
 all have died. If one died as a surety, representing all, standing in 
 the room of all, the all in whose room he stood virtually died with 
 him — his death was their death. This preserves the natural rela- 
 tion of airidavov to airtOavev, and, what is of yet more importance, 
 gives the due force to &pa, then, which is a logical particle implying 
 a logical inference. 
 
 This view of the passage has been given in a preceding chapter,* 
 so that more needs not be added here. The all of whom the 
 apostle speaks must mean all believers — himself and others whom 
 the love of Christ constrained. " After the flesh " must be applied 
 not, with Macknight, to Judaism, but to human life generally 
 speaking. Being dead with Christ, to live with Him is both our 
 privilege and our duty. We must reckon ourselves to be dead, 
 indeed, unto sin, but alive unto God, looking beyond all earthly 
 interests and earthly connections. Some of the apostles were 
 connected with Christ by consanguinity; all of them belonged to 
 the same nation, but that was a matter of little importance com- 
 pared with the relation they bore to Him as believers; for if that 
 relation was real, they had died with Him and risen with Him, 
 and entered upon a new existence. Accordingly it is added, " If 
 any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed 
 away; behold, all things are become new." 
 
 Taking the passage in this sense, which seems the true one, it also 
 suggests, like the last we considered, an argument on the general 
 question — an argument, indeed, which has occurred already, but 
 one which can scarcely be too often repeated. Those for whom 
 the Saviour died, whether Jews or Gentiles, are those also for 
 whom He " rose again." His resurrection was vicarious as well as 
 His death, and the same individuals were the objects of both. 
 Yet if this be so, who does not see that the scheme of our brethren 
 is cut up by the roots. According to them, the Saviour died 
 * Chap, iii., Section ii. (3.) 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 157 
 
 for all — for those who perish, not less truly, than for those who are 
 saved — for the inhabitants of hell, in all respects, as for the 
 inhabitants of heaven. Will they also affirm that He rose again 
 for all?— rose again in the name of all] — rose again as the living 
 Head and accepted Surety of all? If they do this, how can they 
 avoid the conclusion that all shall be saved 1 They must maintain 
 that His death and His resurection had different objects — that He 
 died in one capacity and rose in another; died for one class of men 
 and rose for another class. This they must maintain, or give up 
 their scheme; yet how can this be reconciled with the Scriptures. 
 The Scriptures never separate one part of His mediatorial work from 
 another part — never represent Him as doing one thing for one 
 portion of sinful men, and another thing for another portion. On 
 the contrary, they represent Him as uniting the blessings of salvation 
 in one indissoluble chain, and doing everything for those in whose 
 behalf He does anything, Rom. viii. 30. For whomsoever He died, 
 for them He also rose, for them He lives and reigns, for them He 
 ministers in the temple above, for them He performs the various 
 functions of the mediatorial office. Whatever He did, whatever He 
 suffered, when manifested in human nature, He did, He suffered, in 
 their name, and on their behalf. He died, and they are dead with 
 Him, Rom. vi. 8; He rose, and they are risen with Him, Col. iii. 1; 
 He ascended up on high, leading captivity captive, and they sit and 
 reign with Him in the heavenly places, Eph. ii. 6. 
 
 What is more, there is ground for affirming that He died under the 
 charge of their sins, .and that His resurrection was the consequence 
 of His being freed from that charge. " He was delivered for our 
 offences, and raised again for our justification," Rom. iv. 25. This 
 passage has also been considered in a former chapter,* but a word 
 in reference to it may be added here. He was raised again not 
 iu diKa.Lw<rii> 7]fj.wv in order to justify us, as many seem to imagine, 
 but, Sia tt]v 5iKaiw<riv v/awv, because of our justification; that is, be- 
 cause we, for whom He acted, were in some sense justified, in con- 
 sequence of what He had done. The whole process was strictly 
 legal, and must have been so, considering by whom it was conducted. 
 * Chap, iii., Section ii. (6.) 
 
158 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 He was delivered for our offences, made under the law which we 
 had violated, subjected to the curse which had been pronounced on 
 us; that curse being removed, we were virtually justified, the bond 
 of our condemnation was cancelled, the handwriting of ordinances 
 against us was blotted out, and the consequence was, our Surety 
 was liberated, was brought from prison and from judgment, Isa. 
 liii. 8; was justified by the Spirit, 1 Tim. iii. 16; the cords of 
 death were loosed, because it was not possible that he could be 
 holden of it, Acts ii. 24; and the ground was laid for proposing and 
 often repeating the triumphant questions, " Who shall lay anything 
 to the charge of God's elect] It is God that justifieth; who is he 
 that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen 
 again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh 
 intercession for us," Rom. viii. 33, 34. 
 
 This view of Eom. iv. 25 is not common, yet neither is it new. 
 " There was a necessity of His rising again," says a venerable 
 expositor, " not only because it was impossible for Him to corrupt 
 in the grave, but also for our cause, that thereby it might be 
 declared that He had fully satisfied justice in our behalf, and was 
 now sent out of prison." * Be this comment correct or incorrect — 
 to me it appears correct, but allowing it to be otherwise, the truth 
 I am maintaining is not the less unquestionable, that for whomso- 
 ever the Saviour died, for them also He rose again. 
 
 3. Another passage to which the same principle applies is 1 
 Tim. ii. 6, which Dr Owen designates " the first and chief place." 
 Before offering any remark on it, I shall take leave to set down a 
 considerable portion of the context, by the help of winch alone it 
 can be rightly understood. " I exhort therefore, that first of all 
 supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made 
 for all men; for kings, and for all that are in authority; that we 
 may lead a quiet and peaceable life, in all godliness and honesty. 
 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; 
 who will have all mm, to be saved, and to come to the knowledge 
 of the truth. For there is one God, and one Mediator between God 
 and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for all, 
 * Brown of Warnphray on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 165. 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 159 
 
 Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray 
 every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting," 1 
 Tim. ii. 1-8. 
 
 In reply to Arminians and others, who argue from this place in 
 favour of universal redemption, Calvinistic writers have been 
 accustomed to maintain that all men means all sorts of men; men 
 of every rank, and order, and condition. Scarcely need I say, 
 however, that this is not satisfactory. It may be true in point of 
 fact, and it may also derive some colour of probability from the 
 apostle having mentioned kings and others in authority; but it 
 certainly is not the proper reply. It is an example of what 
 logicians call the ignoratia elenchi, and tends to conceal rather than 
 to disclose the true meaning of the passage. 
 
 The all men whom God wills to be saved, and for whom Jesus 
 gave Himself a ransom, are all men without regard to national distinc- 
 tion — not Jews only, but Jews and Gentiles alike. This is the only 
 key that will unlock the passage, and this key, as we shall quickly 
 find, unlocks it easily and completely. 
 
 It must be remembered that Timothy, to whom the epistle is 
 addressed, while he exercised his ministry in all quarters of the 
 Christian world, exercised it chiefly amongst the Jewish converts; 
 it must be remembered that in many instances the Jewish converts 
 brought with them into the Christian church the prejudices they 
 had imbibed in their earlier years; and, in particular, it must be 
 remembered, that, influenced by these prejudices, not a few of 
 them openly called in question the authority of heathen rulers. 
 The law of Moses had said, " Thou shalt in any wise set him king 
 over thee whom the Lord thy God shall choose; one from among 
 thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou may est not set a 
 stranger over thee, who is not thy brother," Deut. xvii. 15. This law 
 was sufficiently explicit, and how was it to be reconciled with a 
 willing subjection to Roman magistrates, or any other magistrates, 
 not of the seed of Abraham] The question was one of serious import- 
 ance, and was agitated with no small degree of keenness both before 
 and after the introduction of Christianity. It was this that 
 induced the Pharisees, in their desire to embrod our Lord either 
 
160 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 with tlie rulers or with the people, to inquire of him publicly, 
 " Whether it was lawful to give tribute to Cesar]" It was this 
 that induced Paul, in writing to the Romans, to lay down 
 so explicitly tlie great Christian law of obedience to civil 
 rulers, enjoining every sovl to be subject to the higher powers. And 
 in the place before us, in writing to his son Timothy, upon whom, 
 like himself, came the care of the churches, the same consideration 
 induces him to enter pretty much at large into the same subject. 
 Not only were Christians to yield obedience to Gentile rulers, but, 
 what was more, they were to seek the stability of their govern- 
 ment, and to offer up public prayers in their behalf. 
 
 In this manner, the apostle decides the great practical question; 
 and what are the reasons he assigns for such a decision? They are 
 reasons which go to the very root of the prejudice which Timothy 
 was called to combat. Why, the law of Moses was now set aside, 
 the distinction which had existed between the seed of Abraham 
 and the rest of the world existed no more — Cod willed the salva- 
 tion of Gentiles and Jews alike — these two portions of mankind 
 were no longer twain, but one body — the enmity which divided them 
 was abolished — abolished by means inconceivably gracious — and 
 therefore all surmises about the lawfulness of Jewish, and 
 the unlawfulness of heathen, magistracy was to be quashed, 
 was to be condemned, as utterly unworthy of enlightened 
 Christians. 
 
 This, I submit, is the true interpretation of the place, and as a 
 proof of it we shall find that each subordinate clause receives, upon 
 this principle, an easy and consistent meaning. 
 
 " There is one God, and one Mediator between God and men, 
 the man Christ Jesus." " After God elected Abraham and his 
 posterity," says Macknight, " to be His visible church and people, 
 He called Himself the God of Israel, because no other nation knew 
 and worshipped Him. From God's taking to Himself this title, 
 the Israelites inferred that they Avere the oidy objects of His 
 favour, and that He took no care of the rest of mankind. But to 
 show the Jewish Christians the impiety of entertaining such 
 thoughts of God, the apostle put them in mind that the one God 
 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 161 
 
 show the Jewish Christians the impiety of entertaining such 
 thoughts of God, the apostle put them in mind that the one God 
 is equally related to all mankind as their Creator and Governor, 
 and that the one Mediator gave Himself a ransom for all." 
 
 " Who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in doc tunc." 
 That is, at the time the Saviour died it was not generally under- 
 stood, even among His own disciples, that He died for Gentiles 
 and Jews alike. Various statements had indeed been made on 
 the subject by Himself, by the Baptist, His forerunner, and by the 
 ancient prophets — statements which came to be well understood 
 afterwards; but at the moment, few, if any, apprehended their 
 meaning. The mystery which had been "hid from ages and 
 generations" was hidden still, and even those who trusted that He 
 should " redeem Israel," little thought of His redeeming any 
 others. The truth was disclosed gradually by steps which have 
 already been pointed out, and every reader of the New Testament 
 knows how the testimony was borne " in due time." 
 
 " Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, a teacher 
 of the Gentiles in faith and verity," — a statement this which the 
 apostle repeats in substance in many other places Avhen he has 
 occasion to combat the same prejudices he is combating here. 
 "Inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify 
 mine office," Eom. xi. 13. "By revelation He made known unto 
 me the mystery; as I wrote afore; which in other ages was not 
 made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His 
 holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; that the Gentiles 
 should be fellow-heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of His 
 promise in Christ by the gospel. Whereof I was made a minister, 
 according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by 
 the effectual working of His power. Unto me, who am less than 
 the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach 
 among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ," Eph. hi. 3-8. 
 
 " I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands 
 without wrath or doubting." That is, I intimate my mind with 
 the authority of an apostle, that men professing the faith of 
 Christ should drop at once and for ever their Jewish notions and 
 
162 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 Jewish customs, fancying that Jerusalem is the place where men 
 ought to worship — that there is any peculiar sanctity in any one 
 place more than in another, or that hands are holy enough to be 
 spread out before God in prayer, provided they be ceremonially 
 clean ; that is, washed after taking food, or after being employed in 
 secular business, although they derive little purity from the heart at 
 whose impulse they are lifted up. 
 
 I mention these things so much at length to show that the 
 passage, in the whole construction of it, has an aspect to the 
 distinction between Jews and Gentiles, and that in this way the 
 universal terms which occur in it are at once accounted for and 
 satisfactorily explained. 
 
 Let us now take the interpretation of our brethren, and see how 
 it will apply. According to our brethren, the all whose salvation 
 the great God wills, and the all for whom the Saviour gave Himself 
 a ransom, are mankind in the most universal sense — the children 
 of Adam individually, and without exception. I ask, then, 
 whence all this reference to Jewish prejudices and Jewish customs, 
 which I have just pointed out 1 ? Or whence the reference to Paul's 
 special commission as the apostle of the Gentiles'? What con- 
 ceivable connection have these things with the ransom of all 
 individually and without exception 1 ? Is the apostle so deficent in 
 the art, either of writing or of reasoning, as our brethren would 
 represent him to be 1 ? Is it his practice to interweave his paragraphs 
 with all sorts of extraneous and irrevelant matter] I presume 
 such a charge will hardly be advanced. On the contrary, it will 
 be admitted that there is always meaning in what he says, always 
 coherence; and that even overlooking his claim to inspiration, he 
 never fails to express himself like a person of sense. I defy any 
 man, however, to make sense of anything he introduces in the 
 passage before us, supposing him to mean what our brethren affirm 
 he does mean. 
 
 From what has been said,- it appears that, in interpreting this 
 passage, there is no need for having recourse to the well-known 
 distinction between God's revealed and His secret will. That 
 distinction, indeed, is a good and sound one, but in the present 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 1G3 
 
 instance it is not applicable. What the apostle means by God's 
 willing the salvation of all men, is simply, as Ave have shown, His 
 willing the salvation not of one nation exclusively, but of all 
 nations alike. If any man shall say, however, what multitudes 
 of our brethren have said, that the will of God, with regard to the 
 salvation of men, is iv^ulated by the atonement, and that a will 
 to save all, or the intimation of a desire that all should be saved, 
 implies that there is atonement for all — if any man shall say this, 
 we must remind him that there is a secret as well as a revealed 
 will; a will of purpose as well as a will of command} a will which 
 no man can resist, much less counteract; a will which never, in 
 any one instance, fails to be accomplished, and the failure of 
 which, in a single instance, would indicate a want of wisdom, or a 
 want of power, or a want of immutability, or all these together, 
 on the part of the Most High. We must tell him that there is such 
 a will as this by which all things are ordained — by which all things 
 come to pass; that in the exercise of this will the great God has not 
 determined that all shall be saved, and that, judging from the 
 purpose of this will, the inference seems to be that there is not 
 atonement for all. 
 
 In a word, if any man shall allege that the injunction to pray 
 for all men implies that there is atonement for all, we must 
 remind him again that all men, in this place, means all nations, 
 and that, understanding the expression in that sense, we have no 
 difficulty in making the admission. At the same time we may 
 tell such an objector that there are some for whom Ave are not to 
 pray — some who sin the sin unto death, for whom Ave are neither 
 enjoined nor warranted to pray, and we may ask him to reconcile 
 this Avith his sense of all men. By all men, he understands the 
 whole existing generation of men taken separately, and without 
 exception. He says, the passage before us requires him to 
 pray for every one of these. We may desire him, then, and 
 we do desire him, to place that passage side by side Avith the 
 other passage which forbids prayer for those guilty of the sin 
 unto death, and to try Avhat he can do in the Avay of harmonising 
 them. 
 
164 TEXTS WHICH EEPRESEXT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 4. Were I to notice all the passages to which this rule of 
 interpretation applies, I should extend the present Section to an 
 unreasonable length. I shall therefore content myself with refer- 
 ing to one passage more, Heb. ii. 9, which I do not recollect to 
 have seen very satisfactorily explained by the writers on either 
 side. The clause with which we have chiefly to do runs in these 
 words: — " That He by the grace of God should taste death, Sirkp 
 -iravrbs, for every man." Take this passage as it stands in the 
 common English version, and it seems to speak explicitly enough 
 in favour of the doctrine held by our brethren. Every man! can 
 that possibly mean all nations taken indefinitely'? What less can 
 it mean than the whole race taken severally and singly 1 ? So we 
 should be apt to conclude, were we to judge by the sound rather 
 than the sense — but let us see. 
 
 Dr Owen tells us that iiirkp wavrh for every one, is here used in- 
 stead of virep iravruv for all, by an enattage of the number;* — a 
 piece of criticism which seems rather arbitrary, inasmuch as no 
 appeal is made to either example or authority of any kind. We 
 may add, that while it is arbitrary, it is also of little value, for 
 when we have got all in place of every one, what better is our 
 position 1 ? The question must still be answered, " In what sense 
 did the Saviour taste death for all?" 
 
 Dr Macknight has a remark on the place, which seems scarcely 
 in unison with the sound critical discernment he usually exhibits. 
 Instead of every one he would read every • s '< / ". supplying the word 
 son from the following verse, where the main' sons are spoken of 
 whom the Captain of Salvation is bringing to glory. " The phrase 
 Birtp iravTos" he says, " may be thus supplied forty iravrbs mov, on 
 account of every son." This rendering, as the reader may perceive, 
 would be altogether in favour of the doctrine I am maintaining, 
 but I cannot see that it is justifiable on any grounds of rational 
 interpretation. The apostle had said nothing of sons in the pre- 
 ceding context, and lie must therefore, if Dr Macknight's con- 
 jecture be admitted, have been utterly unintelligible to his readers, 
 till he had come near to the close of the loth verse. He must 
 * On Redemption, Book iv., chap, iv., p. 258. 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 165 
 
 have expressed himself somewhat in the following way: "We 
 see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the 
 suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that He by 
 
 the grace of God might taste death for every ;" and his 
 
 readers must have been kept in a state of suspense, putting the 
 question, Fur every what ? till lie had conducted them through 
 the following statement — " For it became Him, for whom are all 
 things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto 
 glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through 
 sufferings." They might then, perhaps, after remaining so long 
 in the dark, have come to understand that the every for which the 
 Saviour had tasted death, was every one of the sons intended 
 for glory. Then they might possibly have made the discovery, 
 but not sooner. It must be obvious to every reader that this 
 is inadmissible. Who can imagine that the apostle, who 
 was a practised writer, could offend so egregiously against 
 p Tspieuity 1 
 
 The true account of tiirep iravrbs is discoverable at a glance, when 
 we cast our eyes over the passage in the original. The apostle 
 indulges in a species of alliteration. He quotes the passage from 
 the eighth Psalm, " Thou hast put all things irdvTa, under His 
 feet;" and having done so, he proceeds to descant on it, often 
 repeating the words -n-avTa and rd wavra. " In that He put all 
 things, to. irdvra under Him, He left nothing that was not put under 
 Him, but now Ave see not yet all things, rd iravra, put under Him ; 
 but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for 
 the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour, that He 
 by the grace of God might taste death " — not v-n-ep ram-bs; or, as Dr 
 Owen woidd have it, v-n-ep tw irdm-wv, for that would have meant, 
 in such a connection, not all men, but the universe ; the whole 
 creation, animate and inanimate, angels as well as men — but 
 i'-rrep iravrbs for a whole ; that is, the whole world indefinitely 
 considered, Gentiles and Jews together, the "twain" united into 
 one body, the "all things, both which are in heaven and which 
 are on earth," gathered together in one. 
 
 This interpretation, whatever others may think of it, cannot 
 
166 TEXTS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT 
 
 well be objected to by our brethren. Their great founder, the 
 celebrated Camero, may be quoted in support of it. In his 
 " Questions on the Epistle to the Hebrews," that writer comes to 
 inquire in what sense Christ is called the heir of all things, 
 Kkripovbfios Trdvrwv, and the answer he gives is, that the apostle, 
 in employing this title, refers to the second Psalm, where it 
 is said, " Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine 
 inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy posses- 
 sion." * 
 
 A better authority than Camero may be referred to, at least one 
 who is likely to have greater weight with modern readers. " 'T-n-ep 
 Tra^ros," says Professor Stuart, "means all men without distinction, i.e., 
 both Jew and Gentile." He further adds, " the same view is often 
 given of the death of Christ. See John iii. 14-17; iv. 42; xii. 32; 
 1 John ii. 2; iv. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 3, 4; Tit. ii. 11; 2 Pet, iii. 7. Com- 
 pare Eom. iii. 29, 30; x. 1 1—13. In all these and the like cases, the 
 all, and all men, evidently mean Jew and Gentile. They are words 
 opposed to the Jewish idea that the Messiah was connected appro- 
 priately and exclusively with the Jews, and that the blessings of 
 the kingdom were appropriately, if not exclusively, theirs. The 
 sacred writers mean to declare, by such expressions, that Christ 
 died really and truly, as well, and as much for the Gentiles as for 
 the Jews; that there is no difference at all in regard to the 
 privileges of any one who may belong to His kingdom, and that 
 all men without exception have equal and free access to it. But 
 the considerate interpreter, who understands the nature of this 
 idiom, will never think of seeking, in expressions of this kind, 
 proof of the final salvation of every individual of the human race. 
 Nor do they, when strictly scanned by the usus loquendi of the 
 New Testament, decide directly against the view of those who 
 advocate what is called a particular redemption." f 
 
 Such is a specimen of the texts to which this principle of 
 
 * Quo sensu Christns dicatur KXrjpovo/nos iravTUv ? Respexit auctor Epistolse 
 ad ilium, Ps. 2. locum : Postula a me et dabo gentes hcereditatem tuam, etc. — 
 Qucest. in Epist. Jlcb. Operum, torn iii., p. 144. 
 
 + Commentary on the Hebrews, vol. ii., p. 52. 
 
 
AS OF A GENERAL NATURE. 167 
 
 interpretation may be applied. The list might be extended to a 
 much greater amount were it deemed necessary. There are also 
 other principles, suggested by particular contexts, by which 
 numerous passages, apparently favourable to a universal atonement, 
 are satisfactorily explained. These do not come in our way at 
 present. To a few of them, perhaps, we may advert afterwards. 
 
CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Section I.— @z\xnul Statement. 
 The call of the gospel is allowed on all hands to be universal. 
 The brethren who differ from us on so many other points, differ 
 not from us on this. The following statement from the pen of 
 Dr Wardlaw is one to every word of which we can cordially 
 subscribe : — " There can be no question as to the point of fact 
 respecting the invitations and offers of the gospel, that they are 
 perfectly free, unrestricted, universal. Even had there been no 
 such thing as any sovereign purpose respecting individuals at all, 
 they could not have been more so than they are. Specimens in 
 proof of this might be multiplied. It is unnecessary. I mention 
 only a few out of many, Isa. lv. 1, ' Ho, every one that thirsteth, 
 come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money : come ye, buy, 
 and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and with- 
 out price.' Isa. xlv. 22, ' Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the 
 ends of the earth ; for I am God, and there is none else.' Isa. 
 lv. 6-8, ' Seek ye the Lord while He may be found, call ye upon 
 Him while He is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the 
 unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, 
 and He will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for He Avill 
 abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 
 neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.' Matt. xi. 28, 
 ' Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will 
 give you rest.' Ezek. xxxiii. 11, ' Say unto them, as I live, saith 
 the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but 
 that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from 
 your evil ways; for why will ye die, house of Israel?' Rev. 
 xxii. 17, ' The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 169 
 
 heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And 
 whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.' Thus it 
 was in the whole practice of the apostolic ministry. Whitherso- 
 ever these commissioned ambassadors went, whether to Jews or 
 to Gentiles — it was ever the same. They presented to all, with- 
 out distinction or exception, the offer of free pardon and salvation, 
 through the atoning blood of Jesus. They were under no 
 restraint. Their language everywhere was — ' Repent, and be 
 baptized in the name of Jesus, for the remission of your sins.' 
 ' Through this Man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins ; 
 and by Him all that believe are justified from all tilings, from 
 which ye c ould not be justified by the law of Moses.' Wherever 
 they found a man they found a sinner, and in every sinner one to 
 whom, without waiting a single moment to inquire into any parti- 
 culars of his character or condition — and far less bethinking them- 
 selves of any secret purposes of heaven, or decrees of divine 
 sovereignty regarding him — they felt themselves warranted in- 
 stantly to present the assurance, on his believing their testimony, 
 of a free, full, and permanent remission of all his sins through 
 the blood of the cross. Such is the unquestionable matter of fact, 
 that all are invited to pardon and life; nay, that all are com- 
 manded to believe the tidings of salvation, as being to them, and 
 for their acceptance and consequent benefit."* 
 
 In a former treatise on this subject the following passage occurs: — 
 With the views I entertain, I feel myself under no restraint; I 
 can say with all freedom, and I do say to every sinner, " Believe 
 in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." I can invite 
 all who thirst to come to the waters, assuring them that coming they 
 shall not find the fountain dry. I can tell the maimed, the halt, the 
 blind, the promiscuous multitudes by the highways and hedges, 
 that they are bidden to the marriage supper, and by way of 
 solicitation I can add that the table is prepared, that the oxen and 
 the fatlings are killed, and that all things are ready. If the 
 doctrine I hold left me not at liberty to use such terms, if it 
 warranted me not to proclaim that the blessings of salvation 
 
 * Discourses on the Atonement, pp. 96-98. 
 W 
 
170 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 are free to all, free as the light or the air of heaven, and that 
 every man of every character may come and partake of them, if he 
 only will, — if any doctrine I hold were found, on examination, to 
 embarrass me, less or more, in making such an exhibition of 
 the grace of God, I hesitate not to say I would relinquish that 
 doctrine, I would re-examine it, and correct it, bringing it more 
 into accordance with the Holy Scriptures; and if I found much 
 difficulty in the process, if I found the necessity imposed on me of 
 resorting to metaphysical refinements, or of making gratuitous 
 assertions; that is, of leaping over gaps where I found no sure 
 footing — if I found myself so circumstanced, I would instantly 
 pause. I would say, "This I hold cannot be right; let me 
 abandon it and embrace the truth." I find no need, however, 
 for any such correcting or modifying of opinions. In publishing 
 the tidings of great joy, I am as unembarrassed as I could desire. 
 Christ is set forth as " a propitiation through faith in His blood," 
 that the "righteousness of God" may be declared "for the remission 
 of sins; " Christ is lifted up "as Moses lifted up the serpent in the 
 wilderness, that whosoever believeth in Him, should not perish, but 
 have eternal life;" "God is in Christ reconciling the world unto 
 Himself, not imputing to them their trespasses." These things I 
 can proclaim with all freedom, and what can any man do more?" 
 
 These sentiments, formerly avowed, I feel no wish to qualify; 
 yet it is not to be concealed that the subject is one of vast difficulty. 
 Many points require to be discussed, which it is much easier to 
 discuss than to settle. Our object in the following inquiry must 
 be not in any way to limit the invitations of the gospel, not to 
 impose on them any sense different from the obvious and literal 
 sense, but to reconcile them, if possible, with the doctrines pre- 
 viously laid down. I say, if possible, not entertaining the slightest 
 doubt with regard to the views about to be advanced, but only 
 apprehensive, in some degree, lest through any failure of mine 
 these views, which I deem of no ordinary importance, should not 
 be placed before my readers in a light so convincing as I could 
 wish. One thing is clear, there must be a ground for the unlimited 
 invitation — a ground ample and sufficient, fully vindicating 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 171 
 
 the divine sincerity, while at the same time it warrants every 
 sinner of every description to believe, and leaves him who believes 
 not, without excuse. 
 
 The question is, what is that ground 1 ? I shall quickly show that, 
 be what it may, it cannot be the existence of a universal atone- 
 ment. 
 
 Section II. — oTIjc Smforsaliig of % Call not fotmbeb on % 
 
 (Llmbcrsalifg of % §Uoiumeni. 
 This to some seems paradoxical. They take the very opposite 
 to be the truth. How can the invitation be universal, they say, if 
 the atonement be limited ? Must not the extent of the offer cor- 
 respond with the extent of the provision 1 Must not the measure 
 of the one be the exact measure of the other; and if all be invited 
 to believe on Christ must not Christ have died for all 1 ? The 
 conclusion seems plausible enough, and is eagerly grasped at by 
 many, yet is it not free from fallacy. Indeed, it involves a 
 multitude of fallacies, some of which may, without much 
 diffculty, be pointed out. Did Christ rise again for all, that is, 
 in order that in His life they might live also 1 Or did He ascend 
 into heaven for all; that is, in order to prepare a place for them 1 
 Or did He enter within the veil for all; that is, go to intercede 
 for them, with the intercession which never fails'? Or has He 
 engaged to bring all finally to glory, presenting them before 
 the throne of His Father with exceeding joy 1 This, I presume, 
 will hardly be pretended. Yet is any man invited to believe on 
 Christ, who is not invited and commanded to believe on Him as 
 having done, or as doing all this 1 Nay, in point of fact, does any 
 man really believe on Christ, or partake of His salvation, who does 
 not believe on Him as doing or having done all this? How, then, 
 can the foundation of the call be universal atonement 1 It seems 
 to be proved beyond all contradiction that it is not. If the 
 Saviour's dying for all be an essential pre-requisite to all being 
 invited to believe on Him, then His rising for all, and His 
 ascending for all, and His interceding for all, and His engaging 
 to bring all finally to glory, must be so many other pre-requisites, 
 
172 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 not less essential, to the same thing. The brethren who differ from 
 us will scarcely insist on this. Yet if they give it up they must 
 also give up their favourite conclusion, and admit that the 
 foundation of the call, be it what it may, cannot be a universal 
 ransom. 
 
 Section III. — fg % grounb of % ffiniforsal (fall % Infinite 
 SSnffimncg 1 
 
 This, if I mistake not, is what the great majority of our writers 
 avow, yet I apprehend that in doing so they act rather 
 incautiously. They are liable to be caught in a snare from which, 
 so far as I can see, it is not easy to escape. The question is one 
 Avhich Dr Wardlaw has discussed at great length in the third of 
 his discourses on the atonement, and it must be admitted, with 
 no small dexterity and force of argument. In my opinion, he has 
 in this instance clearly the advantage over his opponents, and the 
 reason is they have, without any necessity, taken up ground 
 which seems not very tenable. He lays it down as an unquestion- 
 able position that the call must be consistent with the " extent of 
 the provision made," as well as with the " divine sincerity," and 
 in connection with this position he takes a view of what he calls 
 the three schemes of atonement — the exact equivalent scheme, 
 the scheme of infinite sufficiency with limited destination; and the 
 universal scheme, universal in every sense of the word. These 
 three schemes he examines in succession, inquiring how far each 
 of them agrees, or agrees not, with the fore-mentioned test. 
 
 From the first or exact equivalent scheme he passes at once, 
 because he finds no one supporting it. On the contrary, he finds 
 it explicitly disavowed, and he quotes Dr W. Symington as 
 admitting that if it were true the salvation of any others besides 
 those who are actually saved would be a " natural impossibility." 
 This language Dr W., as might be expected, highly approves of, 
 and he proceeds to show what, I think, it must be admitted he 
 does with seeming success, that the same "natural impossibility" 
 is to be encountered upon Dr Symington's own doctrine, the 
 
 doctrine of infinite sufficiency with limited destination. Is this 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 173 
 
 language quite accurate 1 The reason why God cannot save men 
 without an atonement is not certainly of a physical but of a 
 moral nature. It is not because He wants the power, but because 
 His holiness, and justice, and truth, will not allow His power to 
 be exerted in such a way. Why, then, talk of a natural 
 impossibility 1 ? 
 
 Before attending to this, however, I deem it proper, notwith- 
 standing all I have said on this subject already, to make a short 
 digression, for the purpose, if possible, of freeing our theory, at 
 once and for ever, from any affinity with what our opponents 
 call the commercial, or exact equivalent scheme, and with which 
 they are perpetually and wrongfully taunting us. To this scheme, 
 although it has been formally disavowed, Dr W. shows a strong 
 propensity to refer, perhaps because it affords him an opportunity 
 of saying plausible things. In this Discourse, at page 109, I find 
 him denying that the atonement can be regarded as " involving 
 such a legal satisfaction as lays the Supreme Ruler under an 
 obligation of justice to pardon and save all for whom it was 
 made;" and calling to his aid the authority of Mr Fuller, who 
 says, " he doubts whether the Moral Governor of the world can be 
 considered, as by the atonement, laid under any such kind of 
 obligation to show mercy to sinners, as a creditor is under to 
 discharge a debtor, on having received full satisfaction at the 
 hands of a surety." 
 
 With all deference be it spoken — with the utmost deference to 
 such men as Mr F. and Dr W. — this representation of matters 
 arises from a great mistake. It betrays a wrong conception of the 
 nature of our Lord's ransom, of the ground on which mercy flows 
 through Him to sinners, and also of what, properly speaking, con- 
 stitutes the sufficiency of His atonement. It cannot be denied 
 that our blessed Lord gave Himself a ransom for us — that He 
 bought us with a price — that He redeemed us, not with corruptible 
 things, but with His own precious blood. What does this mean? 
 It must have a definite meaning ; what is it 1 There needs be no 
 referring to debtors and creditors among men, or to the difference 
 between debts and sins; our blessed Lord redeemed us, as has 
 
174 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 been again and again remarked, by buying us off from the curse 
 
 01 the law. "H/xas e^yopacrev £k ttjs Kardpas tov vbfxov, yei>6p.evos inrep ^p.wv 
 
 Kardpa." We were slaves under the dominion of sin, we were 
 criminals under the sentence of the law, and the price paid for us 
 was the enduring of the curse. In this way our blessed Lord 
 laid down His life for us, in this way He paid the debt we had 
 incurred, in this way He bought us Avith a price, the price of His 
 own blood — and how, I would ask, how does this prevent the 
 exercise of grace? Our brethren, with whom we have this 
 discussion, are constantly crying out that, according to our notion 
 of satisfaction, there is no room for grace. The great God is 
 bound in justice to save us, and if His saving us be an act of 
 justice, how can it be at the same time an act of mercy? We 
 reply that it is an act of mercy and of justice both. Both the 
 divine attributes concur in the matter, and both are glorified. 
 Justice is appeased, and mercy flows forth — flows forth instantly and 
 without restraint. The mighty barrier is broken down which kept 
 it from flowing forth, and there is no longer any hindrance either 
 to its freeness or to its saving power; none but the unsearchable 
 counsel of God, none but His purpose according to election — a 
 purpose which guided the intentions of the Saviour in dying, and 
 guides, and will always guide, the operations of that grace which 
 reigns through righteousness unto eternal life. 
 
 From all this it is easy to see what gives infinite sufficiency to 
 our Lord's atonement, and that its sufficiency must be infinite, because 
 it opens to us the flood-gates of infinite mercy. Tt reconciles sinners 
 to God, and henceforth they live in the light of His countenance, 
 enjoying His favour, which is life; His loving kindness, which is 
 better than life. Doubtless there are other circumstances which 
 contribute, and contribute materially, to the value of His work. 
 The sacrifice which He offered was the sacrifice of Himself — and 
 Himself was no other than the Lord from heaven, the Son of the 
 living God. This gave a degree <>f irorth to all He did, and all 
 He suffered, of which we can form no conception ; but the result is, 
 what we can conceive clearly enough, the infinite sufficiency of His 
 mediatorial work for effecting our salvation, rescuing us from our 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 175 
 
 sins, restoring us to the image of God, and exalting us to eternal 
 life — all, by extending to us, in its unstinted fulness, that stream of 
 mercy which in virtue of what He has done flows without measure, 
 and shall flow without end. Let us hear no more, then, of the 
 exact equivalent scheme, of the commercial atonement, of the 
 pitiful pounds shillings and pence principle? Let our brethren 
 learn to speak, if not with more respect for us, at least with more 
 reverence for the Holy Scriptures. 
 
 We now return to what Dr W. calls the second scheme, that of 
 infinite sufficiency with limited destination. He finds the respected 
 writer whom he selects as an antagonist in this matter granting that, 
 according to the first or exact equivalent scheme, the salvation of 
 any besides those who are actually saved would be a "natural impos- 
 sibility;" and he asks, and asks triumphantly, if, in this resjject, 
 there be any difference between the second scheme and the first? 
 " On the scheme of exact equivalent," he says, " whence is it that 
 the natural impossibility arises? Whence but from the circum- 
 stance that the value or sufficiency of the atonement having been 
 limited, by the deserts of a certain number, there was no atone- 
 ment for the rest? It is from this, from there being no atone- 
 ment for the rest, that the rest cannot consistently be invited to 
 pardon, and to the other blessings of salvation. Xow the very 
 same is the case with the limited destination scheme." The 
 inference seems fairly drawn, and not to be evaded; nor, upon the 
 whole, do I regret much to see a statement so exposed which I 
 have always regarded as somewhat incorrect and unsatisfactory, 
 besides affording to the adversary a needless advantage. " To 
 bring news to a bankrupt," says Archbishop Usher, "that the king 
 of Spain hath treasure enough to pay a thousand times more than he 
 owes, may be true, yet yields but cold comfort to him, the miserable 
 debtor; sufficiency, indeed, is requisite, but it is the word of pro- 
 mise that gives comfort." * In the following section I shall 
 endeavour to point out the true basis of the gospel call, and I 
 trust I may be able to do so to the satisfaction of every reader. The 
 scheme of limited destination, with infinite sufficiency, must not 
 
 * Letter on the Satisfaction of Christ. 
 
176 THE GALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 be given up; were we giving it up, all we contend for would be 
 surrendered, but it must be cautiously and correctly stated. 
 
 The third scheme according to Dr W. is " unembarrassed with 
 any difficulty." The invitation is to all, and the atonement is for 
 all — and what more can be desired 1 ? There is difficulty, however, 
 whether Dr W. perceive it or not; not one difficulty, but many, 
 and some of them of a nature not to be got over either by him or 
 by any other man. What does Dr W. say to the arguments for 
 the Redeemer's Suretyship in a former chapter of this treatise, 
 (chap, iii., section 4) — a long array of arguments, not one of them 
 depending on another, but each conclusive of itself] Has Dr "W. 
 answered these arguments, or can he answer them ] One thing 
 is clear, they must first be disposed of before the universality of 
 the atonement can be admitted, and consequently before the 
 agreement of that kind of atonement with the universal call can 
 be regarded as of any value. This is enough to show that the 
 scheme is not quite so " unembarrassed with difficulty" as its 
 abettors imagine. 
 
 Again, what sort of atonement is it which, according to the 
 universal scheme, the gospel call announces 1 " It is," says Dr 
 W., "an atonement FOR SIN — an atonement whose value is so 
 unlimited, so strictly and properly infinite, that on the ground of 
 its merits, had God so willed it, fallen angels might have been 
 saved as well as fallen men." " In a very important sense," he 
 adds, " the atonement may, with the strictest and most reverential 
 propriety, be said to have been FOR God."* This may be said, 
 no doubt, but before saying it, we ought to look at the Scriptures 
 and inquire what they say. I ask if the Scriptures represent the 
 atonement as an atonement for God 1 I ask if, on the contrary, 
 they do not uniformly represent it as an atonement for sinners 1 
 Take a few passages almost at random: — Eph. v. 2, " Christ hath 
 loved us, and hath given Himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice 
 to God for a sweet-smelling savour." Eph. v. 25, 26, "Christ 
 also loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might 
 sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word." 
 
 ■ I 'age 100. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 177 
 
 2 Cor. v. 14, "The love of Christ constraineth us; because we 
 thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead : and that 
 He died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto 
 themselves, but unto Him who died/or them, and rose again." 2 Cor. 
 viii. 9, "Ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who, though 
 He was rich, yet for your sokes became poor, that ye through 
 His poverty might be rich." 1 Cor. xv. 3, " I delivered unto 
 you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died 
 for our sins according to the Scriptures." 1 Peter ii. 24, " Who 
 His own self, bare our sins in His own body on the tree." 1 Peter 
 iii. 18, "Christ also hath once suffered for us, the just for the 
 unjust, that He might bring us to God." Rev. i. 5, " Unto Him 
 that loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and 
 hath made us kings and priests unto God, and His Father; to 
 Him be glory and dominion for ever and ever." Isaiah liii. 4-6, 
 "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorroivs: yet we 
 did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted: but He 
 was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our 
 iniquities: the chastisement of our peace Avas upon Him; and with 
 His stripes we are healed All we, like sheep, have gone astray; 
 we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath 
 laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Verse 8, " He was cut off out of 
 the land of the living : for the transgression of my people was He 
 stricken." This is the atonement spoken of in the Scriptures. I 
 ask whether it is for God or for sinners 1 Hardly need I ask 
 whether the authority of Dr W., or the authority of the Scriptures, 
 is to be preferred. It is long since a venerable man * remarked, 
 deeming it a sufficient objection to the universal scheme, that, 
 according to that scheme, the atonement was — pro Deo non pro 
 miseris peccatoribus. 
 
 Again, it appears to us that the atonement which the gospel 
 call announces, and the blessings which it invites men to enjoy, 
 according to the universal scheme is no atonement at all. It wants 
 the essential attributes of an atonement. It involves in it no 
 satisfaction to the justice of God. How can the justice of God be 
 
 * Samuel Rutherford. 
 X 
 
178 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 satisfied when His law is not fulfilled, when its precepts are not 
 obeyed, nor its penalty endured 1 ? Yet according to the universal 
 scheme, as expounded by our brethren, no such tiling is done. Dr 
 Payne tells us that the law does not admit of a substitute, and 
 that had the law been fulfilled there would have been no mercy ; 
 every sinner would have been destroyed. Dr Wardlaw tells us 
 that in the salvation of sinners — we cannot call it in their justification, 
 but in their salvation — the law is set aside. It is suspended, 
 superseded, over-ruled. Where then, I ask, is there any satisfac- 
 tion to justice 1 ? How can the great God be just in justifying the 
 ungodly who believe 1 ? And of what value is the atonement, 
 which the gospel call announces, if these things be so? What 
 though the call be not embarrassed by any difficulty 1 ? What 
 though it be free, in the most unlimited sense of the word! Does 
 it offer any real advantage, or can guilty men, by embracing it, be 
 saved 1 ? It seems clear enough, that the atonement which such a call 
 sets forth is not the atonement of Christ. Christ has " magnified 
 the law, and made it honourable." He has fulfilled its obligations, 
 and satisfied its demands. What the law could not do, in that it 
 was weak through the flesh, God has done. Sending His own Son 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh and as a sacrifice for sin, He has 
 condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might 
 be fulfilled in us. 
 
 In the gospel He sets Him forth as a propitiation through faith 
 in His blood, to " declare His justice " in the remission of sins. By 
 His obedience we are made righteous, nay, in some sense more than 
 righteous, righteousness itself, the righteousness of God; and 
 though we neither obey nor suffer in our own pei'sons, yet doing 
 both in Him, the law which justifies us is not set aside but estab- 
 lished. "Do we then make void the law through faith? God 
 forbid; yea, we establish the law." Again I ask what benefit can 
 accrue from a universal call, whether it be unembarrassed or 
 otherwise, if the good it holds out be something else than the 
 good provided in the gospel of Christ? 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 179 
 
 Section IV.— Sgaijaf is % true basis of ilje Gospel Call i 
 In answering this question, which is none of the easiest, I 
 would be found throwing out no novel or questionable opinions. 
 My desire is to adhere as closely as possible to the beaten track, and 
 to avow only what has been avowed by others before rue. Yet if, 
 in following my own judgment, and speaking in my own way, I 
 should at any time seem to differ, or should differ in reality, less 
 or more, in thought or in expression, from writers of reputation, 
 belonging to what is usually called the orthodox school, I trust 
 my readers will be candid enough to compare what is said with 
 the unerring rule of Holy Scripture, and to judge accord- 
 ingly. One thing I disavow — the affectation of singularity. "Were 
 my views singular to any extent, I would doubt their soundness. 
 There is great satisfaction in thinking that the sentiments one 
 advances on the sublime doctrines of theology are the sentiments 
 of God's people — of the truly enlightened and the truly pious, 
 whether of our own or of other times ; and this satisfaction I am 
 happy to say is mine. 
 
 "When we speak of the ground of the gospel call, we may mean 
 one or other of two things. Either we may mean the ground on 
 which the great God proceeds in issuing that call, or we may mean 
 the ground on which we, His ministers, proceed in publishing it to 
 our fellow-men. With regard to the latter, there is no difference 
 of opinion, and can be none. The ground on which we proceed 
 is the authority of God our Saviour — the authority of Him who 
 said, " Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature; he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not 
 shall be condemned." In another point of view, it is not so much 
 the authority of the Son of God Himself as of the Father who 
 sent Him. It is the "witness" which God has "testified of His 
 Son. This is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life; 
 and this life is in His Son. He that hath the Son hath life ; and 
 He that hath not the Son of God hath not life," 1 John v. 9-11. 
 John iii. 18, " He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but 
 he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not 
 
180 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God." It needs 
 no argument to show that, so far as we the preachers of the 
 word are concerned, this is the sole foundation of the gospel 
 call, and that it requires no other. 
 
 With regard to the ground on which the great God proceeds in 
 issuing the call, and in commanding us to publish it to every 
 creature, we have only to consider for a moment the nature of the 
 atonement, of which so much has been said. In the first place, there 
 can be no doubt about its sufficiency, its absolute and unbounded 
 sufficiency. Next, there can be no doubt about its suitableness, its 
 complete adaptation to the condition and character of every sinful 
 man, let him be ever so guilty, or vile, or helpless. And lastly, as 
 little can there be any doubt about its acceptance with God, its 
 being well pleasing in His sight, a sacrifice of a sweet- smelling 
 savour, bringing the highest glory to His name, satisfying His 
 justice, fulfilling His law, and removing out of the way every 
 obstacle that hindered the egress of His mercy. Now these three 
 circumstances, especially the last, I cannot but regard as laying a 
 ground, the surest, the amplest, the most unexceptionable, that 
 could be desired — for offering salvation to every human being 1 ? 
 What is there that hinders salvation from reaching any human 
 being, any lost child of Adam, in any quarter of the globe? What 
 but the violated law of God 1 ? What but the spotless rectitude of 
 His nature, which dictated that law, which annexed to the breach 
 of it the penalty of death, and which maintains, and will always 
 maintain, the honour of it untarnished ? Has this penalty then been 
 endured, has this broken law been vindicated, has the justice from 
 which it emanates, and which guards it like a flaming sword, 
 been fully appeased, and what is to prevent the salvation of any 
 sinner under heaven] Nothing but what is to be found in himself. 
 Nothing but the state of his own perverse mind. In other words, 
 nothing but his unbelief. Who does not see, then, the amplest 
 and most sufficient ground for the gospel call? Who does not see 
 with what propriety the great God, in consistency with truth and 
 justice, and every moral perfection, may offer eternal life to man- 
 kind promiscuously, and may enforce the offer, as He does enforce 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 181 
 
 it, by every persuasive argument? Admit that the atonement 
 consists in the fulfilling of the law, as sin, for which it is the 
 remedy, is the transgression of the law — only admit this, and all 
 difficulty about the gospel call vanishes at once. Salvation is 
 within the reach of every human being; if he will not put it away, 
 he may come and take of the water of life freely; and if he refuse to 
 come, or to take, the blame and the ruin are both his own. Where, 
 then, is the difficulty 1 ? Our brethren indeed who maintain that 
 the atonement was not the fulfilling of the law; that the law cannot 
 be fulfilled except by the sinner's destruction ; and that Christ died 
 under another law, or under no law at all — our brethren, who hold 
 sentiments of that kind, may still feel a difficulty, but other men, 
 I should think, can feel none. 
 
 " Thou art to believe," says Mr Traill, " that there is no impedi- 
 ment or hindrance, neither on God's part nor thine, to hinder thee 
 from partaking of Christ, if thou be willing. This is a part of that 
 faith which answers the faithfulness of God in the promise of the 
 gospel, and which a poor creature should believe very firmly, viz., 
 that there is no impediment on God's part, nor on our part, to 
 hinder our partaking of Christ according to God's offer, if v:e accept 
 of Him. The impediment on our part is sin, the impediments on 
 God's part are law and justice. The Lord hath declared these 
 shall not stand. The law and justice stand in no man's way to 
 hinder him from partaking of Christ, neither shall sin hinder him, 
 for the offer is made to all men as sinners, whatsoever they have 
 been, or whatsoever they are" (Steadfast Adherence to the Profession 
 of our Faith, p. 160). "All men that live where the gospel is 
 preached have alike right to believe on Christ Jesus. No man 
 has a right in Christ till he is a believer; there are secret purposes 
 and thoughts in God's heart where to apply His grace; but in the 
 public dispensation of it all are alike far off, and have alike equal 
 right to believe. There is not a poor creature on the face of the 
 earth, living where the gospel is preached, but he has as much 
 right to believe on Christ for the salvation of his soul, as Saul had 
 when he went to Damascus" (Ibid., p. 364). 
 
 These are the words of an eminently good man, whose writings 
 
182 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 have been of great service in the church, and who will always he 
 held in the highest esteem by serious readers. It were easy to 
 add other testimonies not less explicit, and something of the kind 
 I contemplate by-and-by, but in the meanwhile I would remark 
 that what has just been stated must not be considered as amount- 
 ing to the doctrine of universal atonement. The impediment 
 existing in the sinner himself, although it is his sin, although it is 
 his condemnation, is yet to him insuperable, and must always 
 remain insuperable, unless his deliverance from it have been 
 secured by the great Surety. He has a right to Christ, as Mr 
 Traill shows— the freest, the most unqualified right; but he has no 
 right in Christ except by faith, which is not of himself, being the 
 gift of God. He is a rational creature; is free to choose and to 
 refuse; he has all the natural faculties for believing, but he wants 
 the moral faculty. In other words, he wants the will ; he wants 
 the heart ; he is alienated from spiritual things — his mind is enmity 
 against God; he is a prisoner in chains, and who shall break his 
 chains'? he is a criminal under condemnation, and who shall repeal 
 his sentence? The gospel is preached to him for the obedience of 
 faith, by which alone this purpose is accomplished. If he believes, 
 he is set free; if he believes not, he remains under bondage. It is 
 easy, then, to see the difference between the ransomed and the 
 unransomed; those for whom the Surety has engaged, and those 
 for whom He has not engaged. Both are under the sentence of 
 the law when the message of salvation comes to them; and it 
 comes to them precisely on the same ground, is proposed to them 
 precisely in the same terms, not less free, not less unobstructed in 
 the one case than in the other; the one individual inclines his ear 
 and is saved, the other shuts his ear and remains under condem- 
 nation. What shall we say to these things'? We can only say 
 with the worthy Mr Traill, that God has His secret thoughts in 
 applying His grace, which secret thoughts He has had from the 
 beginning. 
 
 The salvation of Christ is therefore a limited salvation. He 
 came to save a select people — those who had been "given Him" — 
 those who had been " chosen in Him before the foundation of the 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 183 
 
 world" — those who had been "predestinated in Him to the adop- 
 tion of children." He loved the church, and gave Himself for it ; 
 He purchased the church with His own blood; He laid clown His 
 life for the sheep; He redeemed a people by His blood, "out of 
 every kindred, and tongue, and nation." With regard to this 
 there seems no room for dispute ; but how then is the offer of sal- 
 vation universal] How comes it to pass that what was intended 
 only for some is presented to all, and that many are called, when 
 it was known beforehand that few would be chosen? Is this con- 
 sistent with integrity? Or is it worthy of God? I answer, is there 
 anything inconsistent with integrity, anything unworthy of God, 
 in testing every man by his own choice — in making his choosing 
 life, or rejecting it, the immediate ground of his happiness or 
 misery? Is it unworthy of God to say to a sinner, here is a salva- 
 tion which shall be yours, if you embrace it? It is a limited salva- 
 tion — limited in its extent. It is intended only for some, it will 
 be ultimately enjoyed only by some ; but I have made every man's 
 own choice the condition of his enjoying it, and on that condition 
 it shall be yours. With my purpose in providing it you have 
 nothing to do; thai in the meanwhile is secret; it will come to be 
 known by-and-by; but I call upon you, if you regard your own 
 interest, to believe my word. Your believing or not believing my 
 word is what shall determine your doom. I do not say that the 
 salvation is provided for you in particular; I do not say for whom 
 it is provided in particular; that is a matter not yet disclosed — a 
 matter into Avhich you have no right to inquire ; but I tell you it 
 is provided for sinful men — for men of your character — for men 
 in your condition. It is needed by you, it is suited to you, it 
 is brought near to you, it is freely offered to your acceptance. 
 Embrace it, you shall live; reject it, and you shall perish. 
 
 This, I should think, it will be admitted, is a fair statement of 
 the case, and where is there aught in it that can be deemed 
 exceptionable? The only thing that can stagger any one is the 
 aspect of such a statement towards those who are not chosen to 
 salvation, or, which amounts to the same thing, for whom no * \ 
 atonement has been made — yet where is the harm that is clone 
 
184 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 to them? Who can say that the great God, in His procedure 
 towards them, does not maintain the most inviolable regard to 
 righteousness and truth? He does not indeed extend mercy to 
 them; but what title have they to mercy? If they had any title 
 to mercy, it would be mercy no longer — no longer would it depend 
 on the sovereign pleasure of Him who has compassion on whom 
 He will have compassion. They cannot, therefore, impeach either 
 His goodness or His righteousness, and as little can they impeach 
 His truth. What He declares to them in the gospel is most true 
 — most true in itself, whether they believe it or not. Is it not 
 true that Christ has been " made perfect through sufferings," and 
 has become " the author of eternal salvation, to all them that obey 
 Him?" Is it not true that He has magnified the law and made 
 it honourable, fulfilling its obligations, satisfying its demands? Is 
 it not true that He is " exalted a Prince and a Saviour, to give 
 repentance to Israel, and the remission of sins," — that He is 
 lifted up as " Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, that 
 whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have eternal 
 life?" This is quite as true when addressed to those who have 
 not been chosen to salvation as Avhen addressed to others; and if 
 they refuse to believe it, the refusal is their own — an act of their 
 own will, for which they alone are responsible. As to the reason 
 why the great God brings near the gospel to such persons, and 
 presses it on their attention, when He knows they are never to 
 believe it, that is a matter which lies beyond our sphere. As well 
 might we ask why He causes the sun to shine on the blind, or the 
 refreshing showers of heaven to descend on the rocks, or on the 
 sands of the desert. As well might we ask why He brings such 
 persons into existence at all, when He knows that in consequence 
 of the fall of Adam they must be born sinners, and liable to wrath. 
 Nay, as well might we ask why, after they are brought into 
 existence, He places them under a moral administration, and from 
 day to day loads them with His benefits — benefits which, He is 
 well aware, they will only abuse, and the abuse of which will add 
 to their condemnation. Such questions as these a wise man 
 refrains from asking, because he knows they can never be answered. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 185 
 
 A good man does the same thing, for the additional reason, that 
 such questions savour strongly of presumption, and seem very 
 like saying to the Sovereign Ruler — "What doest thou?" 
 
 Our opponents, indeed, will hardly allow that upon our principles 
 the testimony of the gospel is true in itself. The testimony of the 
 gospel, they say, is that Christ died for every man — that He died 
 for the entire race, and for every man in particular, as a matter of 
 course. Tins, however, is assuming the very point in dispute, and 
 we meet it by a direct denial. The gospel calls men to believe 
 that Christ died for the church — that He died for the sheep, died 
 for the ungodly, died for sinners, died for all in the sense of all 
 the chosen, all the sanctified — in the sense of all ranks, rulers, and 
 ruled, in the sense of all nations, Gentiles as well as Jews; but 
 that it should call them to believe that He died for all, severally 
 and individually, is out of the question, unless it be a fact that all 
 are to be saved. Christ could die for no man except to save him 
 — to save him not contingently but absolutely. Christ could die 
 for no man except as the surety of that man, standing in his room, 
 charged with his guilt, bearing his punishment as if it had been 
 His own. For Christ to die in any other way, on any other 
 ground, was an utter impossibility. To suppose Him to have died 
 in any other way would be to suppose what is monstrous in the 
 extreme — would be to cast a foul imputation both on His own 
 character, and on the character of His Father in heaven. His 
 death in any other Avay, on any other ground, would have been, 
 on His part, a throwing away of life, and on the part of His Father 
 a tnhlng away of life, not to be spoken of, not to be thought of, but 
 with horror. The Saviour therefore died for His people; but in 
 the gospel this great truth is exhibited in such a form as renders 
 it equally fit to be believed by all men of all descriptions — by every 
 child of Adam who is fallen and perishing, whether he be chosen 
 to salvation or not. The Saviour is set forth not merely as having 
 died, but as having died and risen again, and obtained all power in 
 heaven and on earth, as interceding before the throne, as dispensing 
 the grace of the new covenant, as bestowing repentance and remis- 
 sion of sins, as discharging, in all its branches, the office of a 
 
 Y 
 
186 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 divinely-authorised and divinely-qualified Redeemer, in behalf of 
 all, whatever their character, whatever their condition, who will 
 be persuaded to turn to Him, and put their trust in Him. Is He 
 not, when so exhibited, a suitable object of confidence to every 
 human being? and is not the call of the gospel, which invites every 
 human being to regard Him with confidence, true in itself, and fit 
 to be believed, whether it is actually believed or not 1 ? 
 
 If this statement be admitted — and who can object to it 1 ? — it 
 supersedes all discussion of another point, the divine sincerity in 
 the gospel offer. How can there be any want of sincerity, when 
 the thing testified is true, absolutely true of itself, independently 
 of our faith 1 ? Or how can there be any want of sincerity, when 
 the promise is suspended on a condition — a condition without 
 which it is in no instance fulfilled? It has always been deemed 
 enough to vindicate our doctrine from the charge of reflecting on 
 the divine sincerity, that according to that doctrine, faith and 
 repentance are the pre-requisites of salvation. This has been 
 thought sufficient by the most approved theologians of other times, 
 and there is certainly no reason why it should not be thought 
 sufficient still. The sentiments of one much versed in such dis- 
 cussions, and deservedly held in high estimation, may be consulted 
 by the more learned among my readers, at the bottom of the page.* 
 
 The gospel, viewed in this light, that is, viewed as the testimony 
 of God announcing salvation to all who will believe, is well worthy 
 of its name — deserving to be called, what it was called by the 
 angel, "glad tidings of great joy to all people." Wherever it 
 comes, it comes as the dispensation of almighty grace, plucking 
 sinners as brands out of the burning, proclaiming peace to the 
 rebellious, giving light to such as sit in darkness, and opening the 
 
 * Fraudis et menclacii Deum hac doctrina accusari etiam falsissimum est, quia 
 neminem vocat absque fidei et pcenitentiae conditione, sine qua neminem vult 
 servare, nee ullnm credentem rejicit, nee a bonorum promissoruni participatione 
 arcet. Neque verbis promittit quod non dat, ant dare non decrevit ; decrevit 
 enim dare vitam omnibus credentibus, quod etiam certo facturus est ; nunquam 
 autem promisit se daturum vitam omnibus etiam reprobis, quibus qui dicunt 
 Christum impetrasse redemptionem, Deum injustum faciant quantum in ipsis 
 est, qui non dat quod merito filii impetratum fait. — Riveti Disputation ex 
 Tredecim, pp. 105, 106. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 187 
 
 prison to those who are bound. By the preaching of this gospel, 
 the great God gathers His chosen out of the world lying in wicked- 
 ness, and carries into effect that sovereign purpose which He pur- 
 posed in Himself ere the beginning of time. " God is in Christ 
 reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing to them their 
 trespasses," 2 Cor. v. 19. What, let me ask, is the meaning of this 
 language, "reconciling the world unto Himself" 1 ? Doubtless it 
 means what the same expression means throughout the Scriptures 
 — sprinkling them with atoning blood. Levit. xvi. 20, " And 
 when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place and the 
 tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar" — how? by sprinkling 
 the blood upon them, " with His finger seven times." Ezek. xlv. 
 19, 20, "And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering, 
 and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four corners 
 of the settle of the altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the 
 inner court: so shall ye reconcile the house." In this way the great 
 God, in the preaching of the gospel, reconciles those who believe, 
 applying to them the blood of the great propitiation, the first 
 consequence of which is, that their trespasses are not imputed to 
 them, and the next, that their enmity is overcome, and they are 
 "reconciled to God." This process is carried on wherever the 
 gospel comes, provided it be attended with power from on high; 
 and who does not see what a gracious process it is, and with what 
 propriety its visiting any particular spot is regarded with feelings 
 of rapture. " How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of 
 Him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth 
 good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation," Isa. lii. 7. 
 " The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and 
 the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom 
 abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing," Isa. xxxv. 
 1, 2. "Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and 
 preached Christ unto them. And the people with one accord gave 
 heed unto those things which Philip spake. And there was 
 great joy in that city," Acts viii. 5, 6, 8. "And thou, child, shalt 
 be called the Prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the 
 face of the Lord to prepare His ways; to give knowledge of 
 
188 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 salvation unto His people, by the remission of their sins, 
 through the tender mercy of our God, whereby the day-spring 
 from on high hath visited us, to give light to them that 
 sit in darkness, and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into 
 the way of peace," Luke i. 76-79. 
 
 It must be added that the gospel is intended for purposes of 
 judgment as well as of mercy, and that this, though an appalling 
 truth, is much too obvious to be denied. Impossible as it may be 
 to reconcile it with the views some people entertain of the 
 character and ways of God, it yet must needs be admitted as a 
 matter of fact. " Whose fan is in His hand, and He will 
 throughly purge His floor, and gather His wheat into the garner; 
 but He will burn up the chaff" with unquenchable fire," Matt. iii. 
 12. "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every 
 creature. He that believeth, and is baptized, shall be saved; but 
 he that believeth not shall be damned," Mark xvi. 15, 16. " For 
 judgment I am come into this world; that they which see not 
 might see, and that they which see might be made blind," John 
 ix. 39. " "We are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that 
 are saved, and in them that perish. To the one we are the 
 savour of death unto death ; and to the other the savour of life 
 unto life: and who is sufficient for these things'?" 2 Cor. ii. 
 15, 16. 
 
 The fan in the hand of the great Husbandman — what is it but 
 the gospel 1 And if so, what is the purpose for which the gospel 
 comes to men 1 To purge the floor, to separate the good grain, 
 and to prepare it for the garner; but at the same time, and by the 
 very same process, to clear away the chaff, that it may be 
 consumed. The same awful truth is suggested by each of the 
 passages just quoted; and how, I would ask, is that truth to be 
 reconciled with the belief so prevalent in the religious world, or 
 what is called the religious world, that the blessed Jesus has 
 loved the whole human race alike, and has given Himself for 
 them, to redeem them from all iniquity ? Can any man believe 
 that those represented as the "chaff" have been bought by the 
 precious blood of Christ; or, which is the same thing, that Christ 
 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 189 
 
 has engaged as a Surety to save them 1 ? Or can any man believe 
 that Christ came to die for those, or that he actually did die for 
 those whom He Himself says that He came that they might be 
 made blind 1 The man who can believe this may beHeve anything. 
 Even where the gospel is most successful, it is attended with this 
 awful result. Even where the Lord Jesus enjoys a triumph, 
 it yet turns out as the consequence of that triumph, that while 
 there are some who are saved, there are others who perish. 
 "When the Roman commander, on the day of his triumph, pro- 
 ceeded towards the capitol, dragging in his train a multitude of 
 captives whom he had taken in war, there was no want of gar- 
 lands, or of perfumes, to make the procession joyous. The fairest 
 flowers were strewed in the way before him, or were showered into 
 his chariot, while persons were in attendance to diffuse odours 
 of the sweetest savour; yet at the close of the procession, if some 
 of the captives had their life given them for a prey, others, and 
 these perhaps not the least distinguished in point of rank, were 
 subjected to the sword of the executioner. The apostle compares 
 with this the triumphs of the gospel. "Thanks be unto God, who 
 always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the 
 savour of His knowledge by us in every place." He and His 
 fellow-apostles occupied the place of the fumigantes; it belonged 
 to them to diffuse the sweet odours, and certainly no odours could 
 give a diviner savour of Christ than those which they diffused; 
 yet, in the adorable counsel of God, that savour was not always 
 the savour of life unto life, but sometimes, and perhaps more 
 frequently, the savour of death unto death. 
 
 No wisb have I to enter into tbe discussion of this subject, — I 
 would rather decline it ; one thing, however, must be said. While 
 men under the dispensation of the gospel are treated as rational 
 and accountable creatures; while each of them is at Kberty to 
 embrace the offer of salvation if he will, or if he will to refuse it; 
 and while the offer, as we have shown, is brought near to all, 
 and, from the nature of the atonement, freely and consistently 
 brought near, yet it is not the purpose of the Most High, Avhose 
 judgments are unsearchable, that all shall embrace it and be 
 
190 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 happy; but that many, following the impulse of their own minds, 
 shall resist it and perish. Important objects may be gained by 
 this method of procedure, of which I shall endeavour to give some 
 account in another Section. 
 
 Section V. — J artjjet tljongbfs respecting % gtbhre Call. 
 
 1. There is a view of this subject which, so far as I know, has not 
 been propounded by any one, but which has sometimes occurred 
 to my mind, and which I shall take the liberty briefly to unfold. 
 It might have formed a chapter in Bishop Butler's " Analogy of 
 Religion to the Constitution and Course of Nature;" and possibly 
 some future Butler, if ever such a person be destined to arise, may 
 work it up into something of that kind. What is the religion of 
 nature, when duly considered? What is it but a call to come to 
 God — to come to God as the supreme good; a call addressed to 
 the whole human race; addressed to them by the great Jehovah, 
 the God of truth; addressed to them, of course, with the most 
 perfect sincerity, yet addressed to them with the previous know- 
 ledge — not the contingent, but the certain knowledge — that few, if 
 any, of them will ever comply with it, or embrace the advantages 
 which it holds out ? " God has made of one blood all nations of 
 men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, that they should seek 
 the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him" Acts 
 xvii. 26, 27.* 
 
 These words show us very clearly what is the design of natural 
 religion. It is that men might seek God, and find him. That is, 
 as the Syriac version intimates, that they might arrive at the 
 true knowledge of Him, and consequently at the true enjoyment 
 of His favour. How does He call them to this great object — 
 this end and aim of their existence 1 ? He calls them by the 
 
 * Mrs H. B. Stowe quotes this passage in reference to certain impressions 
 rather of the marvellous kind, of which she tells us poor benighted negroes are 
 sometimes the subjects. I hope it will not offend this highly-gifted woman, or 
 her countless admirers in all parts of the wozdd, if I remark that those who 
 read the sixth chapter of her " Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin," will do well to 
 study it in connection with the treatise on the " Religious Affections," by her 
 great countryman Jonathan Edwards. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 191 
 
 voice of Nature — of all voices the most magnificent, and at the 
 same time not the least intelligible. " The heavens declare the 
 glory of God, the firmament showeth His handiwork: day unto 
 day uttereth speech, night unto night teacheth knowledge." 
 These are the preachers of natural religion! What eloquent 
 preachers! Who can resist them? They have the gift of tongues. 
 They speak in all languages, and they speak to all lands. " There 
 is no speech nor language where their voice is not heard ; their 
 line has gone out through all the earth, and their words to the 
 end of the world." Why do not our new-view brethren stand up 
 to oppose them 1 ? Why do not these wise theologians object to the 
 theology of the sun, and the moon, and the rest of nature 1 Why 
 do they not cry out, There is no proper basis for such a call; 
 there is no real sincerity in such a call — it is unworthy of God — 
 it is a mockery of men ; for well are we aware it is sure to prove 
 fruitless, the great God not having purposed that either among 
 savages or among sages it shall ever be obeyed. " Although the 
 light of nature and the works of creation and providence," says 
 the Westminster Confession, "do so far manifest the goodness and 
 wisdom and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable, yet are 
 they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of His will, 
 which is necessary to salvation," chap. i. 1. "Since the human 
 mind, through its weakness," says Calvin, " was altogether unable 
 to come to God, if not assisted by His holy word, it necessarily 
 followed that all mankind, the Jews excepted, inasmuch as they 
 sought God without the word, were labouring under vanity and 
 error," Instit., Lib. i., cap. 6., sect. 4. * 
 
 With considerate men this branch of the divine government 
 needs no apology. It is in all respects worthy of Him who is 
 wonderful in counsel and excellent in working. The portion of 
 mankind who have not the Scriptures are as truly rational and 
 accountable creatures as those who are blessed with that divine 
 
 * Nam quum humana mens pro sua imbecillitate, pervenire ad Deum, millo 
 modo queat, nisi sacro ejus verbo adjuta et sublevata, omnes tunc mortales 
 exceptis Judaeis, qui Deum sine verbo quserebant necesse fuit in vanitate atque 
 errore versari. 
 
192 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 book. Their having lost the power to read God's character in His 
 works, with the inclination to feel after Him, and find Him, does 
 not in any degree divest Him of the right to require of them both 
 that inclination and that power, and to deal with them by various 
 methods in His providence, according to their various advan- 
 tages and degrees of cultivation, so as to render their refusal to 
 come to Him more or less " without excuse." There is indeed a 
 mystery in this part of His procedure which it is beyond us to 
 unravel, yet we are at no loss to perceive that it is altogether 
 reconcilable both with His equity and His benevolence. That 
 intelligent creatures who, by falling into apostacy, have become 
 blind to His excellencies, and enemies to Him in their minds, 
 should yet be commanded to yield Him the homage which is His 
 due, and should be urged and entreated by a thousand tongues, 
 speaking from every quarter of the heavens and of the earth, to 
 turn to Him as the supreme good, although it is absolutely certain 
 that without gifts which they possess not, without faculties of per- 
 ceiving and of acting not naturally belonging to them, not one of 
 their number will ever incline His ear, — who does not see that this 
 is a constitution of things most unimpeachable, in every respect 
 becoming the character of Him who is " righteous in all His ways, 
 and holy in all His works 1 " 
 
 Now, exactly analogous to this is the condition of those who are 
 placed under the gospel, without being ordained to life, or bought 
 with the price of the Saviour's blood. The love of God in Christ 
 Jesus is made known to them— the great love wherewith He 
 hath loved us; and they are urged and entreated by all sorts of 
 arguments to believe in Christ and be saved. No obstacle lies in 
 the way of their believing — none but what exists in their own 
 minds. Their minds are left altogether free. They act as they 
 please. They choose and refuse, as seems good in their own eyes, 
 the purpose of God in not appointing them to happiness, or in not 
 having made provision for bringing them to happiness, having no 
 casual influence on the decision to which they come. Their 
 advantages are vastly superior to the advantages of those who 
 enjoy only the light of nature. The manifestation of the divine 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 193 
 
 character vouchsafed to them is incomparably brighter and more 
 impressive, and when accompanied, as in many cases it is — as 
 perhaps in every case it is to a greater or less degree — with the 
 secret motions and suggestions of the Spirit, their responsibility is 
 raised to a very exalted pitch. Much, most unquestionably, is 
 given to them; and of them, on the ground of equity, much must 
 be required. What shall Ave say of the conduct of the Most High 
 in His dealing with such persons } What can we say, unless it be, 
 "Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight I" Shall we 
 question His sincerity in speaking to them in His word, or His 
 sincerity in striving with them by His Spirit ? With precisely the 
 same propriety may we question the sincerity of nature, when she 
 bears witness to His power in hurling the thunderbolt or kindling 
 the volcano; or to His goodness in clothing the pastures with flocks, 
 and the vallies with corn, and causing the little hills on every side 
 to laugh and sing. The two cases are exactly parallel, and the blind 
 objector who cavils at the one, must also, to be consistent, cavil at 
 the other. Dr Butler conceived that he had found a good argument 
 in favour of Christianity, in favour both of some of its particular 
 branches, and in favour likewise of it altogether taken as a system, 
 when he had found something in it analogous to the course and con- 
 stitution of nature. The world has allowed, especially the more 
 reflecting portion of it, that this profound thinker was in the 
 right; and well am I persuaded that intelligent men, if they con- 
 sider it, will admit that the argument I now advance is in all 
 respects similar to his, not less obvious in its premises, not less 
 irrefragable in its conclusion. 
 
 "Who does not now see his way through most of the difficulties 
 connected with this subject? Like other difficulties, they only 
 require to be calmly looked at, in order to lose much of their 
 rugged aspect. The dispensation under which it has pleased the 
 great God to place that portion of mankind who enjoy the gospel, 
 but are not ordained to life, is exactly analogous to that under 
 which He has placed the yet larger portion of mankind who are 
 left to the light of nature. As He pleads with the one class by 
 
 a thousand voices to seek after them, and find them, without 
 
 z 
 
194 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 vouchsaying to them the power of doing so, which He is not 
 bound to vouchsafe, so with the other He pleads by all the con- 
 straining influences of the love which "passeth knowledge," leaving 
 it with themselves, since they are so inclined, to harden their hearts 
 and shut their ears. All the difference seems to be that the 
 grace of the one dispensation is very far beyond that of the other ; 
 that the responsibility is higher in proportion, and that the con- 
 demnation which results from disobedience, must of course be 
 much less tolerable in the one case than in the other, at the great 
 day of account. To us, however, whose office it is to preach the 
 gospel, the way is clear. "We are left without embarrassment or 
 restraint. We go forth in the spirit of our commission, addressing 
 ourselves to " every creature," beseeching our fellow-men, of 
 every rank and gradation of guilt, beseeching them, " in Christ's 
 stead," that they be reconciled to God. We know that there 
 are among them many who will not believe, who will only trample 
 our pearls under their feet; but ought that to hinder us] Does 
 nature cease to preach because men refuse to hear] Does the 
 " unwearied sun" from day to day forbear to display his " Creator's 
 power," or the moon to take up the " wondrous tale," when the 
 evening prevails, because the stupid world is blind and deaf? If 
 not, why should we be silent for a similar cause] 
 
 2. There are several classes in our worshipping assemblies who, 
 we are sure beforehand, will reject the counsel of God against 
 themselves; but is there a man among us who alters his tone 
 or modifies his message on their account] First, there are 
 those who have sinned the sin unto death; the sin for which, 
 if we knew of it, we should not be at liberty to pray; the sin 
 for which there is no forgiveness under the new dispensation, 
 as there was none for it under the old. " All manner of sin 
 and blasphemy shall be forgiven to men: but the blasphemy 
 against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And 
 whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be 
 forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it 
 shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the 
 world to come," Matt. xii. 31, 32. Are we sure, when we address 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 195 
 
 the promiscuous assembly, that there are none among them of this 
 description 1 Yet do we ever think of incpuring, or would it he 
 right for us to inquire, whether it is so or not 1 Again, there are 
 those who have sinned away their day of grace, who have grieved 
 the Holy Spirit of God till He is withdrawn, and whom it is no 
 longer possible to renew again to repentance. " If thou hadst 
 known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which 
 belong unto thy peace ! but now they are hid from thine eyes," 
 Luke xix. 48. " Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I 
 say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able. "When 
 once the master of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the 
 door, and ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, 
 saying, Lord, Lord, open unto us," Luke xiii. 24, 25. Are 
 we sure that we address none of these? Yet why should we 
 address them— why should we call upon them to knock, or to 
 plead, when they are to knock and to plead in vain 1 It is most 
 mercifully concealed from us whether such individuals are before 
 us or not, and our duty is, as if they existed not, to cry aloud, and 
 not spare. "Whatever these may do, some, who are very hardened, 
 may hear and obey; some may be persuaded to enter the vine- 
 yard even at the eleventh hour; at all events we know, and must 
 ever proclaim, that — 
 
 " While the lamp holds on to burn, 
 The greatest sinner may return." 
 
 Lastly, there are those to whom the gospel is to prove not the 
 savour of life unto life, but the savour of death unto death ; those 
 concerning whom the commission is issued, "Go, and tell this 
 people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, 
 but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make 
 their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, 
 and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and 
 convert, and be healed," Isaiah vi. 9, 10. Well may we say, Who 
 is sufficient for these things 1 Well may we be overpowered by 
 the thought that we bear a commission fraught with consequences 
 so awful, as well as consequences so happy, with so much of the 
 severity, as well as of the goodness of God; destined to issue in 
 
196 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 the salvation of multitudes, but destined, not less certainly, to 
 issue in the condemnation of multitudes too ! 
 
 Now, I would put it to our brethren, what are we to say to 
 these things'? What are we to make of the several classes of 
 persons which have now been mentioned, or of similar classes, if 
 there be any similar 1 ? Shall we leave them out in our addresses'? 
 Shall we make them an exception to the universal call] Our 
 brethren, to be consistent, ought unquestionably to do so. They 
 are self-condemned if they say a word to any one of them ; but it 
 is not so with us. We know that God is dealing with such 
 persons by means of the gospel; we know that He has wise and 
 holy purposes to serve, by proclaiming it in their ears; and we 
 set before them life and death, the blessing and the curse, whether 
 they will hear or whether they will forbear. * 
 
 3. A case not to be overlooked in a discussion of this kind, is 
 that of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. It is indeed not a little appalling, 
 but that circumstance must not hinder us from looking at it, and 
 considering what light it throws on the character and ways of the 
 Most High. It is the case not properly of an individual, but of a 
 class — a class, we have reason to fear, awfully numerous — the vessels 
 of wrath fitted for destruction. Pharaoh, indeed, was not called 
 to believe and be saved — not to give way to the constraining love 
 of God manifested in the gospel of his Son; but he was called to 
 do what, if duly considered, will be found nearly equivalent; he 
 was called to yield himself to the Lord God of Israel, to comply 
 with His will in letting the people go, and to comply with it not 
 sullenly, not reluctantly, not as a matter of necessity, but with liis 
 whole heart. 
 
 Every divine command virtually implies a promise. Our duty 
 
 * Now then to the question itself, to wit, that seeing it is impossible that the 
 reprobate should be saved; seeing this is infallibly foreseen of God, and seeing 
 also that God hath beforehand determined to suffer it so to be; yet I shall show 
 you it is requisite, yea, very requisite, that He should both will and command 
 that the gospel, and, so grace, in the general tenders thereof, should be proffered 
 unto them." (He then subjoins a long list of reasons for such conduct on the 
 part of the Most High). Bunyan's {Reprobation Asserted) Works, vol. ii., 
 p. 352. Blackie & Son. 1853. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 197 
 
 and our interest are in every instance inseparably conjoined. If 
 God is truly obeyed He wall be truly glorified, and if He is truly 
 glorified He will be truly enjoyed. Had Pliaraoh obeyed, we are 
 warranted to say his fate would have been different. He would 
 have been regarded not with disapprobation but with favour — ■ 
 would have been the object not of punishment but rather of reward. 
 
 It was foreseen that he would not obey. Xay, it was not 
 intended that he should obey. " I will harden Pharaoh's heart, 
 and wall multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt." 
 Scarcely need av»_- say that the hardening of Pharaoh's heart was 
 entirely permissive. In the nature of things it could not be 
 otherwise. The great God, in His holiness and in His righteous- 
 ness, left the man to himself, allowing him to follow his own 
 inclination, and that was enough. There was, however, another 
 purpose, and one far more terrible, inasmuch as it related not to 
 any passing circumstance, but to the eternal destiny of the in- 
 dividual." "And for this cause have I raised thee up, that I might 
 show in thee my power, and that my name may be declared 
 throughout all the earth," Exod. x. 16. Let us pause, and inquire 
 what we have here. Have we not the great God, the Ruler of 
 the world, dealing with men, yes, with men ! for, as has been said, 
 the case of Pharaoh is the case of a class; dealing with them about 
 what concerns their highest interest, their weal or their woe through- 
 out eternity, and all the while not mtending their happiness, not 
 determining to impart to them the grace that might enable them 
 to comply with His will, issuing many commands, denouncing many 
 tlireatenings, working many signs and wonders, and enduring with 
 much long-suffering the vessels of wrath, while they go on in their 
 own ways, while they add sin to sin, and, as the natural result, 
 make themselves meet for destruction. 
 
 This places the conduct of the Most High, the Moral Governor 
 of the world, in a very awful light — a light sublime and terrible 
 beyond expression — in reference to what we have reason to believe 
 is a large portion of the human race; and is it not quite analogous 
 to the method of His procedure towards that portion of the race, 
 far fewer in number, to whom He proposes the terms of the 
 
198 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 gospel, but whose final salvation, not having chosen them in Christ 
 before the foundation of the world, He has not purposed to 
 accomplish 1 ? It must be remembered that by the atonement every 
 legal obstruction is removed in reference to those given to Christ; 
 that is, every obstruction on God's part. The law is magnified 
 and made honourable, its precepts obeyed, its penalty endured. 
 The only impediment remaining is the impediment which exists 
 in the sinner's own mind — the enmity of his heart, his alienation 
 from God. This also is removed in their case; but no provision 
 has been made for this in the case of others — none in the purpose 
 of God, none in the mediation of Christ; and when we contemplate 
 the way of dealing with such individuals, much as we may be 
 amazed, much as we may be filled with fear and trembling, what 
 can we say? Nothing can we say but repeat the words of Paul, 
 "What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His 
 power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of 
 wrath fitted to destruction," Rom. ix. 22. 
 
 Is not the case in all respects parallel to the case of Pharaoh 1 ? 
 Pharaoh, as we have shown, having a call or a command, had 
 virtually a promise. There was nothing to hinder him from 
 obeying but the state of his own heart, there was no grace in- 
 tended for him to soften or renew his heart; and hence the result. 
 What objection may be brought against the message of the gospel 
 addressed to those called the non-elect which may not be brought 
 with equal or with greater propriety against the whole procedure 
 in the case of Pharaoh 1 ? 
 
 4. In concluding this -Section it may not be improper to notice 
 again the great Herculean objection put forward by our brethren 
 with so much confidence, namely, that the extent of the provision 
 must correspond with the extent of the offer; and that if all be 
 invited to believe on Christ, Christ must have died for all. This 
 objection has been examined already, and shown to be fallacious. 
 It has been shown that if no man can be called to believe on 
 Christ unless he first be assured that Christ has died for him, 
 as little can any man be called to believe unless he first be 
 assured that Christ has risen for him, that Christ is interceding 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 199 
 
 for him within the veil, that Christ is fulfilling in his behalf the 
 various stipulations of the covenant, and will in due time bring 
 liim to glory; because no man is called to believe on Christ, nor 
 does any man actually believe on Christ, except as doing or having 
 done all this. The objection, however, is so much vaunted, and is 
 deemed so unanswerable even by the leaders of the party, that we 
 may bestow on it another remark. Take it as it is put by Dr Wardlaw 
 in its strongest form: "They are invited to a feast, but there is no 
 provision made for them. They are called to the wells of salvation, 
 but to them they are "wells without water." It is humiliating to 
 think that men should be extolled and followed, by what pretends 
 to be an enlightened age, who yet are capable of such weakness, to 
 call it by no harsher name, as Dr W. exhibits in these words. 
 What are we to understand by the wells of salvation to which 
 sinners are invited ] Do they denote the atonement of Christ, or 
 do they not rather denote the grace of the Spirit 1 ? Let the 
 question be answered by an appeal to the Scriptures. " In the 
 last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, 
 If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that 
 believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall 
 flow rivers of living water — and this," adds the evangelist, " this 
 spake He of the Spirit, which they that believe on Him should 
 receive," John vii. 37-39. "I will pour water upon him that is 
 thirsty, and floods npon the dry ground: I will pour my Spi/rit 
 upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring," Isaiah xliv. 
 3. It is the Spirit, then, we are warranted to say, not the atone- 
 ment, that is denoted by this figure wherever it occurs throughout 
 the Scriptures ; and what do the party, or what does Dr W. him- 
 self, teach with regard to the Spirit 1 The atonement, he holds, is 
 indefinite, being intended for all alike; but not so the grace of the 
 Spirit. The grace of the Spirit is intended only for some, being 
 limited by the decree of election ! May not his objection, then, be 
 retorted upon himself, and retorted with some effect?" They 
 are invited to a feast, but there is no provision made for them; 
 they are called to the wells of salvation, but to them they are 
 " wells without water." The legs of the lame are not equal, and so 
 
200 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 are arguments and objections in the mouths of men who, whatever 
 ability they possess, or how far soever they stand a-head of their 
 own party, have, after all, but a moderate portion of the talent 
 necessary for framing a theory that will hang together. 
 
 "We hold the decree of election as firmly at least as any of our 
 brethren, but we see no inconsistency between that decree and the 
 universality of the call " to come to the waters." Even allowing 
 the waters denoted the atonement, which they do not, and not the 
 influences of the Spirit, which they do, we should yet find no 
 difficulty with the universality of the call, because the promise held 
 out in the call is suspended, not on the sufficiency of the waters, 
 unlimited as that may be, but solely on the coming. In other 
 words, the promise is held out only to those who believe, 
 and this relieves us from all concern about secret purposes 
 or extent of provision, matters with which, as being unknown to 
 us, we have nothing to do. The sufficiency, indeed, is manifestly 
 understood, is admitted on all hands to be unbounded, but the 
 universality of the call is justified by the promise being in every 
 case suspended on the faith of those to whom it is addressed. 
 This is the real freeness of the gospel, and it is a freeness as unen- 
 cumbered as any man can desire. " Whosoever will, let him take 
 the water of life freely." " Whosoever belicveth shall not perish, 
 but have everlasting life." 
 
 Section VI.— ^bbitional ftcsfimomes. 
 The views I advocate may be confirmed, and I trust my readers 
 will be pleased to see them confirmed, by men eminent for their piety 
 and their soundness in the faith. In a preceding Section I intimated 
 a purpose of this kind, and to the revered name of Traill, mentioned 
 in that place, I would now add other names equally if not more dis- 
 tinguished. Our doctrine, indeed, is the doctrine of the Reformed 
 Churches in general — of the Westminster Assembly — of the 
 Church of Scotland — but the authorities I would here refer to are 
 certain individuals noted in their day for strenuously asserting, 
 what our opponents of the present day seem to think can scarcely 
 be asserted sufficiently, the doctrines of grace. Who has not 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 201 
 
 heard of the Marroivmen, the eliU of the Scottish church in the 
 earlier part of the eighteenth century, among whom we have to 
 number the venerable Boston, the two brothers Ebenezer and 
 Ralph Erskine, with many others of similar worth. To a man, 
 they held, and held most zealously, the doctrine of particular 
 redemption, maintaining, in opposition to the Arminians, that 
 Christ had died for His own people, and His own people alone. 
 Yet if there was a point on which they insisted more than another, 
 or which they deemed more essential than another, it was the 
 freeness of salvation, and the unrestricted nature of the gospel 
 call. 
 
 The language of the Marrow, which they allowed to be in some 
 places not the most correct, was, that " God the Father, as He is 
 in His Son Jesus Christ, moved by nothing but His free love to 
 mankind lost, hath made a deed of gift and grant to them, that 
 whosoever of them all shall believe on this His Son, shall not 
 perish, but have eternal life. And hence it was that Jesus Christ 
 Himself said to His disciples, ' Go and preach the gospel to every 
 creature under heaven,' that is, Go and tell every man, without 
 exception, that here is good news for him; Christ is dead for him, 
 and if he will take Him and accept of His righteousness, he shall 
 have Him." 
 
 That Christ had died for all men, they held to be unscriptural — 
 totally subversive of the nature of the atonement, which was the 
 work of a surety; but that Christ was dead for all men — that 
 Christ crucified, raised from the dead, exalted on high, crowned 
 with glory, set forth in the gospel, a divinely -cpialified and 
 divinely- authorised Saviour — that Christ in this capacity was 
 brought near to all men, and offered to all men, and that, on the 
 ground of this offer, all men were warranted to receive Him, and 
 to trust in Him for pardon, for acceptance, for eternal life, was 
 what they held and avowed to be the very truth of God. 
 
 Their "leading principles," it has been said, "may be compre- 
 hended hi two words— full atonement and free salvation. 
 On these two pillars, like the Jachin and Boaz of the ancient 
 
 temple, was the whole fabric built and upheld" (British and 
 
 2a 
 
202 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 Foreign Evangelical Revieio, No. 15). "Much did they delight in 
 pointing the believer to the special love of Christ in dying for His 
 own, hut equally careful were they to point the sinner to the death 
 itself as the proper and only ohject of saving faith. To the 
 believer they said, think on the love of the Saviour fixed on you 
 from all eternity, shedding His blood for you, drawing you to 
 Himself, and fitting you for the kingdom He hath purchased for you. 
 To the sinner they said, look not to the secret purposes of God, or 
 to the intention of the Great High Priest in offering himself, but 
 look to the sacrifice offered, which is sufficient for all. We do not 
 say, ' Christ died for thee/ this would imply a knowledge of the 
 secret purposes of the Most High, and secret things belong not to 
 us; but we may say, 'Christ is dead for thee;' that is, He is 
 exhibited as crucified and slain for thee, for thy benefit, for thee 
 to look to for salvation, as the serpent was lifted up for the 
 wounded Israelites to look to for healing — for thee to flee to, as 
 the city of refuge was appointed for the manslayer to flee to for 
 safety " (Ibid.) 
 
 This account of the doctrine of these worthy men seems correct 
 enough, so far as it goes, yet it is easy to see it leaves something 
 wanting. Between the full atonement and the free salvation there 
 is an obvious gap; a gap which it is of immense importance to 
 have safely filled up; a gap out of which have issued some of the 
 most pernicious heresies that have troubled the church — the 
 Pelagian in more ancient times, the Arminian more lately; out of 
 which has issued also the great heresy of the present clay, nearly 
 allied to the Pelagian, if not quite the same; the heresy of those 
 persons, not few in number, nor altogether without some name in 
 the religious world, who would make justification to consist in 
 mere indemnity, and would people heaven with a race of men 
 who have not been freed, and whom they say God Himself cannot 
 free from the desert of sin ! 
 
 How did the Marrow men fill up this gap, which was the great 
 subject of controversy in their day 1 ? The language of the Marrow, 
 as has been said, was, that God had made a deed of gift, or grant, 
 of Christ, to mankind sinners, that whosoever of them all should re- 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 203 
 
 ceive Him, should not perish, and this language they did not hesitate 
 to adopt. What they meant by it came clearly out in the course of 
 the discussion, and stands recorded as a well-attested fact. Among 
 the queries proposed to them by the Commission of the Assembly 
 1720 — that Commission which summoned them to its bar, and 
 required them to submit to a public rebuke — among the queries 
 proposed to them by the " serious clerks " in that Commission, 
 who did — 
 
 " With numbers sport themselves, 
 
 And for twelve brethren queries hatch by twelves.'' * 
 
 — one, the tenth in order, was, " "Whether the revelation of the 
 divine will in the divine word, affording a warrant to offer Christ 
 to all, and a warrant to all to receive Him, can be said to be the 
 Father's making a deed of gift and grant of Christ to all man- 
 kind]" To this query they replied in the affirmative, with some 
 explanation:— " We answer, that by the deed of gift or grant to 
 all mankind, we understand no more than the revelation of the 
 divine will in the word affording a warrant to offer Christ to all, 
 and a warrant to all to receive Him: for although we believe 
 the purchase and application of salvation to be peculiar to the 
 elect who were given to Christ by the Father in the counsel of 
 peace, yet the warrant to receive Him is common to all. Ministers, 
 by virtue of the commission they have received from their great 
 Lord and Master, are authorised and instructed to go and preach 
 the gospel to every creature; and though we had a voice like a 
 trumpet, that could reach unto all the corners of the earth, we 
 think we would be bound, by virtue of our commission, to lift it 
 up and say, ' To you, men, do Ave call ; and our voice is to the 
 sons of men!' " 
 
 Their precise meaning is more clearly brought out in the paper 
 of Authorities, confirming the Answers to the Queries, which was 
 
 * The brethren who gave in the representation were twelve in number, and 
 for that reason it would appear the queries proposed to them were twelve. 
 When the answers were given in, one of the twelve, Mr Bonar of Torphichen, 
 was absent through indisposition. The copy in the possession of the author 
 seems to have been his. It came from Torphichen, and his name is neatly written 
 on the title page, doubtless by his own hands. 
 
204 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 also given in to the Commission. That paper is a learned one — 
 sketched by Boston, perfected by Ebenezer Erskine — made up of 
 numerous quotations, from all sorts of eminent divines, living and 
 dead, British and foreign; and it is observable that the only 
 quotation they produce in support of the answer to the tenth 
 query, is the passage I have given in a preceding Section from 
 Traill — a passage in which, if the reader is pleased to turn back to 
 it, he will find the doctrine which I have propounded as the 
 immediate basis of the universal call, namely, that Christ has 
 fulfilled the law, enduring its penalty and obeying its precepts ; 
 that all impediments on God's part, and on our part to hinder our 
 partaking of Christ, are removed, if we be willing, and that nothing 
 interposes between the sinner and salvation, but the impediment 
 on his part, that is, the unbelief and alienation of his own heart. 
 This, then, is the doctrine of the Marrmomen — that Christ has 
 magnified and made honourable the law, fulfilling its obligations, 
 satisfying its demands, and that this opens the way for a free 
 exhibition, and a free offer of salvation to every human being. 
 This is the doctrine of the Marrowmen — a most scriptural, a most 
 incontrovertible doctrine. How different the doctrine of those 
 who deny that Christ was made under the law; who deny that the 
 law could admit of a Substitute; who maintain that in the 
 salvation of men the law, instead of being established, is made 
 void, or, to use their own language, is "suspended and over- 
 ruled." 
 
 The Assembly who contended with these worthy men charged 
 them with serious error. In particular, they charged them with 
 the doctrine of "universal atonement," a doctrine which the 
 Church of Scotland held then, as she holds now, to be a main 
 branch of the Arminian heresy. This the Assembly seem to have 
 inferred from the twelve brethren avowing so strenuously the 
 doctrine of a free salvation. The inference, however, was a 
 groundless one; it Avas felt to be so at the time, and accordingly 
 was not insisted in. No notice was taken of it in the Queries, nor, 
 of course, in the Answers. More decided opponents of "universal 
 atonement " than the twelve brethren and their associates were 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 205 
 
 not to be found in the whole kingdom, and so, in the course of 
 the discussions, they took occasion to show. It is worthy of 
 remark, however, that the inference drawn by this Assembly, who 
 were setting themselves in opposition to the doctrines of grace, 
 and were beginning to lapse towards Moderatism and Arminianism 
 — it is worthy of remark, that the very inference drawn by this 
 Assembly from the doctrine of a free salvation has been drawn of 
 late by some who, if they may be believed, are the descendants of 
 the Marrowmen, and attached to the same evangelical truths for 
 the sake of which they suffered. Drs Brown and Balmer, pro- 
 fessors of theology to what now bears the name of the United 
 Presbyterian Synod, in a work published some years ago, and 
 entitled " Statements," etc., argue strenuously in favour of uni- 
 versal atonement, on no other ground, for aught that appears, but 
 the universality of the gospel call. Since all are invited to 
 believe, atonement must be made for all. The Marrowmen 
 abjured the inference, regarded it as pernicious error, and felt sore 
 that it should be charged upon them. The descendants of the 
 Marrowmen accept the inference, account it Christian doctrine, 
 and justify the backsliding Assembly in their charge. This, I say, 
 is worthy of remark. 
 
 2. To the testimony of the Marrowmen may be added that of 
 the first Seceders. Of the first Seceders, some had been Marrow- 
 men, such as the two brothers Erskine, and in their new position, 
 apart from the church established by law, they held fast the same 
 principles they had held before. Their confederates, who along 
 with them formed the Secession body, were men of the same 
 mind; and finding the church advancing in her downward career, 
 and giving countenance to Arminian errors, they forthwith issued 
 their " Act concerning the Doctrine of Grace," the object of which 
 was to vindicate a free salvation, in connection with a definite 
 and effectual atonement. 
 
 The Assembly, as has been observed, charged the Marrowmen 
 with " countenancing the doctrine of universal redemption as to 
 purchase." This doctrine the Seceders say they reject and condemn 
 as contrary to the Scriptures and the Confession of Faith; at the 
 
206 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 same time, tliey maintain that the author of the Marrow held no 
 such doctrine; that "throughout his whole hook he teaches that 
 Christ represented and suffered for none hut the elect;" and in 
 their turn they scruple not to hring a charge against the Assembly, 
 affirming that, " under the misapplied title of universal redemption 
 as to purchase, they condemned the universal and unlimited offer 
 of Christ to mankind sinners, as such." 
 
 It must be confessed that these worthy and, upon the whole, 
 enlightened men, the first Seceders, expressed themselves on some 
 of these subjects without quite so much caution as might have 
 been desired. " It is the doctrine of the Marrow divines," says a 
 late professor of theology — or rather it is said in the name of two, 
 of whom the one is removed, and the other remains till this day — 
 "it is the doctrine of the Marrow divines, and of Ebenezer and 
 Ralph Erskine, the fathers of the Secession, that every hearer of the 
 gospel is invited to say Christ loved me, and gave Himself for me; 
 and that a man's persuasion of the truth of this assertion constitutes 
 the very essence of saving faith. And yet these very persons are 
 shocked at the doctrine that Christ died for all and made atone- 
 ment for all."* That the very essence of saving faith is the per- 
 suasion on the part of the sinner that Christ loved him and gave 
 Himself for him, is certainly not quite correct. We cannot but 
 admit that our venerable ancestors were chargeable with a slight 
 inadvertency when they expressed themselves in such terms. 
 Saving faith can only be the belief of something revealed, and it 
 is nowhere revealed to any individual that Christ died for him. 
 Yet if such a persuasion be not implied in the direct act of faith, 
 it is naturally, perhaps unavoidably, formed in the soul by the 
 continued exercise of faith. f Let a sinner go to Christ in the 
 
 * " Statements," etc., by Professors Balmer and Brown. 
 + The author's view coincides with what Turretin has called the reflex act of 
 faith in the following passage : — " Primus dicitur actus dispositorius ad justifi- 
 cationem quia ad earn recipiendam nos disponit : Secundusjusttjicatorius quia 
 earn conutatur sententia absolutoria justificationis nostras : Tertius consol- 
 atorius, quia earn sequitur. Duo primi sunt directi, qui feruutur in pro- 
 niissionem. Tertius est reflexus qui fertur in actum directum." — Loc. xv., 
 Quest. 12, sect. 4. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 207 
 
 persuasion that He is "exalted a Prince and a Saviour, giving 
 repentance to Israel, and the forgiveness of sins" — in the per- 
 suasion that, " being made perfect, He has become the author of 
 eternal salvation to all them that obey Him " — in the persuasion 
 that "whosoever will" is welcome to "come and take the water 
 of life freely " — let a sinner go to the Saviour on this ground, 
 which is unquestionably the Scriptural ground, let him continue 
 to do so from day to day, and will he not come, by an easy, by a 
 natural process, to claim the Saviour as his own, to rejoice in all 
 He has done and suffered, and to say with Paul, " He loved me, 
 and gave Himself for me!" Our forefathers, therefore, were not 
 substantially wrong. Their error, if it was an error, consisted 
 merely in putting the effect for the cause, the consequent for the 
 antecedent ; or, at the most, in calling that the first step of faith 
 which is only the second or the third ; and as to their reconciling 
 this with the doctrine of a limited atonement, or which with them 
 was the same thing, a limited salvation, it does not appear that it 
 cost them any trouble. 
 
 It may not be out of the way perhaps to inquire, with regard 
 to the words, "who loved me, and gave Himself for me," what use 
 is made of them, or can be made of them, by our brethren of the 
 new school — the two professors just referred to, or any others] 
 Our forefathers, it appears, in their use of these interesting words, 
 were chargeable with some degree of inaccuracy ; can we say the 
 same thing, or can we say anything better or worse of their 
 descendants, who, of course, are much more enlightened, and are 
 making great steps in advance 1 Certain it is, that every believer 
 may use the words in question, for Paul has used them. Paul 
 says of the Saviour, " Who loved me, and gave Himself for me;" 
 and will not every one, who has advanced as far as Paul had done 
 in the career of Christian improvement, be disposed to say the 
 same thing ? Especially, will not the same thing be said, and often 
 repeated, in the regions above, where every one shall have arrived 
 at the measure of the stature of a perfect man] In the regions 
 above, through eternal ages, the uniform language will be, " He 
 loved me, and gave Himself for me;" yet how can such language 
 
208 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 ever be employed by any of our brethren consistently with their 
 principles 1 Their principles will not allow thern to say, " He 
 loved me, and gave Himself for me." On the contrary, the very- 
 best any of them can even say, without relinquishing bis principles, 
 is, "He gave Himself for me, and then He loved me." When 
 pressed on the subject, indeed, they may call the two things 
 coincident — they may talk of "no lapse of time" being conceived, 
 or conceivable, between the desire and the purpose. That, how- 
 ever, is only a shift by which they destroy their own argument. 
 It is essential to their system that the order of the divine decrees 
 be inverted, that the death of the Saviour be conceived to precede, 
 not to follow, His love ; and who does not see, if this system were 
 true, how impossible it must be for any of the redeemed ever to 
 say, " He loved me, and gave Himself for me V 
 
 Enough has been said to show that the doctrine we teach was 
 the doctrine of the first Seceders. It would have relieved them, 
 perhaps, from some embarrassment, and kept them from employ- 
 ing some not very accurate expressions, had they perceived a 
 little more clearly what is meant by Christ's fulfilling the law. 
 
 3. Another testimony of the same kind, only, if possible, yet 
 ampler and more explicit, was furnished not long after by the 
 same religious body, or a principal branch of them, when the 
 Pelagian heresy broke out among themselves, being vented by one 
 of their number, Mr Mair of Orwell. After due admonition and 
 long forbearance, Mr Mair was deposed from his office, and the 
 doctrine which he bad impugned was strongly asserted. The 
 following are the articles which, on that occasion, the Synod 
 avowed in a public deed: — 
 
 1. "That, in the covenant of grace, our Lord Jesus Christ 
 became the federal Head and Representative of those only among 
 mankind sinners whom God hath, out of His mere good pleasure, 
 from all eternity elected to everlasting life, and for them only He 
 was made an undertaking Surety." 
 
 2. " That our Lord Jesus Christ hath redeemed none others by 
 His death but the elect only, because for them only He was made 
 under the law— made sin, and made a curse — being substituted 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 209 
 
 only in their room and stead, and having only their iniquities laid 
 upon Him, or imputed unto Him, so that He did hear only their 
 sins ; for their sins only He did lay down His life and was crucified." 
 
 3. " That there is but one special redemption, by the death of 
 Christ, for all the objects thereof, as He died in one and the 
 same respect for all those for whom He in any respect died." 
 
 4. "That the intercession of Christ is infallibly of the same 
 extent in respect of its objects with the atonement and satisfaction 
 made by His death; so that He actually and effectually makes 
 intercession for all those for whom He laid down His life, or for 
 whom He purchased redemption, that it may be fully applied to 
 them in clue time." 
 
 5. " That the death of Christ, as it is stated in the covenant of 
 grace, hath a necessary, inseparable, certain, and infallible con- 
 nection with, and efficacy for, the actual and complete salvation of 
 all those for whom He died; so that redemption is certainly 
 applied, and effectually communicated, to all those for whom 
 Christ purchased the same, all in whose stead He died being in 
 due season effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and 
 glorified." 
 
 6. " That Christ and the benefits of His purchase cannot be 
 divided, neither can these benefits be divided one from another. 
 "Wherefore we are made partakers of the redemption by Christ, or 
 of the benefits procured by His death, only through the effectual 
 application thereof to us by His Holy Spirit working faith in us, 
 and thereby uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling." 
 
 7. " That whereas there is a general, free, and unlimited offer of 
 Christ and salvation through Him by the gospel to sinners of 
 mankind as such (upon the foundation of the intrinsic sufficiency 
 of the death of Christ, His relation of a kinsman Redeemer to 
 mankind sinners as such, and the promise of eternal life through 
 Him to mankind sinners as such in the gospel), with an interposal 
 of divine authority in the gospel call, immediately requiring all 
 the hearers thereof to receive and trust upon Christ alone for sal- 
 vation, as He is freely offered to them in the gospel; and whereas 
 
 all the hearers of the gospel are thus privileged, with an equal, 
 
 2b 
 
12 1 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 full, and immediate warrant, to make a particular application of 
 Christ, Avith all His salvation, to themselves, by a true and lively 
 faith, so the gospel offer and call, containing the warrant of faith, 
 cannot require or infer any universal atonement or redemption as 
 to purchase, but are altogether consistent with, and conformable 
 unto, the Scripture doctrine of particular redemption, which is 
 expressed in the six preceding articles." 
 
 The whole of these articles I have thought fit to transcribe, 
 although it is only the last of them that, properly speaking, relates 
 to the subject under discussion. The other six, however, are so 
 connected with the last, that it would not well be understood 
 without them. To some it may appear that the whole extract 
 contains more assertion than proof, but I must take leave to say 
 that this is the nature of such documents. No one looks for 
 proofs in an ecclesiastical deed, but for a declaration of opinion 
 and of authority on the part of the body by whom the deed is 
 emitted; and in the present instance that is sufficiently explicit. 
 The reader will observe that the call of the gospel is made to rest 
 on the intrinsic sufficiency of the atonement, and I would refer him 
 to what has been said on that subject in a preceding Section. The 
 intrinsic sufficiency is indeed implied, and may be regarded as in 
 some sense the ground of the call; but the specific suitableness of 
 the call rests on the fact, that the death of the Saviour was the 
 fulfilling of the law — the removal of all legal impediments; all 
 impediments, as Traill expresses it, on the part of God, and on 
 our part, to hinder our partaking of Christ, according to God's 
 offer, if we accept of Him. With this slight remark, the Act of 
 the General Associate Synod may be regarded as another and a 
 highly important witness in favour of the doctrine advocated in 
 these passages. 
 
 Mr Mair seems to have talked of the portion of mankind called 
 the non-elect much in the same style in which others of the party 
 have talked since. Not, indeed, that he said anything, so far as I 
 know, about a double substitution on the part of the Saviour, or 
 His " suffering evils" for the sake of those for whose sins He did 
 not satisfy — or anything about a "secondary reference," which 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 211 
 
 was never to save any one, but which yet was to be the ground, 
 and the only ground, on which any one could be invited to believe. 
 If, however, he did not speak of these things, he spoke of things 
 equally absurd, and perhaps more revolting. When asked to say 
 what the object of the Saviour was in dying for the non-elect, 
 since He had not died to save them, his reply was, that, " by His 
 death He bought all mankind, the elect as His bride, the rest of 
 the world as His tools, for the glory of God and the good of the 
 elect" (M'Kerrow's History of the Secession, vol. i., chap, vi., p. 
 344). By others of that period, whose tenets Mair was under- 
 stood to have imbibed, it was affirmed that the Saviour " laid 
 down His life for those Avho perish, with the intention, end, arid 
 purpose that they might be made fit objects of gospel venge- 
 ance and wrath — wrath of gospel kind, as a sorer and worse 
 punishment than law wrath — for which end they were given to 
 Him and purchased by Him" (GibVs Preface to Owen on the Death 
 of Christ, Edinr., 1755). 
 
 The sound-minded part of the church, at that period, had no 
 easy conflict to maintain; it was as bad as fighting with wild 
 beasts at Ephesus; yet, upon the whole, they seem to have shown 
 themselves equal to the crisis. The following is a specimen of the 
 reasonings they employed : — 
 
 " The atonement and righteousness of Christ are in themselves 
 of a justice-satisfying and law-magnifying nature; containing the 
 utmost of what law and justice can require for repairing the whole 
 breach of the covenant of works, and fulfilling the same, in order 
 to the justification and salvation of mankind sinners as such, who 
 are warranted to betake themselves thereto by faith. 
 
 " Thus, though our Lord came to redeem only a part of man- 
 kind, He did not come to fulfil only a part of the law, or to bear 
 only a part of its curse; and there can be no distinguishing of this 
 matter into parts. Nothing less could have been sufficient for the 
 redemption of any one of them than a repairing the whole breach 
 of the covenant of works, and a fulfilling tire same; nothing less 
 than a fulfilling the whole commands of the law, and a bearing its 
 whole curse — all which He has done. And nothing more could 
 
212 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 be requisite, in the nature of the thing, for the redemption of all 
 sinners who are under the broken covenant. Though our Lord 
 had come to bring about an effectual redemption and salvation of 
 all mankind, law and justice would have required no other, no 
 further atonement and righteousness, than what He has actually 
 wrought out; being such as contains the utmost of what they can 
 require for that end" (Display of the Secession Testimony, vol. ii., 
 pp. 153, 154). 
 
 How near this comes to what we plead for needs hardly be 
 said. "What the Saviour has done, He has done in human nature, 
 the nature common to all; He has fulfilled the whole law, the 
 law broken by all; He has endured the whole curse, the curse 
 incurred by all. Nothing more would have been required by the 
 law, nothing more by the justice of God, though salvation had 
 been contemplated on the most extensive scale. This does not, 
 indeed, render the remedy a general remedy, for the extent of the 
 remedy must be regulated by the Divine intention, and by that 
 alone; but it lays a foundation, as every one may see, for a general 
 call, inasmuch as it removes every impediment, except what exists 
 in the sinner's own mind. 
 
 Section VII— t)itbs of pr Scoff, gmtjjnr of flje Commenfarg, 
 ana of ^rtljbisbojj ftlsljcr. 
 
 There are few writers to be compared with Mr Scott. Either 
 to the north or to the south of the Tweed, it will be difficult to 
 find his match. There may be a dash of exaggeration, perhaps, 
 but there is much truth in the testimony borne to him by an 
 author of some note: — " He died neglected, if not despised, by 
 the hierarchy of the Church of England, although in him she lost 
 a teacher, weighed against whom the most reverend, right rever- 
 end, very reverend, and venerable personages, if all thrown 
 together into the opposite scale, would at once have kicked the 
 beam." * 
 
 In the preface to his Sermon on Election, this excellent person 
 * Sir James Stephen's Ecclesiastical Biography, vol. ii., p. 123. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 213 
 
 states that lie had represented "redemption by the death of 
 Christ as being of infinite sufficiency, and therefore, in some 
 respects, the common benefit of mankind." " On these grounds," 
 he remarks, " we may say to any human being, ' Believe on the 
 Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved;' but, on the other 
 plan, no sinner can know, previously to conversion, whether he 
 has any more right to rely on the merits and mediation of Christ 
 than fallen angels have." What he means by the " other plan," 
 I do not certainly know. Most probably what others have called 
 the " exact equivalent scheme "■ — a scheme for which no judicious 
 person can possibly have any favour. 
 
 In the Sermon itself he asks, " What is the general purport of 
 this (Christ's) commission'? Let us hear the Word of God: — 
 'This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that 
 Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners. God so loved 
 the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son, that whosoever 
 believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 
 God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but 
 that the world through Him might be saved. He is the propitia- 
 tion for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
 whole world.' Had the penmen of the Scriptures been as scrupu- 
 lously careful to prevent even the appearance of deviating from 
 exact systematical consistency as many moderns are, they would 
 never have thus expressed themselves. For my part, I dare not 
 use any of the above-mentioned arts of criticism to narrow the 
 obvious sense of these and similar texts; and as I hope this day, 
 previous to receiving and administering the Lord's Supper, to use 
 the following terms in solemn prayer, ' Christ, by His own obla- 
 tion of Himself, once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient 
 sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world,' 
 I would no more contradict this solemn profession from the pulpit 
 than I would preach against the seventeenth article respecting 
 predestination." " Christ was lifted up on the cross," he says 
 again, " like the brazen serpent upon the pole, for ' all the ends of 
 the earth to look to and be saved.' This may properly be called 
 the common benefit of mankind. There is no defect of merit, of 
 
214 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 mercy, or of grace in Him, nor would there be any, if millions as 
 numerous as the sand should receive out of His fulness." 
 
 This seems rather to favour the doctrine of unlimited atonement, 
 yet I am perfectly satisfied, after considering what this worthy 
 man has written, that he means to teach no other doctrine than I 
 have been endeavouring to teach in the preceding pages. Had 
 any one stated to him that Christ had fulfilled the whole law, 
 magnifying it, and making it honourable; that He had removed 
 every impediment on God's part (Traill); that His righteousness 
 was of a justice-satisfying and law-magnifying nature (Adam G-ibb); 
 and that He had endured the whole curse, ratified the whole 
 covenant, and opened the channels of infinite mercy to flow with- 
 out restraint; — had any one represented this to Mr Scott as the 
 true doctrine of atonement, I am well convinced he would at once 
 have admitted that the representation was just. The first three 
 heads of his discourse are, " That Christ came down from heaven 
 to execute His Father's commission; that this commission has 
 a special reference to those whom the Father has given Him; 
 that all these, and none else, will come to Him." And, in 
 some Notes to the Discourse, he remarks : — " It is allowed 
 that Christ in dying for sinners intended to save none but those 
 who eventually shall be saved. In respect of this intention, he 
 says, ' His blood was shed for many, for the remission of sins,' and 
 that He 'gave His life a ransom for many.' Yet in paying this 
 ransom there was not barely a sufficient atonement for them, but, 
 as it were, a redundancy of merit, sufficient even for the sins of all 
 men." Where is there any idea in all this but the ideas with 
 which the reader is familiar'? In various places, indeed, the 
 author seems to speak as if he understood the decree of election to 
 look rather at the conversion and sanctification of sinners than at 
 their redemption; but how it could look at the one, without at the 
 same time looking at the other, is to me incomprehensible. Those, 
 indeed, who deny that Christ fulfilled the law at all — who deny 
 that the law could admit of a Substitute — or that justice was 
 satisfied, or could be satisfied, in the proper sense — these persons, 
 indeed, as we have already seen, may exclude the atonement of 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 215 
 
 Christ from what they call election, and do in fact exclude it, b\it 
 Mr Scott held nothing in common with them on any of these 
 subjects. He admitted that Christ had fulfilled the law, and 
 satisfied justice in the proper sense, for he knew of no other sense. 
 He admitted, and taught — witness his words — that "Jesus, the 
 Surety of His people, had become answerable for the debt of sin, 
 and had engaged to satisfy divine justice, and magnify the holy 
 law as their Representative" (on Heb. vii. 22). How could the 
 man who wrote these words, with many other words of similar 
 import throughout his voluminous works — how could he for a 
 moment imagine that the blessed Saviour did not look to His 
 people and love them, when He was giving Himself for them an 
 offering and a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour, as truly, as 
 intensely, as when He visits them on the day of conversion, and 
 turns them from the errors of their way ? Or unguardedly, as on 
 some occasions he might seem to express himself, how is it possible 
 he could imagine that both processes were not embraced in the 
 same eternal purpose I* 
 
 2. To the views of Archbishop Usher Mr Scott appeals as 
 confirmatory of his own, and in particular he borrows from him a 
 fine illustration of the operation of the gospel in the calling of 
 many, while few are chosen — the illustration afforded by the 
 proclamation of Cyrus, giving liberty to the Jews to go up and 
 rebuild their city and temple; a liberty which might have been 
 embraced by all, but was actually embraced only by some. It 
 appears that the Archbishop rather goes beyond Mr Scott in some 
 of his statements, though upon the whole they agree. The Arch- 
 bishop seems, in some places, to make the impetration of salvation 
 more extensive than the application of it — an opinion not very 
 reconcileable with the doctrine of the Saviour's suretyship. What 
 amounts to the same thing, he makes the satisfaction of the 
 Saviour of greater extent than His intercession, as if our great 
 High Priest would refuse to pray for those for whom He would 
 not refuse to lay down His life. These things certainly cannot be 
 defended; yet when we find the venerable man declaring, " Christ, 
 * Scott's Theological Works, in one volume. — Sermon on Ehction. 
 
216 THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 
 
 by His death and obedience, hath provided a sufficient remedy 
 for the taking away of all thy sins, and the gospel offereth the 
 same unto thee; therefore thou oughtest to accept and apply the 
 same to the comfort of thine own soul "■ — where do we find anything 
 but our own doctrine 1 ? So, in like manner, when we find him declar- 
 ing " that Christ hath so died for all men — as they lay down in the 
 Conference at the Hague — ut reconciliationem cum Deo et peccatorum 
 remissionem singulis impetraverit — I hold to be untrue, being 
 well assured that our Saviour hath obtained, at the hands of His 
 Father, reconciliation and forgiveness of sins, not for the repro- 
 bate, but for the elect only " — when we find him saying, " I have 
 learned from Christ's own mouth, John xvii. 9, ' I pray not for 
 the (reprobate) world,' and I must needs esteem it a great folly to 
 imagine that He hath impetrated reconciliation and remission of 
 sins for that world." I agree, therefore, thus far with Mr Ames in 
 his dispute with Grevinchovius, that impetration and application in 
 this matter are of equal extent, and that forgiveness of sins is 
 not by our Saviour impetrated for any unto whom the merit of 
 His death is not applied in particular." * When we find such 
 explicit statements as these emitted by this eminent man, can we 
 but believe that, like Mr Scott, his disciple, he is substantially one 
 with us 1 ? One main thing that seems to have perplexed the 
 Archbishop in some degree, was an opinion entertained by some 
 persons in his time, and towards which, perhaps, he was rather 
 inclined himself, namely, that the faith of the gospel is a per- 
 suasion, on the part of the sinner, that Christ has died for him in 
 particular. If this were indeed the faith of the gospel, and the 
 gospel required every man to believe it, then unquestionably the 
 gospel would require every man to believe in universal atonement. 
 This seems to have staggered the good man a little, but surely 
 without reason, for the faith of the gospel is a totally different 
 thing. The faith of the gospel can be only the belief of what the 
 gospel reveals, and assuredly nowhere does the gospel reveal that 
 Christ died for any man in particular. 
 
 Upon the whole, Archbishop Usher seems to have had little in 
 * Letter on the Death and Satisfaction of Christ — passim. 
 
THE CALL OF THE GOSPEL. 217 
 
 common with our modern innovators. No idea had he of public 
 justice, no idea of the law not admitting a substitute, or of its 
 being, in the matter of our salvation, not fulfilled, but " suspended 
 and over-ruled." As little idea had he of men being pardoned 
 without being justified, or of their being justified without being 
 declared righteous, or of their being admitted into heaven, and 
 continuing to hive for ever, without being delivered from the desert 
 of sin. So far from this, he was only, like the Marrowmen and the 
 first Scottish Seceders, and, we may say, serious Christians in general, 
 much attached to the doctrine of a free salvation, and of course 
 inclined to look with jealousy upon any statement or exhibition of 
 the gospel that might appear to him not to afford the amplest 
 encouragement to every sinner to " accept and apply " the grace 
 of the gospel " to the comfort of his own soul." 
 
 2c 
 
CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 The principal objections to the doctrine I advocate, as the reader 
 must he aware, have been answered already. The Chapter devoted 
 to the reconciling of apparently conflicting texts has been, in fact, 
 devoted to that purpose. There are other objections, however, as 
 has been hinted above, of a more miscellaneous nature, some of 
 which have an air of plausibility, and a few of these it may not be 
 improper briefly to notice. 
 
 1. The first is taken from 1 Cor. xv. 22: "As in Adam all die, 
 even so in Christ shall all be made alive." The objection supposes 
 that the all in both cases denotes men universally, and I should 
 imagine it also supposes that the death which comes by Adam, 
 and the life which comes by Christ, are each to be taken in 
 the most unlimited sense. I offer then, in reply, the following 
 remarks : — ■ 
 
 First, The objection proves too much for those who bring it. 
 It proves the doctrine of universal salvation. The life obtained 
 through Christ is eternal life; and if all who died in Adam are, 
 without exception, made partakers of that life, the universal 
 restorationist must be in the right, and there can be no such thing 
 as a bottomless pit. 
 
 Secondly, If life be connected with the atonement at all, the 
 doctrine of our brethren is effectually overthrown. According to 
 them, Christ came neither to procure life nor to bestow it — He 
 only came to make expiation for sin — and if, after the expiation is 
 made, any obtain life, it is solely in virtue of a " separate arrange- 
 ment." To talk, therefore, of life in Christ, as being a certain 
 thing, not less certain than death in Adam — to use language of 
 this kind, as the apostle does, is to speak in a style, which to our 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 219 
 
 brethren, and to all who think as they think, must be utterly 
 incomprehensible. 
 
 But, lastly, The proper answer to the objection is, that the 
 passage relates to believers alone. We should give the true mean- 
 ing of the apostle were we to read his w* >rds with an addition — " for 
 as in Adam all (God's children) die, even so in Christ shall (they) 
 all be made alive." To the impenitent portion of mankind there is 
 not the slightest reference. They are not before the mind of the 
 - apostle, nor does he speak of them either good or bad. Those of 
 whom he speaks are those " who are Christ's" — those " who have 
 fallen asleep in Christ" — those of whom Christ is the "first-fruits" 
 — and who, in their " own order," shall be raised by Christ " at His 
 coming." The passage, therefore, rightly understood, affords 
 ground for no objection — it says not a word on the controverted 
 subject, and if it be urged as an objection, either by our brethren 
 or by their confederates the Arminians, it is urged only through 
 misapprehension. 
 
 2. Another passage which we may class with this, inasmuch as 
 it is to be explained on the same principle, is Isa. liii. 6, " All we 
 like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own 
 way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." The 
 question is, In whose name does the jtrophet speak when he utters 
 these words ? Is it in the name of mankind universally, or is it in 
 the name of the church] There can be little difficulty with regard 
 to the answer. He speaks in the name of those who could say, 
 "with His stripes we are healed," which is not exactly the 
 description of mankind universally. Besides, if the prophet used 
 the general terms in the sense attached to them by the objectors, 
 how could we reconcile him with himself, when he says of the 
 Messiah in a subsequent verse, "He bore the sin of many," that is, 
 of a limited number — and especially when he adds, "for the 
 transgression of my people was He stricken?" 
 
 3. There are some passages which seem to intimate that those 
 for whom the Saviour died shall finally perish, a surmise which, if 
 true, would go far to establish the doctrine of our brethren. Of 
 such passages the following are a specimen : — "But if thy brother 
 
220 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 be grieved with thy meat, then walkest thou not charitably. 
 Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died," Eom. xiv. 
 15. " Through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for 
 whom Christ died," 1 Cor. viii. 11. The argument from these 
 passages is to this effect : If Christ died for those who perish, He 
 died for all; no one doubts that He died for those who are saved; 
 but those who are saved and those who perish make up the whole 
 race. 
 
 The reader will remember that something has been said on this 
 subject in a former Chapter. Of course, the less needs to be said 
 on it now. Some have attempted, with no great success, to take 
 off the force of the words, "destroy" and "perish," by making 
 them to signify something short of perdition. To me this appears 
 rather unwise. The words, I am inclined to think, must be 
 allowed their full latitude of meaning, for it is supposed that the 
 weak brother does sin, and sin, when allowed to take its course, 
 issues in rum. Do I then admit that any Christian brother, any one 
 for whom Christ has died, shall be ultimately involved in ruin 1 ? I 
 admit no such thing. I conceive that the contrary is demonstrably 
 true. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Who shall 
 pluck the elect, for whom the Saviour died, out of His hand? He 
 will give to them eternal life, and they shall never perish. In the 
 place before us the apostle is speaking of the tendency of a certain 
 tenor of conduct, and that tendency he pronounces to be the measure 
 of its criminality. The subject he is treating of is the eating of meat 
 that had been sacrificed to idols, or eating in an idol's temple, an 
 action indifferent in itself, but which in some cases was attended 
 with consequences the most serious. Some Christians were 
 " strong in the faith," others were " weak." The strong knew 
 that an idol was " nothing in the world," that it had no real 
 existence, that it was a mere creature of the imagination, and that 
 the food consecrated to it was in no respect different from other 
 food. The " weak," however, who possessed not this knowledge, 
 were embarrassed with doubts. They fancied that the idol was a 
 real being, and that to sit down to an entertainment in its temple, 
 or to partake of food that had been consecrated at its shrine, was 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 221 
 
 to pay it a kind of homage; in one word, that to " eat " was to be 
 guilty of idolatry. ~Sov>~, it appears that the " strong " among the 
 Corinthians acted a most thoughtless, a most inconsiderate part, 
 to call it by no worse name. They used the liberty which their 
 superior knowledge gave them without regard to the scruples of 
 their "weak" brethren. They partook with all freedom of the 
 consecrated food, when occasion offered, just as if it had been any 
 other food, and the consecpience was that the "weak," associating 
 with them, and influenced by their example, were induced in some 
 cases to partake of it too. To them, however, the action was 
 " sin." Their " conscience, being weak, was defiled." They con- 
 ceived that when they ate they were guilty of idolatry, that they 
 paid homage to another God besides the living and true God; and 
 the criminality of the act was perhaps not less than if the case 
 had been really as they supposed. What the apostle most 
 pointedly condemns is the conduct of the "stronger" brethren. 
 They violated to a shocking extent the law of charity. They 
 were chargeable with destroying their weak brother. The infer- 
 ence, indeed, does not at all follow that the weak brother was 
 actually destroyed or perished eternally. The death of Christ, the 
 promise of Christ, the unalterable love of Christ, as we have 
 already hinted, had made effectual provision against such a result; 
 but no thanks to him who " walked uncharitably," to him who 
 "pleased himself," and who, by the example he set, threw a 
 " stumbling-block and an occasion of falling in his brother's way." 
 He was chargeable, on the fairest construction, with his brother's 
 ruin. He had led his brother into sin, and, consequently, into 
 destruction; and that the grace of the Saviour might prevent the 
 destruction, or would prevent it, made not the smallest difference 
 with regard to his criminality. 
 
 There is nothing therefore in the passages, when their true 
 purport and bearing are considered, to support the inference 
 drawn from them by our brethren; but there is something in 
 them, I proceed to remark, decidedly favourable to our cause, of 
 which our brethren do not seem to be aware. I do not know if 
 there be a place in the whole Xew Testament from which the 
 
222 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 conclusion may be more triumphantly deduced, that Christ died, 
 not for all men, but for some only. The criminality of the action 
 which the apostle condemns, it must be observed, the extreme 
 uncharitableness of those who " destroyed their brother with their 
 meat," is made to rest on the circumstance that he whom they 
 destroyed was a brother, and that, being a brother, it was to be 
 believed, to be taken for granted, that he was one for whom 
 Christ had died. There would have been no room for believing 
 this otherwise, no particular ground for thinking that Christ had 
 died for him, unless he had been in the judgment of charity a 
 Christian, but being a Christian, this followed of course. A more 
 decisive proof that Christ did not die for all indiscriminately I 
 cannot conceive. I feel warranted to affirm, on the authority of 
 these passages, that He died only for those who shall ultimately 
 be saved. If a man be a Christian brother, a genuine Christian 
 brother, we are sure that Christ died for him. If he be not a 
 Christian brother, it is not yet certain whether He died for him 
 or not, so long as he continues in an unconverted state. The 
 presumption is as strong that He did not as that He did. 
 
 " Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came 
 forth sweetness." The lion that roared against Samson by-and-by 
 supplied him with food, and so it is with the argument of our 
 brethren; — the explanation now given, rends it "like a kid," 
 and it yields us " honey." 
 
 We are told that great importance was attached to this argu- 
 ment by a very eminent person, the late Robert Hall of Bristol. 
 " He noticed farther," says Br Balmer of Berwick, in " Miscel- 
 laneous Gleanings from his Conversational Remarks," " that the 
 doctrine of general redemption was not only asserted expressly in 
 many texts, but presupposed in others, such as, ' Destroy not him 
 with thy meat,' etc." * Presupposed in others ! I appeal to my 
 readers if the text produced does not presuppose the very reverse. 
 It intimates, that if a man be a Christian brother, the presumption 
 is that Christ died for him, but that if he be not a Christian 
 brother, there is no presumption of the kind. Along with his 
 * Hall's "Works, vol. vi., p. 141. 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 223 
 
 great and rare qualities, Mr Hall had a certain impetuosity of 
 thinking, which detracts considerably from the value of his 
 opinions. The " Remark " just quoted is a proof that he had 
 examined the question respecting the extent of the atonement 
 rather superficially, and that his having "believed firmly in 
 general redemption," and his having " preached it often," as we 
 are told he did, are not quite conclusive evidence that it is true. 
 
 4. Akin to the texts we have just considered is Heb. x. 29, 
 " Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought 
 worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath 
 counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, 
 an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace 1 ?" 
 This also has been considered formerly.* The argument from it 
 in favour of universal atonement is taken from the clause, " hath 
 counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, 
 an unholy thing." Those who are interested in the Saviour's 
 death, it is said, are here represented as apostatizing, and expos- 
 ing themselves to " much sorer punishment." If this were so, of 
 course He must have died for some who shall perish, and there 
 can be no infallible connection between the shedding of His blood 
 and the final salvation of those for whom it was shed. This is 
 the argument. It may be answered in more ways than one. 
 
 Some of our friends consider the expression, " wherewith He 
 was sanctified," as referring not to the apostate, but to the Saviour. 
 " It is evident," says one, " from the whole construction of the 
 passage, that the pronoun he does not refer to the apostate, but to 
 Christ. Christ is said to be consecrated, or perfected, by suffering, 
 chap. ii. 10." f This interpretation seems to me inadmissible; but 
 allowing the words, " wherewith he was sanctified," to be spoken 
 of the apostate, which appears the more natural meaning, he must 
 yet be considered as spoken of here not positively, but according 
 to what is called the judgment of charity. Under the Old 
 Testament, when the people entered into covenant with God, 
 Moses sprinkled them with blood, saying, "Behold the blood of the 
 
 * See Chap. III., Sect, vii., page 86. 
 + Stevenson on the Offices of Christ, p. 222. 
 
224 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 covenant," Exod. xxiv. 8. Under the New Testament, when men 
 accede to the church, they are said to come "to the blood of 
 sprinkling," Heh. xii. 24; and in partaking of the ordinance of the 
 Supper, they drink of that cup of which the Saviour saj-s, " This is 
 my blood of the new covenant," Matt. xxvi. 28. All this they 
 may do hypocritically, without having any real interest in the pro- 
 pitiation; yet, in the judgment of that charity which " thinketh no 
 evil," they are to be considered as doing it in spirit and in truth. 
 Accordingly, they are said to be " sanctified " with the Saviour's 
 blood, just as they are elsewhere styled, " holy brethren, partakers 
 of the heavenly calling," Heb. iii. 1 ; and elsewhere again, 
 " sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," 1 Cor. i. 2. 
 Individuals of whom all this is said, may apostatize, and do 
 apostatize, and hence the warning in the passage we are consider- 
 ing. If it be positively true of them, however, that they are 
 sanctified with the blood of Christ, not in appearance only, but 
 in reality, their apostatizing is impossible. " Much more, then," 
 says Paul, " being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved 
 from wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we 
 were reconciled to God by the death of His Son; much more, 
 being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life," Rom. v. 9, 10. 
 This our brethren, who plead for the universal atonement, cannot 
 refuse to admit. They have not yet so entirely gone over to 
 Pelagianism as to deny the doctrine of the saints' perseverance; 
 and if so, how can they maintain the argument, from the passage 
 before us, in favour of their hypothesis ] 
 
 It is not unworthy of notice, that the charge brought against 
 the apostate is, that he counts the blood of the covenant, Koivbv, a 
 common thing ; that is, common in the Jewish sense — not conse- 
 crated, unholy, unclean. I say, this is not unworthy of notice, 
 particularly of the notice of our brethren, whose cause is not to be 
 maintained without depreciating the blood of the covenant, and 
 proving it void of efficacy. In a literal sense, they say it is a 
 common thing, common to the whole human race, to the lost as 
 well as to the saved, the unavoidable consequence from which is, 
 that with regard to the great majority it has been shed in vain. 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 225 
 
 What comfort can they have in avowing such a theory 1 ? what 
 comfort in defending it? Every argument they bring is an argu- 
 ment against the value of the Saviour's blood, every advantage 
 they gain is gained at the expense of its preciousness. Were there 
 no consideration but this to move me, I should not soon be per- 
 suaded to join their ranks. 
 
 5. The only other passage to which I shall advert is 2 Pet. ii. 1, 
 "But there were false prophets also among the people, even as 
 there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in 
 damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them." To 
 give this passage the appearance of an argument in favour of 
 universal atonement, two things must be taken for granted, neither 
 of which can be proved — first, that the " Lord " means Jesus, our 
 Saviour ; and, secondly, that the "buying" spoken of means his 
 redemption. I say, neither of these things can be proved; and 
 with regard to the latter, particularly, there is a strong probability 
 that it is not true. 
 
 (1.) The word rendered Lord is Aea-n-orris, a title expressive of 
 supreme dominion. When applied to men it signifies a master of 
 slaves, or an absolute ruler whose own will is his law, and its 
 correlate is dovXos, a slave. Applied to the Divine Being it is in 
 most instances, if not in every instance, the distinctive appellation 
 of God the Father. It occurs in the New Testament altogether 
 five times, and, of these instances, only two are doubtful. With 
 regard to the other three there is no dispute. Of the two doubt- 
 ful instances, the one is the passage under consideration, "denying 
 the Lord that bought them," t6v dyopda-am-a &vt6vs 8eaw6T7iv; the other is 
 Jude 4, " denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ," rbv 
 
 fxovov dea-irorriv Qeoi> Kai Kvpiov tjiiuv 'Itjo-ow Xpiarbv. The latter passage, the 
 
 reader of Greek will immediately perceive, may denote not two 
 
 persons, according to the English version, but one only, " the only 
 
 potentate, our God and Lord, Jesus Christ." Mr Granville Sharpe 
 
 gives it among the Examples illustrative of his Rules for interpreting 
 
 the Greek Article in the New Testament, and Beza, at a much 
 
 earlier period, had rendered it in his version, Solum ilium herum 
 
 Deum ac Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum. Macknight, however, 
 
 2d 
 
226 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 objects that the want of the article before Kvpiov is " too slight a 
 foundation" on which to rest "so important a doctrine;" and he gives 
 examples of passages where the Father and the Son are "mentioned 
 jointly, with the article prefixed to one of them only." He farther 
 objects, that Beza's reading would appropriate the title, " only 
 potentate," to Christ alone, to the exclusion of the Father, and he 
 adds, what seems to carry considerable weight, that the passage in 
 Jude is to be regarded as parallel to 1 John ii. 22, where the same 
 description of persons whom Jude speaks of are represented as 
 denying " the Father and the Son," not the Son alone, but the 
 Father and the Son together. 
 
 As to the passage before us, " denying the Lord that bought 
 them," it appears to me that the reasons for applying it to our 
 Saviour are not nearly so strong as are the reasons for applying to 
 Him the passage in Jude. If it can be shown that the " buying " 
 spoken of denotes not eternal redemption effected by His death, 
 but some interposition of another kind, of which the false teachers 
 had reaped the benefit — if this can be shown, as I think it may, 
 the ground for supposing Him to be meant will be greatly weak- 
 ened, if not totally removed. 
 
 We may add, that the first Christian writers, who may be sup- 
 posed to have understood the language of the New Testament, 
 seem to use the title 6 8e<rTr6rr)s, as a distinctive appellation of the 
 first person in the Godhead. In particular, this may be remarked 
 of the Roman Clement, one of the earliest and most respectable of 
 their number. Once and again does this writer employ the title 
 in his Epistle to the Corinthians, and in every instance he uses it 
 only in reference to God the Father.* "The worlds beyond the 
 ocean," he says, " are governed by the same laws tov fe<rw6Tov of 
 the Potentate." f "All those things" (the various provisions of 
 nature), he says again, "5 ntyas 8-n/j.wvpybs /cat Se<xir6Tt]s, the mighty 
 Artificer and Sovereign of all has appointed to exist in peace and 
 harmony." + " Let us observe, beloved," he says in a third place, 
 
 * I say his Epistle, as if there were but one, because I regard the Second 
 Epistle, which goes by the name of Clement, as not genuine. 
 
 t Wotton's Clement, chap. xx. J Ibid. 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 227 
 
 " iii what manner the Sovereign, 8 Seair6T7js, continually holds up 
 to us the approaching resurrection, of which, having raised up the 
 Lord Jesus, He has made Him the first-fruits." * 
 
 Other passages might be produced from the same author, but 
 let these suffice. They warrant us to say with Dr Bennet, that 
 "the Sovereign 8 Sea-irdr-qs he seems to appropriate to the Father;" t 
 and considering that Clement was the associate of the apostles, 
 and wrote while some of them were yet in life, it may be pre- 
 sumed that he attached the true meaning to the title in question, 
 and applied it as it was applied by them. 
 
 (2.) The next point to be ascertained is, in what sense the Lord 
 had "bought" the false teachers; and scarcely need we say that 
 the same uncertainty rests upon this question as upon the other, 
 or rather much greater uncertainty. The reader may ponder the 
 following things: — 
 
 First, The Epistles of Peter, who was the apostle of the circum- 
 cision, are addressed to converted JeAvs, the strangers scattered 
 abroad through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 
 This is the received opinion, and notwithstanding all that has 
 been alleged to the contrary by Michaelis and others, there seems 
 no reason to doubt but it is the true one. And what is the 
 object of both epistles] The object of both, as the writer dis- 
 tinctly intimates, is to " stir up the minds " of these Jewish con- 
 verts, that they might be " mindful of the words spoken before 
 by the holy prophets" as well as of what had been taught them by 
 " the apostles of the Lord," 2 Pet. iii. 2. 
 
 Secondly, It was natural, and not more natural than right, that 
 those Jews who had embraced Christianity, receiving Jesus as the 
 long expected Messiah, should regard the Lord God of Israel as 
 their God, and should consider the great things he had done for 
 their fathers, in former ages, as done in some sense for themselves. 
 
 Thirdly, Language similar to what we find in the passage we are 
 considering, is often employed in the Old Testament Scriptures, to 
 signify what God did for His ancient people, when He brought 
 
 * Wotton's Clement, chap. xxiv. 
 t Theology of the Early Christians, p. 119. 
 
228 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 them out of Egypt, the house of their bondage; when He turned 
 hack their captivity at Babylon, and on other occasions employed 
 His strong hand and outstretched arm in their behalf. They are 
 said to be His people whom He had "redeemed," His "ransomed," 
 for whom He made "a way to pass over;" and He could address 
 them, we find, in such terms as these, " I am the Lord thy God, 
 the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour; I gave Egypt for thy ransom, 
 Ethiopia and Seba for thee," Isa. xliii. 3. This, as I have said, is lan- 
 guage of the same kind with that which we find in the passage before 
 us; and may it not be to these very temporal deliverances that the 
 apostle refers 1 "When he charges the false teachers with denying 
 the Lord who bought them, may he not intimate that, in depart- 
 ing from the Christian faith, they departed also from the Lord 
 God of Israel, forgetting the signs and wonders He had wrought 
 in the sight of their fathers, — the marvellous things He had 
 brought to pass in the land of Egypt, and in the field of Zoanl 
 
 Let the reader judge of this as he may be inclined. I submit it 
 for consideration, and it deserves consideration; but there are two 
 remarks of a more decisive nature, which I proceed to subjoin. 
 
 1. Even Macknight, although a thorough Arminian, sees and 
 admits that the "buying" cannot mean eternal redemption. " Be- 
 cause the Lord is said to have bought the persons who denied Him, 
 buying cannot mean the buying of these persons from eternal punish- 
 ment, but must be taken in the sense in which God is said to have 
 bought the Israelites to be His subjects and people, viz., by work- 
 ing miracles for their deliverance out of Egypt, and their intro- 
 duction into Canaan." If He had bought them from eternal 
 punishment they would never have denied Him, at least, so denied 
 Him as to bring upon themselves " swift destruction," else the 
 destruction here called "swift" cannot be final and irremediable. 
 This appears to carry its own evidence. Although we admit not 
 what our brethren have called the exact equivalent scheme — admit 
 not that our blessed Lord, in giving Himself for us, endured only 
 a limited amount of suffering, neither more nor less — although we 
 reject this, we yet contend that the commutation language which 
 the Holy Ghost employed respecting His atonement is most expres- 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 229 
 
 sive language, most intelligible language, and that it warrants us to 
 say that He died in our stead — died that we might not die — gave 
 His life for our life — redeemed us from the curse, He being made 
 a curse, and so, strictly speaking, bought us with a price, not 
 indeed in a pecuniary but in a moral sense. In this way, by 
 buying us, He secured our salvation, rendering it not possible 
 merely, but certain. Be the language figurative or not figurative, 
 it cannot mean less than this. If it meant less, it would be absurd 
 — an example of metaphor abused. This Macknigkt sees clearly 
 enough, and admits it. Are we not warranted to say with him, 
 "the buying cannot mean buying from eternal punishment]" 
 
 2. That the Lord had bought the false teachers is represented as 
 the great aggravation of their sin in denying Him. It would have 
 been little, comparatively, for other men to deny Him, but for 
 those whom He had bought to deny Him — there v;as delinquency 
 — there was criminality of the deepest shade? So the apostle 
 reasons, yet who does not see that, upon the principles of our 
 brethren, he reasons most inconsequentially] Upon the principles 
 of our brethren, the Lord's having bought the false teachers could 
 be no aggravation of their sin whatever, nor can it be an aggrava- 
 tion of any one sin more than of another. The Lord has bought 
 all men, if our brethren be in the right — every human being that 
 ever was, or ever shall be, has the Lord bought; and of course 
 every human being, when he sins, sins against the Lord who 
 bought him. It is plain, therefore, that the apostle, hi this much 
 disputed passage, reasons upon other principles than the principles 
 of our brethren, and that, be his meaning what it may, it cannot 
 possibly be the meaning they would ascribe to him. 
 
 Under the head of Miscellaneous Objections it may not, perhaps, 
 be improper to advert, in a few sentences, to what is alleged by 
 our brethren respecting the incompatibility of our views on the 
 subject of atonement with the moral government of God. The 
 moral government of God extends to all men, and our brethren 
 seem to imagine, at least some of their most noted writers, that it 
 follows, as an inevitable consequence, that the atonement must 
 
230 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 extend to all men too. The atonement, they tell us, is the 
 "foundation of moral government;" it is "a principle of moral 
 administration," and must therefore concern the whole species 
 alike. I am not very sure if I understand correctly what they 
 mean when they talk of moral government; but when they inti- 
 mate that atonement and moral government must needs be co- 
 extensive, I am perfectly sure they assert what is neither tenable 
 nor true. If atonement and moral government must needs be 
 co-extensive, it follows that atonement is essential to moral 
 government, and that wherever the one exists, the other must 
 exist also — a position utterly at variance with facts. 
 
 Into the consideration of this subject I cannot enter at any 
 length; my performance is drawing to a close, and I must confine 
 myself to a few cursory remarks. I am satisfied, however, that it 
 is a subject of the very greatest magnitude, that sound views 
 respecting it are essential to every right theory, either of morals 
 or of religion, and that the man who shall take it up and discuss 
 it, with a reasonable share of candour and good sense, will confer 
 an inestimable benefit on the Christian public. 
 
 " Moral government," says Bishop Butler, " consists in reward- 
 ing the righteous and punishing the wicked; in rendering to men 
 according to their actions, considered as good or evil. And the 
 perfection of moral government consists in doing this with regard 
 to all intelligent creatures, in an exact proportion to their personal 
 merits or demerits " (Analogy, Part I., chap, hi., paragraph 2). 
 
 Moral government is the government of creatures endowed with 
 reason and conscience — who are capable of knowing, fearing, 
 loving, obeying, and enjoying their Almighty Maker, who are 
 bound to love and obey Him by the law of their nature, and who, 
 if they fail to do so, must be regarded as transgressors of the law, 
 and subject to its penalty. In other words, moral government is 
 the government of which the rule is the moral law — that law 
 which sprung out of the relation necessarily subsisting between a 
 rational creature and its Creator, and which, if expressed in 
 words, takes the following shape : — " Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
 God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 231 
 
 strength, .and with all thy mind." Wherever this law is promul- 
 gated, wherever this law is the rule of administration, there moral 
 government is established — there the functions of moral govern- 
 ment are exercised, although it may be a state where there is 
 no sin, and consequently no atonement is needed, or a state where, 
 although there is sin, there is no atonement provided. 
 
 Moral government is carried on in heaven; indeed, it is what 
 Butler calls "the perfection of moral government." In that blessed 
 state each individual is treated in exact proportion to his deserts: 
 I mean heaven, not as the house of many mansions, to which the 
 souls of the just are removed, but as the habitation of the holy angels, 
 those glorious spirits who have kept their first estate, and who are 
 represented as the ministers of God, standing in His presence, and 
 " hearkening to the voice of His word." The angels need no 
 atonement, and they partake of none. They have never sinned, 
 and no provision of mercy is required to recover them from sin. 
 Yet they are the subjects of moral government — the most perfect 
 moral government, we have reason to think, anywhere existing 
 throughout the extent of the Almighty's empire. The angels, 
 indeed, are affected by the atonement — the atonement made for 
 human transgression by the obedience and death of the Son of 
 God ; affected they are by that atonement in various ways, and to 
 a degree of which we are ill qualified to judge. " Which things," 
 says an apostle, speaking of the mysteries of our redemption, "which 
 
 things the angels desire to look into," eiridvfjiovfftv ayyeXoi irapaKvxf/ai ; 
 
 stooping down, with earnest and curious gaze, after the manner in 
 which the cherubim in the sanctuary are represented as directing 
 their eyes toward the mercy-seat, 1 Peter i. 12. Elsewhere we 
 are told that "they are all ministering spirits, sent forth to 
 minister to them who shall be heirs of salvation," Heb. i. 14. 
 Elsewhere, again, it is intimated that to make known unto them 
 " the principalities and powers in the heavenly places, the manifold 
 wisdom of God," exhibited in the scheme of mercy, was one object 
 contemplated in the institution of the church, Eph. iii. 10. And 
 in the visions of the Apocalypse, we find them taking part with 
 the elders, who are understood to represent the church, and 
 
232 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 with the living creatures, who are understood to represent the 
 teachers of the church, in raising songs of salvation to the Lord 
 God and to the Lamh, Kev. v. 11, 12. All this proves that the 
 holy angels take an interest in the atonement; we may venture 
 to say, the most intense interest — -much more intense than crea- 
 tures of inferior capacity can he supposed to take; yet where is 
 the man who will affirm that it is, in any sense, an atonement for 
 them, or that it enters as a principle into that moral administra- 
 tion of which they are the subjects? 
 
 Moral government is carried on in hell, the abode of the devil 
 and his angels. There sin is constantly committed, and by Him 
 who executes justice and judgment, as constantly punished. There 
 the moral law is the rule of administration, the law which says, 
 "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God." The inability of these 
 accursed fiends to comply with this law, their inability to do any- 
 thing but hate Him who demands their love, does not make void 
 His right to demand it; nor, on the other hand, does it diminish 
 their guilt in refusing it, as the fearful recompense rendered to 
 them bears witness — the weeping, and wailing, and gnashing of 
 teeth which prevail in their dismal abode. 
 
 The devils, too, are affected by the atonement — affected by it 
 not less, although in an opposite way — perhaps we might say 
 affected much more — than their brethren who fell not, but kept 
 their first estate. The atonement is the foundation of a kingdom 
 by which their kingdom is crushed. The devil was the "old 
 serpent," the beguiler, the bruising of whose head was announced 
 when first it was intimated that man should find grace. "To 
 destroy the works of the devil " was the great purpose for which 
 "the Son of God was manifested;" and when lifted up on the 
 accursed tree, He "spoiled principalities and powers, and made 
 a show of them openly." The devils, therefore, are not without 
 an interest in the atonement — a very special interest — but it never 
 was intended to "wash their robes or make them white;" it never 
 was intended to bring to them the tidings of peace, nor does it 
 enter as an element into that most righteous, although most 
 appalling, system of rule which is exercised in their prison-house. 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 233 
 
 It may be added, that moral government was carried on in our 
 world previous to the Fall. The paradisiacal state exemplified it 
 in the greatest perfection, although in that state the atonement 
 was never heard of till it had ceased to be paradisiacal. Our first 
 parents were as truly the subjects of God's moral government 
 before they tasted the forbidden tree as after; and the only differ- 
 ence was, that in the one condition they knew nothing but good, 
 in the other they knew both good and evil. So much for the 
 proof of the often repeated assertion, that the atonement is the 
 "foundation of all moral government." 
 
 It may be said, however, perhaps, that this is rather away from 
 the purpose. Our brethren may only mean that, in this our world, 
 the atonement has been a principle of moral administration ever 
 since the Fall. I acknowledge that to a certain extent it has, 
 exactly to the same extent as the true religion has been dissemi- 
 nated, but I do not see how that goes to prove the universality of 
 the atonement. I cannot understand how the atonement should 
 be a principle of government to those who never heard of it, and 
 that, alas! has always been, and at the present moment is, 
 the situation occupied by the great majority of the race. 
 Can the great God mean to govern mankind by something 
 which He does not make known to them — something which 
 they never can discover by their unassisted reason, and which 
 He does not think proper to reveal 1 ? One would think such 
 government cannot be just government, and consequently not 
 the government of the Holy One. Those who impute to the 
 Holy One such a system of government certainly go far to arraign 
 His equity, and to charge Him with procedure not such as becomes 
 the Judge of all the earth. I need not tell my readers what a 
 small portion of mankind have ever been visited by the gospel, 
 or consequently have ever heard of the atonement which the gospel 
 reveals. Of the whole period that has elapsed since the creation, 
 more than two-thirds belong to the Patriarchal and Jewish ages, 
 during which the Saviour, if He could be said to be made known at 
 all, was made known only on the most limited scale. And even since 
 
 the introduction of Christianity, although there is a command to go 
 
 2e 
 
234 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 and teach all nations, how few nations comparatively have yet 
 been taught 1 To what a melancholy extent does darkness still 
 cover the earth, and gross darkness the people 1 ? I deny that the 
 atonement can give a new character to the Divine adminstration; 
 can in any essential manner modify that administration, in those 
 parts of the Avorld where it is unheard of; and I therefore admit 
 not, but reject the assertion of our brethren, that " the gospel is an 
 instrument of moral government to all." " As many as have 
 sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as 
 have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law," Rom. ii. 12. 
 This is the only equitable rule, and this, we may be certain, is the 
 rule of God's procedure in the case we speak of, only putting the 
 gospel in place of the law; that is, the New Testament and the 
 Old together, in place of the Old alone. 
 
 Some of the remaining topics I shall dismiss with a briefer 
 notice. 
 
 I. It is alleged that the atonement must be universal, or have 
 an equal reference to the whole human race, because it is owing 
 to the atonement that the race have continued to exist subse- 
 quently to the Fall. "If there be no relationship between the 
 atonement of Christ and the providence of God, it is impossible to 
 account for the continuation of mankind on the face of the 
 earth."* This proposition is stated so vaguely, that it might 
 perhaps be both affirmed and denied. In one sense it may be 
 true, in another it is not true; but if the meaning be, that had the 
 atonement not been provided, Adam would have perished and 
 left no posterity, we may take leave to offer the following 
 remarks: — 
 
 (1.) The assertion seems rather an attempt at being wise 
 beyond what is written. The great God has not revealed, at 
 least not explicitly, the reasons of His procedure in continuing 
 our race, and in our conjectures on the subject we are liable to 
 err. There may be ground for saying that, in all probability, 
 regard to the atonement was one reason, and a main reason, but 
 no man is warranted to affirm that it was the only reason. 
 
 * Jenkyn, chap, vii., p. 201. 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 235 
 
 (2.) Although the race have been continued chiefly from regard 
 to the atonement, it does not necessarily follow that the atone- 
 ment was intended for the whole race alike. " We sow many seeds," 
 says Dr Paley, " to raise one flower." The law concerning which 
 what Paley says is an example, is a law which pervades all nature; 
 and is it not analogous to this law, or rather a great and tran- 
 scendent illustration of it, that through the manifestation of the 
 Son of God in their nature, not the whole but a portion of the 
 human race, should be brought to "glory and immortality V We 
 know, indeed, that this shall be the ultimate result, and in all the 
 ways and operations of God the result may be regarded as the 
 exponent, and the only true exponent, of the purpose. 
 
 (3.) A race of fallen creatures may be continued in existence for 
 whom there is no atonement. There is no atonement for Satan 
 and his angels, yet they exist. "Will our brethren say, that " if 
 there be no relationship between the atonement of Christ and the 
 providence of God," towards the devils, their continued existence 
 is not to be accounted for 1 
 
 (4.) After all we have said, may not the true reason for the 
 continuance of mankind be found in that divine constitution which 
 made the fall of their progenitor the fall of the race 1 ? I can 
 conceive that the transaction with Adam might be of such a 
 nature, might have such a reference to every individual of his 
 posterity, as to require that all these individuals, each in his own 
 order, should be brought into existence. If this was so, and it 
 seems highly probable, the continued existence of mankind was 
 previously secured — secured by an antecedent transaction, inde- 
 pendently of the atonement. 
 
 II. It is surmised that " the provision of a Saviour and the pro- 
 mise of mercy through Him, was a virtual abrogation of the original 
 curse. It is equivalent to a universal pardon." * Of course it 
 will follow from this that the government under which men are now 
 placed is government which does not recognize the original curse, 
 and this, I presume, must be the basis on which our brethren rest 
 more than one doctrine, which they are generally understood to 
 
 * Payne, Lecture xiii., p. 21S. 
 
236 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 hold and to disseminate, such as — first, That no atonement is 
 necessary for infants; secondly, That all children dying in infancy 
 shall be saved; and, lastly, That there is no ground of condemna- 
 tion but one, the rejection of the gospel. The original condemna- 
 tion is virtually abrogated, and unless it be incurred anew by 
 unbelief, the universal atonement must be followed by universal 
 salvation. With regard to this I submit the following observa- 
 tions : — 
 
 (1.) If such a provision was made at the Fall, it appears to have 
 been made to little purpose. In no one instance, we are warranted 
 to say, has it been productive of the desired effect. "The universal 
 pardon" has not prevented, or rather has not removed, the 
 universal condemnation. In all past time, from the Fall down- 
 wards, it has been true, and it is still true at the present moment, 
 that the world, without exception, the human race, old and young, 
 are lying in sin, under the curse, cut off from God, the objects of 
 His displeasure. This is the account Paul gives us in his epistle to 
 the Romans. He tells us, in no equivocal language, that " every 
 moutli is stopped," that "the whole world are guilty before God," 
 and that the only way in which we can be delivered from con- 
 demnation — not a possible condemnation — not a condemnation 
 that may be incurred, but that has been incurred already, and 
 under the pressure of which we are lying — that the only way we 
 can escape from it is by "the faith of Jesus Christ," Eom. iii. 19-22. 
 
 (2.) The language of Paul in the place referred to is the uniform 
 language of the Xew Testament. I mean, the same representation 
 is everywhere given of the condition of men when first visited by 
 the gospel. They are under wrath, they are under condemnation ; 
 if they believe, the condemnation is removed; if they believe not, 
 it remains. " He that believeth on the Son," says the great Master 
 Himself — "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: 
 and he that believeth not the Son shall nut see life; but the wrath 
 of God fj-iuet e7r' S.vt6v, abideth on him," John iii. 36. It does not 
 come upon him, for it is on him before, but it is not removed, as it 
 would be if he believed. 
 
 (3.) As to the case of infants, it is a subject into which I am 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 237 
 
 not disposed to inquire. One thing is clear, that if the doctrine 
 of universal atonement be not made out by other and better 
 evidence, all the aid it can derive from the kindred doctrine of 
 the universal salvation of infants will not avail it much. The 
 Scriptures teach us that infants have sinned, although in a peculiar 
 way — not after the similitude of Adam's transgression; and where 
 is the man who will venture to affirm, that if they have sinned at 
 all, although in a peculiar way, they do not need an atonement 1 ? 
 If there be such a man, he must be told that the Scriptures say, 
 in opposition to him, " the wages of sin " — without determining 
 what sin, the sin of infants as well as of adults — " the wages of 
 sin is death." We may add what is witnessed by all, what is 
 attested by universal experience, that infants suffer as well as 
 others; that, as well as others, infants die — the sentence remains 
 on them, the sentence is executed on them just as on adults; and 
 though there is good ground to believe that, with regard to many 
 of them, a very large proportion of them, the penal part of it is 
 removed through Him by whose " obedience many are made 
 righteous," and the "free gift abounds to justification more than 
 the offence to condemnation;" yet that this is the case with all 
 and every one of them, heathen and Christian, within the pale of 
 the church, and without the pale of the church, is what, indeed, 
 may be affirmed, but what must be affirmed, if at all, not only 
 Avithout evidence, but in the face of evidence. 
 
 III. It is intimated, and certainly with no lack of confidence, 
 that the universality of the atonement follows, as a consequence, 
 from the Saviour's mediatorial power. " The mediatorial presi- 
 dency of Christ," says one, " shows the connection of His atone- 
 ment with all the works of God. His atonement is the ground of 
 His government over the universe. The mediatorial glory of 
 Christ is an official glory that followed His sufferings. His crown 
 is linked to His cross. He became obedient to death, even the 
 death of the cross; wherefore God highly exalted Him to the 
 universal presidency."* On this I take leave to offer the follow- 
 ing remarks: — 
 
 * Jenkyn on the Atonement, chap, v., sect. 3, p. 146. 
 
238 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 First, I admit that the mediatorial power of the blessed 
 Jesus is without limits. "All things are put in subjection under 
 Him." "All power is given to Him, in heaven and on earth." "He- 
 has received a name above every name." There is no providence, 
 strictly speaking, but His providence. There is no course of 
 events going on in any quarter of the universe but what is carried 
 on by Him — by His agency, or under His control. 
 
 Secondly, I admit that His mediatorial power is founded on His 
 atonement. It is, indeed, because He humbled Himself, and 
 became obedient to death, the death of the cross, that God has 
 exalted Him. It is because He glorified the Father on earth, and 
 finished the work given Him to do, that the Father has now 
 glorified Him with His own self, Avith the glory which He had 
 with Him before the world was. I will not, indeed, affirm that 
 His conducting the affairs of providence is solely and exclusively 
 the result of His abasement. I conceive there is evidence in the 
 Scriptures that this department of the divine operations belongs 
 to Him, independently of what He has done and suffered as our 
 Redeemer. To Him as the word, the reason, the light, the 
 
 'Airavy cur/ma rr/s 56£t?s, or BRIGHTNESS of GLORY — to Him as the ONLY- 
 BEGOTTEN Son in the bosom of the Father — it belonged to reveal 
 the Godhead in all the various modes, and through all the various 
 channels by which it actually is revealed to the intelligent universe, 
 by creation, by providence, and, of course, by redemption, if a 
 scheme of redemption should come to be adopted. I doubt if it 
 was, as Mediator, that He " created all things which are in 
 heaven, and which are on earth;" I doubt if it was, as Mediator, 
 that in Him "all things originally consisted," or that He "upheld all 
 things by the word of His power;" but I doubt not at all, I believe 
 most firmly, on the ground of the most abundant testimony, that, 
 having humbled Himself to assume our nature, and having in that 
 nature become obedient to death, the death of the cross, He is in 
 that nature exalted to be the Head of the universe, has the govern- 
 ment laid upon His shoulders, and is honoured with a name above 
 every name — a name to which homage is 'paid by things in heaven, 
 and things on earth, and things under the earth, every knee 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 339 
 
 bowing to Him, and every tongue confessing that He is 
 Lord. 
 
 Thirdly, I admit not, however, but positively deny, what indeed 
 one should think needs no denial, what it seems utter madness to 
 affirm, and scarcely less madness even to insinuate, that His 
 atonement and His mediatorial power are of equal extent. Yet 
 this actually seems to be insinuated by some of our brethren. 
 What less do they mean when they tell us of the " intelligences of 
 other worlds being positively benefited by the blessings of the 
 atonement," and of the Saviour " sanctifying and baptizing every 
 world with the blood of sprniklingf ' Upon this supposition, for 
 whom has He made atonement? Xot for men only, as every one 
 must see — not for men in the most unlimited sense — but for the 
 universe; for intelligent creatures of every order and every con- 
 dition: those who have never sinned, and those whose sin is 
 never to be forgiven. First of all, He has made atonement for 
 the spirits around the throne, for they are among the " principali- 
 ties and powers" who are "made subject to Him;" and next, He 
 has made atonement also for Satan and his angels, for they belong 
 to the " things under the earth " who are commanded to " bow to 
 Him," or, at all events, are included among the " enemies who are 
 made His footstool." 
 
 There is, indeed, as my readers are aware, a passage which 
 speaks of things in heaven being reconciled — reconciled by the blood 
 of the cross — as well as things on earth. "For it pleased the 
 Father, that in Him should all fulness dwell: and (He having made 
 peace by the blood of His cross) by Him to reconcile all things unto 
 Himself; by Him, I say, whether they be tilings in earth, or 
 things in heaven," Col. i. 19, 20. There is another passage 
 which speaks of tilings in heaven and things on earth being 
 gathered together in Christ, or, as the word signifies, collected 
 under one head. " That, in the dispensation of the fulness of 
 times, He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both 
 which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in Him," Eph. 
 i. 10. The things in heaven might perhaps be restricted to "the 
 spirits of the just made perfect," and in that case we should have 
 
240 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 no difficulty, because their reconciliation by the blood of the cross 
 has been effected exactly in the same way as the reconciliation 
 of their brethren on earth. While, however, in this way we 
 should get rid of the difficulty, we should at the same time get 
 rid of something more — we should be deprived of a great 
 part of the meaning of the passages, and of what may be con- 
 sidered as, in some respects, the nobler and more interesting 
 part. 
 
 The passages are both of unequalled magnificence, giving us a 
 transcendant view of the mediatorial scheme in its moral influence, 
 stretching far beyond what may be called the strict and proper 
 sphere of its operation; and without adverting to the point of 
 criticism about reconciling things in heaven, without saying 
 whether, with Macknight, instead of reconcile we ought to say 
 unite, or whether with Augustine and others, we should consider 
 the reconciliation of the angels as being reconciliation to us rather 
 than to God, with whom they were never at enmity — without 
 stopping to take the smallest notice of such things, I would say at 
 once that we are warranted to contemplate the blessed Jesus in 
 His state of exaltation — the fruit, the reward, of His meritorious 
 abasement — as the Head of the " whole family in heaven and on 
 earth,'" the Head, the Governor, the Lord, of a countless multitude 
 of happy creatures united into one vast brotherhood, consisting 
 partly of redeemed men, gathered by His grace out of every 
 kindred, and tribe, and people; partly of holy angels, "an in- 
 numerable company," of all degrees and orders, thrones, and 
 dominions, and principalities, and powers. 
 
 Does this, however, throw the smallest light on the extent of the 
 atonement ? Does it put any man in a fitter condition than he 
 was in before to determine for whom the Saviour died — whether 
 for many or for few, for all or for some? I deny that it does. I 
 maintain that it leaves that question exactly as it was, and the 
 only inquiry comes to be, which of the two schemes — that main- 
 tained by our brethren, or that maintained by us, possesses the 
 greatest moral grandeur, exhibits the Saviour in the most com- 
 manding attitude, or may be supposed to exalt Him most in the 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 241, 
 
 estimation of angels, good or bad, in the regions of misery or in 
 the regions of bliss ? 
 
 May not our divine Lord, regarded as the Head of a chosen race, 
 the Shepherd, the Husband of His spouse the church, whom He 
 has loved, whom He has redeemed, whom He has called out of 
 the world lying in wickedness, upon whom He has named His 
 name, whom He has arrayed in the pure linen, clean and white, 
 which is the righteousness of saints, and whom He will present 
 before the throne of His Father with exceeding joy, — may not the 
 exalted Redeemer, viewed hi this character, and accomplishing this 
 design, be fully as much an object of admiration to the inhabi- 
 tants of heaven, fully as much an object of dismay to the inhabi- 
 tants of hell, as He is likely to be, or as He possibly can 
 be, supposing Him to be regarded by both these orders of 
 creatures, upon the principles of our brethren, dying without 
 any particular intention, laying down His life at a peradventure, 
 pouring out His blood a boundless but aimless expiation; 
 not saving all for whom He died, not saving even the majority; 
 leaving the great majority in the fangs of Satan, in the 
 flames of perdition — everlasting perdition; sowing much, but 
 reaping little; making an ample purchase, but receiving a small 
 return; paying an infinite price, but paying it for nothing, or next 
 to nothing] I say, whether will it magnify the Redeemer most 
 in the eyes of angels, good or bad, supposing Him to be viewed in 
 this light, or supposing Him to be viewed in the other and nobler 
 light to which we have adverted] We blame, and justly blame, 
 the theology of the heathen; particularly we blame the licentious- 
 ness of their poets, who represent their deities as thwarted in 
 their intentions, sometimes mingling in mortal warfare, and some- 
 times even defeated by mortals. "We condemn such representa- 
 tions, we pronounce them most pernicious, most impious, subver- 
 sive of all morality, and of all sound theism; and I submit, if such 
 representations be not too nearly allied, much too nearly allied, 
 to the view which must be taken of the labours and sufferings of 
 the great God our Saviour, provided there be any truth in the 
 
 principles of our brethren] 
 
 2f 
 
242 ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 
 
 Lastly, It seems to me not improper to add, that some of our 
 brethren, in treating of the Saviour's supreme dominion, are in 
 the way of throwing out assertions which I cannot characterise 
 otherwise than by calling them unjustifiable and extreme. We find 
 fault with churchmen for blending civil and sacred things. With 
 the venerable Hooker, for instance, we find fault for making the 
 church the commonwealth, and the commonwealth the church. 
 What should we say of Hooker, or what should we say of any 
 other man, if, instead of church and commonwealth, we found him 
 making the universe the church, and the church the universe] 
 Yet what less than this extravagance is advanced by some of our 
 brethren] Christ is declared to be the " President of the uni- 
 verse," and the proof assigned for this is that He is a High Priest 
 over the house of God, a Minister of the Sanctuary and of the true 
 Tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man."* "In His 
 official character, Christ is the Eeceiver General of all the revenues 
 of God's immense empire, and, as the Mediatorial President, 
 He presents them to God." t That is, if it have any mean- 
 ing, He is the Mediator, not between God and men only, 
 but between God and all other beings; He is the High Priest 
 and Intercessor, not of the church only, not even of the world, 
 but of the universe, Christ is the " Head of His body, the 
 church. Christ is also " Head over all things to the church." 
 These are His offices, according to the Scriptures ; yet these offices 
 are essentially distinct, and to confound them is to blend heaven 
 and earth, spiritual and temporal, civil and sacred things. I 
 appeal, however, to every reader, if it be possible to confound 
 them more effectually, more avowedly, than they are confounded 
 in the passages just cited. Nor are these the only passages of the 
 kind. Speaking of the atonement in its relation to providence, 
 that providence which rules over all good and evil, just and unjust, 
 the same author says: "The atoning Mediator is, in priority of 
 arrangement, the first in the series of the blessings of infinite 
 providence. It pleased the Father to make Him the magazine of 
 all fulness of blessing, and it is out of His fulness that we all have 
 * Jenkyn, chap, v., sect. 3, p. 142. t Ibid., p. 145. 
 
 
ANSWERS TO MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS. 243 
 
 received."* There is, then, no specific difference between common 
 and saving blessings, the portion of God's children and the portion 
 of His enemies ; what comes through the medium of the new cove- 
 nant, and what through any other channel ! There is, in fact, but 
 one portion and one channel of conveyance ! All that is enjoyed 
 on earth by the good and by the bad, believers and unbelievers, 
 the object of God's favour and the objects of His displeasure; all 
 is the fulness of Christ, and, for aught that appears, Christ holds 
 to all the same relation 1 ? These things, by whomsoever they 
 be advanced, I call wild and extravagant. They certainly are 
 subversive of all the theology that has hitherto been taught in our 
 churches, or that, I think, is taught in the Bible. Far be it from 
 me, however, to impute such sentiments to any but those who 
 avow them. That all the brethren, whom the present discussion 
 concerns, would lend their countenance to such sentiments, I do 
 not believe. Many of them, I am certain, and these the most 
 respectable, would reject them with abhorrence. It is a matter, 
 however, of serious inquiry, and one which, at the present crisis, 
 forces itself on our attention, how far such monstrous doctrines — 
 for I can call them by no better name — naturally spring out of 
 particular views on the subject of the atonement ? 
 
 * Jenkyn, chap, vii., sect. 3, p. 209. 
 
CONCLUSION. 
 
 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 
 
 In concluding this treatise, it may not be improper to advert 
 briefly to a few of the leading points which seem to be satisfac- 
 torily made out : — 
 
 1. The Saviour in dying had a specific object which He intended 
 to accomplish, and which it were a grievous impeachment of His Avis- 
 dom and sufficiency to suppose that He has not accomplished. He 
 gave Himself, not for all, but for some; not for the race indiscrimi- 
 nately, but for a select people; not for those who shall ultimately 
 perish — in which case His object must be defeated — but for those 
 who shall ultimately be saved. He gave Himself for His sheep, 
 and for them only; for why mention them at all if He gave 
 Himself for all others as well as them ] He gave Himself for His 
 church, for His spouse, for His seed, for those who had been 
 chosen in Him — those who had been given Him of the Father, 
 those whom He had loved with a love which cannot change. This 
 must have been the case if He was their Surety; and that He was 
 their Surety, not as it were, but in reality, has been proved by 
 many arguments. 
 
 2. It is vain to think of evading this conclusion by inverting 
 the order of the divine decrees; that is, by supposing the Saviour 
 first to die for men, and then to love them; first to buy them with 
 a price, and then to pick out from amongst the bought those indi- 
 viduals who shall enjoy the benefit of the purchase. Anything more 
 unnatural, more absurd, considered as an act of the Deity, or more 
 at variance with the language of the Bible, it is impossible to 
 conceive. Christ "loved us, and gave Himself for us" — " He loved 
 us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood" — "He loved 
 the church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and 
 cleanse it, through the washing of water, by the word." 
 
SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES ESTABLISHED. 245 
 
 3. The Saviour by His death has not suspended or made void, but, 
 on the contrary, has established the law. Heaven and earth may 
 pass away, nay, the hour is coming when they shall pass away, but 
 never shall one jot or one tittle pass from that law, which is 
 founded in God's nature, and from the obligations of which no 
 power in the universe, not even His own power, which is 
 omnipotent, can ever release His rational creatures. Sin is the 
 transgression of this law; the proper remedy for sin, the only 
 remedy for sin, is the fulfilling of this law. Had not the death of 
 Christ been the fulfilling of this law it could have been no atone- 
 ment for us — no satisfaction of which God could have accepted. 
 His justice would not have been appeased, nor of course could His 
 mercy, ready as it is to save, ever have reached us. A barrier 
 stronger than adamant would have prevented its egress. Yet, 
 thanks be to God ! the result is very different. Mercy and truth 
 have met together, righteousness and peace have embraced each 
 other ! 
 
 4. The denial of the fact, that Christ has fulfilled the law for 
 us, leads to consequences not a little revolting. One consequence 
 is, that there is no such thing as a surety-righteousness, and no 
 imputation of righteousness, in the proper sense of the expres- 
 sion. In other words, justification is not in fact justification, 
 although the Scriptures call it by that name, but is, at most, 
 simple impunity. All this follows, and follows unavoidably, from 
 the assertion that Christ has not fulfilled the law; that, instead of 
 fulfilling, He has only suspended it, or caused it to be suspended; 
 that the law did not admit of a substitute; and that the atone- 
 ment was a satisfaction, not to retributive, but to public justice. 
 How widely this differs from the doctrine of the Reformed 
 Churches needs not be said. Luther, as is well known, styled 
 imputed righteousness " the article of a standing or of a falling- 
 church;" and all the other Reformers, with some trifling exceptions, 
 were accustomed to avow the same thing, as far down as the 
 entrance of the Arminian heresy. 
 
 However, it may be thought, perhaps, that it is not enough to 
 appeal to the Reformers; the appeal should be made to the Holy 
 
24G SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 Scriptures. With all my heart let the appeal be so made. It is 
 exactly what I desire. Take Paul, then, as an expositor of the 
 doctrine, to whom, I should presume, there can be no objection. 
 According to Paul, Christ is the second man, as Adam was the 
 first — the head of the new covenant, as Adam was of the old. 
 By the offence of Adam we are made sinners, by the obedience of 
 Christ we are made righteous, Rom. v. 19. Elsewhere the same 
 apostle says, " We are made " not righteous only, but righteousness; 
 and not righteousness only, but " the righteousness of God" 2 Cor. 
 v. 21. What is righteousness? Generally speaking it is confor- 
 mity to the law; but in the case of sinners who have broken the 
 law, righteousness must include the enduring of its penalty, as 
 well as the obeying of its precepts. This, and this alone, is righte- 
 ousness; and if we are esteemed righteous, or if we are treated as 
 righteous, we must be so in fact, when the rule by which we are 
 tried is the holy law, and the judge who tries us is the holy God. 
 How, then, can we be righteous unless the righteousness of Christ, 
 which becomes ours, be a positive thing; nay, not merely a posi- 
 tive thing, but the very thing demanded by the law we had 
 violated — the very suffering and the very obedience? And how 
 can that righteousness be ours unless it be transferred to us? Yes, 
 transferred to us, much as our opponents may object to the use of 
 such a term. Transference is only another name for imputation; 
 and the word imputation they cannot reject, although they con- 
 trive to give it another meaning. There is no imputation, they 
 say, except of what is our own, or, as they express themselves, 
 except of some personal act. We might ask them, as Jonathan 
 Edwards does, if righteousness without works be a personal act? 
 But, passing this, we grant that nothing is imputed but what is 
 our own. The righteousness of Christ, in consecmence of our 
 union with Him, is understood to be ours — is ours, in fact, before 
 it is imputed to us; and its being ours is the very ground of the 
 imputation. And here is the grand mystery of the gospel — the 
 amazing display of the wisdom and goodness of God! The 
 Saviour dies, and we die in Him — His death is our death. The 
 Saviour obeys, and we obey in Him — His obedience is our obedi- 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 247 
 
 ence. Both together, the obeying and the dying, are transferred 
 to ns, are reckoned to our account, and we are justified. The 
 Saviour is made sin, and we are made righteousness. He is made 
 sin, as some of the fathers have said — Augustine, Chrysostom, 
 and others — not His own sin, but ours, and not in Himself, but 
 in us. And in like manner we are made righteousness; not our 
 own righteousness, but His, and not in ourselves, but in Him. 
 
 What do our innovating divines say to all this— those who deny 
 that Christ has fulfilled the law, or rather who affirm that He 
 has superseded the law, and made it void 1 Take a specimen of 
 their language from Albert Barnes — language which Dr John 
 Brown of Edinburgh quotes as expressive of his own views on the 
 subject of justification, and which he styles " the well-considered 
 words of Barnes:" — "Justification, if it ever exist at all, must be in 
 a mode that is a departure from the regular operation of the law, 
 and in a mode which the law did not contemplate" — " It must 
 be by some system which is distinct from the law, and in which 
 man may be justified on different principles than those which the 
 law contemplates" — " It is not that the righteousness of the Lord 
 Jesus is transferred to His people — moral character cannot be 
 transferred" — "It is not true that ive died for sin, and it cannot 
 be so reckoned or imputed; it is not true that we have any 
 merit or any claim, and it cannot be so reckoned or imputed" — ■ 
 "But if justification be none of these things, it may be asked, what 
 is it ? I answer, it is the declared purpose of God to regard and 
 treat those sinners who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as if they 
 had not sinned" — " It is an act by which God determines to 
 treat him (the sinner) hereafter as a righteous man, or, as if he 
 had not sinned" (Exposition, Gal. ii. 1G). 
 
 What "departure from the regular operation of the law" does 
 the law admit of? What "principles" does the law "contemplate" 
 but the principles of rectitude 1 The law being broken, it must 
 be fulfilled, its sentence must be executed; and if God allowed of 
 any "departure" from this "regular operation," He would deny 
 Himself, He would compromise the glory of His name, or, in 
 other words, would cease to be God; and this seems to be the con- 
 
248 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 sequence, the unavoidable consequence, of the doctrine advanced 
 by our friends — their "well-considered" doctrine! And whoever 
 supposed that, in the imputation of the Saviour's righteousness, 
 His moral character was transferred? The reader will observe 
 that, in this specimen of " well-considered " words, these two very 
 different things are confounded. All the world knows, however, 
 it must be a mistake, for it never can be a wilful misrepresenta- 
 tion. Of course, no doctrine of ours is affected, less or more, by 
 any consequence that may be deduced from such a statement. 
 And with regard to the assertion, " it is not true that we have 
 died for sin," it may seem plausible, perhaps, but it is most 
 insiduous. It is true, in spite of the allegation, much as our 
 friends may be startled to hear it — it is true that we have died 
 for sin. Nay, not only is this a truth, but in some sense it is the 
 greatest truth in the whole Bible. Christ has died for sin, and in 
 the death of Christ we have died. The death of Christ is our 
 death. It is reckoned for ours — reckoned for ours through our 
 union with Him; and on this ground we are delivered from death. 
 " The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that 
 if one died for all, then were all dead " — rather, then all have 
 died iravres avedavov — the death of the Surety is virtually the death 
 of every one whom He represented. " I am crucified with Christ: 
 nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." " The 
 wages of sin is death." Wherever sin is committed, death must 
 follow; but "he that is dead is freed from sin— deSucalurai, is 
 justified from sin," Eom. vi. 7. Having undergone the sentence, 
 he is acquitted of the charge. " Now, if we be dead with Christ, 
 we believe that we shall also live with Him." Our dying with 
 Christ is virtually our dying for sin. Having died for sin, or to 
 sin, which is the same thing, we are set free from sin, and in this 
 way provision is made, in the wisdom of God, both for our justi- 
 fication and our sanctification; both for our being made righteous 
 and our being made holy. Till the sentence of the law is executed 
 upon us, in the person of our Surety, we are, and must be, the 
 slaves of sin. The power of God Himself cannot break our yoke, 
 because His own justice, and holiness, and truth forbid it. Satan 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 249 
 
 reigns over us with unrestrained sway. His title to reign over us 
 is complete. "When the strong man armed keepeth his palace his 
 goods are in peace." The stronger than he, the Almighty Saviour, 
 cannot touch him. Strange as it may appear, the fiend can set 
 the Saviour at defiance. The law is to the fiend a sevenfold 
 shield. It is called the strength of sin; and with equal propriety, 
 and for the same reason, may it be called the strength of Satan. 
 He derives from it his sole power, and a terrible power it is; but 
 soon as the sinner is found in Christ, who has died for sin, 
 who has endured the curse, who has magnified and made 
 honourable the law — from that moment the throne of Satan is 
 subverted, his sceptre is broken, his kingdom is laid in ruins, or, 
 to express it all in the terms of the first promise, his head is 
 bruised. Such is the result of Christ's fulfilling the law — a most 
 glorious result. But suppose with our friends, or our opponents, 
 or whatever you choose to call them — suppose that Christ has not 
 fulfilled the law, that there is a "departure from the regular 
 operation of the law," that " the principles which the law contem- 
 plates " are set aside — suppose this, and you cannot suppose the 
 salvation of a single individual of our race. There is no deliver- 
 ance for them in any shape — no deliverance from sin, no deliver- 
 ance from death, no justification, no sanctification, no admission 
 into heaven. Is not this "well-considered" theology'? 
 
 5. Another consequence of the denial that Christ has fulfilled 
 the law for us is, that the desert of sin remains on believers, and 
 must always remain. The desert of sin cannot but remain so 
 long as the sentence of the law is not executed; and, by the 
 system of our brethren, that sentence is never executed at all. It is 
 not executed on the sinner, it is not executed on the surety; nay, 
 so far from this, it is suspended and set aside. Does it not seem 
 somewhat startling to say of those who are more glorious than the 
 angels; those who are shining forth as the sun in the kingdom of 
 their Father; those who are sitting on the Saviour's throne, 
 reigning with Him, and destined to reign with Him for ever; 
 those who are every one wearing crowns of righteousness, crowns 
 
 which have been bestowed on them by the righteous Judge — does 
 
 2g 
 
250 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 it not seem somewhat startling, ay, and not a little shocking, to 
 say of such creatures — creatures so highly exalted, so inconceiv- . 
 ably happy — that they are still under the desert of sin; for, is not 
 that saying, if there he meaning in words, that they still deserve 
 the punishment of sin — a punishment which consists in everlasting 
 destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of 
 His power? Yet, shocking as this may be, or startling as it may 
 be, it is what the theologians we speak of scruple not to assert. 
 What is said on the subject by some of their number, the 
 reader has already seen; and to the names of Beman, and 
 Wardlaw, and Payne, we may add the names of those to 
 whom we have just been adverting — Barnes and Brown. "It 
 is not," says Barnes, " that we are either innocent, or declared 
 to be innocent; we are not innocent, we never have been, we 
 never shall be; and it is not the design of the scheme to declare 
 any such untruth as that we are not personally undeserving" — 
 " He that is justified by faith, and that goes to heaven, will go 
 there admitting that he deserves eternal death" (Exposition, Gal. 
 ii. 16). If our being innocent, mean not that we are free 
 from sin, but that we never have sinned, it certainly must be, 
 according to our Scottish phraseology, innocent enough to say 
 that we never have been innocent, and never shall be; but 
 this, the reader must perceive, is egregious trifling. The ques- 
 tion is, what do believers deserve when they go to heaven. 
 Mr Barnes affirms — and Dr Brown gives the words his un- 
 qualified sanction — that they go to heaven admitting that they 
 deserve eternal death ! There is a mighty difference between 
 admitting that they have deserved eternal death, and admitting that 
 they still deserve it. If they admitted that they still deserve it, 
 and if they were right in making the admission, we can prpmise 
 them they should never go a step farther; the empyreal gates 
 would infallibly be closed against them, and they would be con- 
 signed to that death which they acknowledged to be their due. 
 The great God, the righteous Judge, will not fail to render to 
 them, and to all His other intelligent creatures, their desert; and 
 if their desert be eternal death, eternal death will unquestionably 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 251 
 
 be their doom. I cannot say what I think of this doctrine. No 
 language I know of is suitable for that. I may call it wrong, but it 
 is worse than wrong. Believers indeed have no merit of their own, 
 and no claim to favour; but in the great Redeemer have they not 
 every merit and every claim] They have no righteousness of 
 their own, but is not His righteousness theirs, and is not that 
 meritorious ] They are one with Him — members of a body of 
 which He is the head — a body animated by His Spirit. They are 
 righteous as He is righteous; they deserve whatever He deserves; 
 they are glorious in His glory. Even amidst the imperfections of 
 the present state they partake of His honours — His inconceivable 
 honours — His honours which the lips of angels celebrate. Nay, 
 not only so, but they have a title to partake of these honours, a 
 good and valid title, a title which God Himself admits, and which 
 His law will never cease to maintain. And if all this be true 
 of them now, shall it not be true of them when they come to 
 die — when they arrive at the measure of the stature of a perfect 
 man, when they are enriched with the unsearchable riches of 
 Christ, and filled witli all the fulness of God 1 Desert of sin ! 
 Away with the expression ! What shall we say of those who use 
 such language ] The men themselves are scarcely guiltless, and 
 what must we think of their system — the system of which such 
 language is the fruit 1 There is no name for it — it is too horrid 
 to be named. 
 
 Can we help remarking what a close affinity there is between 
 the new theology and the system of the Roman Catholics'? Nine- 
 tenths of the Roman Catholic superstitions are to be traced to the 
 doctrine of universal grace, which again is to be traced clearly 
 and unavoidably to the doctrine of universal atonement. This has 
 been demonstrated, and must be well known to the more intelli- 
 gent part of the Christian public* Who is not prepared to admit 
 that the individual, or the church, whose creed embraces universal 
 
 * See the work, Popery in the full Corn, in the Ear, and in the Blade; or the 
 Doctrine of Baptism in Popish, Episcopalian, Congregational, and Presbyterian 
 Churches. By William Marshall, Minister, Leith. Edinburgh: Paton & 
 Ritchie. 1852. 
 
252 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 atonement, has already gone over more than half-way to Popery] 
 Can the dullest help perceiving that the doctrine on which I have 
 just been commenting — the doctrine which asserts that the desert 
 of sin adheres to believers after they are dead — directly opens the 
 way for purgatory, and opens it wide? How easy the transition 
 from faith in such a doctrine to faith in the existence of some sort 
 of purification, and some sort of middle state, where preparation 
 may be made for dwelling with God ! The Eeformation Societies 
 which are getting up in various quarters may find, perhaps, on 
 looking about them, that there is more work for them to do than 
 they were aware of. 
 
 6. Another consequence of the doctrine that Christ has not 
 fulfilled the law, although too obvious to be overlooked, is almost 
 too shocking to be stated. It is nothing less than this, that if 
 such a doctrine be true, the salvation of sinful men must be impos- 
 sible; that mercy, how much soever it may be inclined to save, can 
 never reach them, because it must be opposed in its movements 
 by justice, and holiness, and truth. The law of God, as we have 
 been showing, is immutable. It is not less so than His nature. 
 Were He to permit it in any case to be violated with impunity, 
 He would deny Himself. Sin being committed, the sentence of 
 the law must be executed. If executed upon the sinner himself, 
 of course he perishes. If executed upon another in his stead, 
 able and willing to pay the satisfaction, of course he is saved. The 
 testimony of the Bible is, that Christ has died, the just for the 
 unjust, magnifying the law and making it honourable, and that 
 in this way men are brought to God. 
 
 The new theologians talk much of the removing of "legal 
 bars." The gospel, they say, removes all legal bars in the way of 
 salvation; but in saying so, what can they mean] Are there 
 any legal bars in the way of salvation except the law itself, or is 
 there any way of removing legal bars except by fulfilling the law] 
 The law says, " The soul that sinneth shall die." Death, therefore, 
 must be endured by the sinner in his own person, or in the person 
 of his surety, else the legal bar remains untouched. The law says 
 also, at least it is said by an authority as great as that of the law, 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 253 
 
 "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments," Matt. xix. 1 7. 
 Unless, therefore, the commandments are kept — kept, not partially, 
 hut to the letter — a second legal barrier interposes quite as insur- 
 mountable as the first. How, then, can men who deny that Christ 
 has either obeyed the precepts of the law, or endured its penalty in 
 the room of His people — how can they talk of legal barriers being 
 removed? Who does not see that their language is contradictory, 
 is unwarrantable, that they understand not what they say nor 
 whereof they affirm, and that the people whom they address, from 
 the press or from the pulpit, if they believe what they are told, 
 must be egregriously deceived? Their doctrine, so far from being 
 the doctrine of salvation, must be a doctrine that causes to err, 
 and to err with regard to a matter of the last importance. Are 
 they not the blind leading the blind, and what is to be expected 
 but that both shall fall into the ditch? 
 
 In the pamphlet entitled "Statements," etc., emitted by DrsBalmer 
 and Brown, Professors of Theology to the United Associate Synod, 
 1843, the removal of "legal bars" is ascribed, not to the death of 
 Christ itself, but to a certain " divine appointment " respecting 
 His death; while the salvation of those who are finally brought 
 to heaven is ascribed to another " appointment " of the same kind 
 (see Statements, p. 74). It is almost needless to say that these 
 " appointments " are nowhere to be met with in the Word of God, 
 and that no one ever heard of them except in the writings of new 
 school divines. "It seems," says Adam Gibb, "the death of 
 Christ is a very naked thing, no way fit for being seen or regarded 
 but as it gets on an additional clothing of appointments, which 
 clothes are very separable from the person or thing that wears 
 them; and so, according to this doctrine, our Lord's death is of no 
 benefit or avail to any in itself, considered either materially, as to 
 its absolute value, or formally, as being undergone by Him in the 
 capacity of a new covenant head or surety, but all advantage by 
 it must be derived from other distinct appointments wherewith it 
 is clothed" (Preface to Owen on the Death of Christ. Edin., 1755). 
 
 I do not think it worth Avhile to inquire how these divines come 
 to speak of appointments which are nowhere spoken of in the 
 
254 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 Bible; but I would ask bow they can suppose tbe great God could 
 appoint tbe deatb of Christ to remove legal bars, holding, as they 
 do, that Christ, in dying, did not fulfil the law] Could the great 
 God appoint what was contrary to His nature — what every attri- 
 bute of His nature forbade Him to appoint? Could He appoint 
 His justice to be silenced without being satisfied 1 ? or could He 
 appoint His word to be falsified, or the honour of His name to be 
 compromised 1 ? It really appears to be no trifling discussion in 
 which this subject would land us. It involves questions not to be 
 surpassed in point of magnitude, and it seems to leave room for a 
 charge against certain parties of recklessness and presumption not 
 easy to be paralleled. In what a deplorable plight must the 
 people in this country be to whom a gospel founded on the 
 doctrine we speak of is addressed!* They are told that all legal 
 bars are taken out of the way; that there is universal atonement 
 and universal grace, and that salvation is the easiest thing 
 imaginable, yet there has been no fulfilling of the law for them, no 
 enduring of its penalty, no obeying of its precepts ! If this be not 
 deception, and deception of the most fatal nature, I know not 
 what may be called by that name. Nor, if some accounts may be 
 credited, is it a small portion of the people who are exposed to 
 this danger. " I would find it difficult," says Dr J. Brown, in one 
 of his late publications, " to overstate my sense of the value of 
 that system of divinity held, in common with all evangelical churches, 
 by the religious denomination to winch it is my privilege to 
 
 * "In the sentiments now expressed, respecting what is called the general 
 reference of the death of Christ, I have, I presume, the concurrence of a vast 
 majority of my fathers and brethren. May the death of Christ, then, when con- 
 templated in its aspects and bearings towards the race generally, be called an 
 atonement; and, if so, may it be spoken of as a universal atonement, or an 
 atonement for all? The questions seem somewhat singular after the extract 
 quoted from the Testimony, in which the death of Christ is described by an 
 expression nearly, if not precisely, equivalent, as a true and complete satisfac- 
 tion, which has placed all in a salvable state, and rendered salvation open to 
 all. This is the chief question which perplexes and divides us; and, indeed, it 
 is the only question which can be conceived to divide us, provided we are agreed 
 in the great and glorious 'principle that the Saviour's death hath removed all 
 legal and external obstructions to the salvation of all, and has opened the door 
 of mercy to all." — Dr Balmer's Statement, p. 11. 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 255 
 
 belong." Our only comfort is in believing that this statement 
 must be an overstatement. All evangelical churches ! Can it be 
 possible] The word " evangelical," however, is, perhaps, without 
 exception, the most abused word in the English language. The 
 Church of Scotland is an evangelical church; does she incline to 
 the system of Dr B.'s "religious denomination]" or the Free 
 Church? or the Reformed Presbyterian Church? or the original 
 Secession Church? or, we may add, many among the Baptists, or 
 even the Congregationalists? He can mean only the "Evangelical 
 Union," which, as is well known, has sprung from him, and is 
 accustomed to boast of the pedigree. It is lamentable, however, 
 to think that the system extends so widely, and that multitudes, 
 who come within the reach of its influence, are so little aware of 
 its true nature. 
 
 7. I trust my readers are satisfied that I have pointed out the 
 true basis of the gospel call. Christ in dying has fulfilled the law, 
 obeying its precepts, enduring its penalty. He has removed the 
 curse, has ratified the well-ordered covenant, has opened a free 
 channel for mercy, and left no impediment remaining except what 
 is to be found with the sinner himself. It is a just observation of 
 Dr Wardlaw, that " there is a wide difference between giving our 
 assent to statements of divine revelation without our being able 
 clearly to discern the principle of their harmony, and our assenting 
 to such human interpretations of these statements as we can see 
 to be irreconcileable." I say this is very just, but I flatter myself 
 that in what I have stated nothing irreconcileable is to be seen, 
 but the reverse. Nothing more needs to be done, nothing more 
 to be suffered, let salvation be contemplated on ever so vast a 
 scale. All men may be invited to believe, invited and entreated 
 with the utmost earnestness, because it is most true — nothing can 
 be truer — that whosoever believes shall be saved. Yet in perfect 
 harmony with this, to use the words of Traill, there may be 
 " secret purposes and thoughts in God's heart where to apply His 
 grace;" or, to use the words of Scott, there may be " no defect of 
 merit, or of grace, in Him (the Saviour), nor would be, if millions 
 numerous as the sand should receive out of His fulness." 
 
256 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 The call of the gospel is the great difficulty. All the false 
 schemes which men have devised are to he traced to this source. 
 If I have succeeded in removing the difficulty, or in exhibiting it 
 to intelligent Christians in a less objectionable light than has some- 
 times been done, I shall have no occasion to grudge my labour. 
 My conviction is, that upon the principles I have laid down, the 
 tidings of salvation may be proclaimed in as free a form as words 
 can express. "We may adopt the language of the pious Boston, 
 that, although Christ has not died for all, He is yet dead for all, 
 that is, that in Him as crucified, and raised again, and exalted, 
 and set forth in the gospel, there is salvation for the world, for 
 men without exception, for as many as will hearken and incline 
 their ear. We may adopt the language of Ebenezer Erskine, that 
 when the Saviour says, " My Father giveth you the true bread 
 from heaven," He addresses the promiscuous multitude, sinners of 
 every rank and gradation of guilt; and that ministers of the gospel, 
 speaking in His name, acting as His ambassadors, are warranted to 
 employ the same form of speech, and to assure their fellow-men, of 
 every tribe and kindred, perishing for want of spiritual sustenance, 
 that the amplest provision is made for their wants, and that they 
 are presented with the true bread from heaven. 
 
 8. I have done, by adverting to one other topic. In a well 
 written passage of his book on the atonement, Dr Wardlaw often 
 puts the question to unbelieving men, "What would you have?" 
 With a view to show that the grace of the gospel is most free, 
 and that what is called moral inability, so far from furnishing the 
 sinner with an excuse for His unbelief, is rather, if rightly under- 
 stood, an additional ground of his condemnation. " What would 
 you have V — You have all the natural faculties for understanding, 
 and considering, and believing. "What would you have V — You 
 have everything you could desire in the shape of warnings, and 
 counsels, and invitations, and commands. I pretend not to give 
 the express words of the passage, for it is somewhat lengthy, and 
 highly eloquent, as many passages from the same pen are well 
 known to be; but I would mention a few things which we would 
 have, and which the Doctor's system does not supply — not, indeed, 
 
II WE BEEN" ESTABLISHED. 257 
 
 so much to facilitate our embracing the gospel, but, "what is not 
 less important, to render the gospel effectual for our salvation 
 after it is embraced. 
 
 First, then, we would have a constitution, such as is generally 
 called the covenant of grace, a covenant ordered in all things and 
 sure, ratified by the Lord Jesus as the representative of His people, 
 and fraught with every blessing they need in the present world, 
 or shall need in the world to come. Such a constitution the Bible 
 tells us exists, and has existed from the beginning. Sometimes it 
 is called the everlasting covenant, sometimes the better testament. 
 and sometimes perhaps the counsel of peace. In virtue of it the 
 Lord Jesus is styled the Second Adam, and through His obedience 
 the free gift, the gift of righteousness, comes upon us to justifica- 
 tion of life; just as through the disobedience of the First Adam, 
 our common father, judgment comes upon us to condemnation. 
 In virtue of it the Most High is made known to us as the God of 
 peace, who has brought again from the dead the great Shepherd 
 of the sheep, being well pleased with His atoning sacrifice, and 
 has seated Him at His own right hand in the heavenly places. 
 And lastly, in virtue of it, there " are given to us exceeding 
 great and precious promises," adapted to the various circumstances 
 in which we may be placed, calculated to afford us " strong con- 
 solation," and so confirmed by Him, who " for men their Surety 
 stood," as to be every one in Him " yea, and amen." This we 
 would have for many reasons, but this the new theology furnishes 
 not. It knows nothing of a Surety, and, consequently, nothing of 
 a well-ordered covenant. 
 
 Another thing we would have is what we have already 
 
 spoken of, justifying righteousness; a righteousness answering the 
 
 demands of the law; a righteousness in which we may stand 
 
 accepted before God, not acquitted merely, not merely passed by 
 
 with impunity, but, by the sentence of Him who judges righteous 
 
 judgment, declared to be just. "Surely, shall one say, In the 
 
 Lord have I righteousness and strength: in the Lord shall all the 
 
 seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." "What does this mean? 
 
 Does it mean that they shall be passed by unpunished, yet shall 
 
 2h 
 
258 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 be left under the desert of sin 1 ? Alas! they would have small 
 ground of glorying in that. Instead of glorying, it would rather 
 furnish them with matter of unspeakable horror; but the meaning 
 is, they shall be pronounced righteous, made the righteousness of 
 God in Him who for them was made sin, and in that they shall 
 glory. Now this is what we would have, what we must have, but 
 what the new theology does not provide. It is almost needless to 
 say, however, it is what we have in spite of that theology; for 
 " now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, 
 being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteous- 
 ness of God, which is through the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all 
 and upon all them that believe " — presented to all in the offer — < 
 put upon all as a comely robe in the gracious communication. 
 
 Another thing we would have, and must have, but which the new 
 theology provides not, is to be dead to the law. To be dead to the 
 law sometimes means to be dead to it in affection, to be weaned 
 from it as a means of obtaining life, to have relinquished all hope of 
 being saved by obedience to its precepts. To be dead to the law, 
 in this sense, is effected by the law itself. " I through the law am 
 dead to the law, that I might live unto God." " I was alive with- 
 out the law once, but when the commandment came, sin revived, 
 and I died; and the commandment, which was ordained to life, I 
 found to be unto death." Properly speaking, however, to be dead 
 to the law is to have satisfied its claims, to have endured its 
 penalty, to have undergone its sentence — the sentence it pro- 
 nounces when it says, "The soul that sinneth shall die." "The 
 woman who hath a husband is bound by the law to her husband 
 so long as he liveth, but if the husband be dead, she is loosed 
 from the law of her husband. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are 
 become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye may be 
 married to another, even to Him who has been raised from the 
 dead, that ye may bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were 
 in the flesh, the motions of sin which were by the law did work 
 in our members to bring forth fruit unto death; but now we are 
 delivered from the law, that being dead {margin, being dead to 
 that) wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 259 
 
 spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter." We become dead to the 
 law by the body of Christ, or by His atoning sacrifice, inasmuch 
 as we die along with Him — His death is our death. Being the 
 death of our Surety, it is virtually ours — is legally considered as 
 ours. The consequence is, we are delivered from the law; it 
 has no longer any claim upon us; we have satisfied its utmost 
 demands. Xow, how can this be the case if Christ, in dying, has 
 not fulfilled the law, if He has died only "for God," as our brethren 
 speak, died for sin in the abstract, died indefinitely, without a 
 reference to any one] If this be so, we must still be under the 
 condemnation of the law, still adjudged by it to destruction, still 
 we must be married to the law, and the only fruit we can bring 
 forth must be fruit unto death. To this condition we are doomed. 
 God Himself cannot release us from it; for how can He do 
 violence to His own law] That would be the same thing as 
 doing violence to His nature. I say, therefore, something we would 
 have is to be dead to the law in the death of Christ — a privilege 
 of essential importance — a privilege without which we can never 
 serve God in newness of spirit; that is, never serve Him 
 truly, never serve Him acceptably either in the present world or 
 in the world to come. For this, as I have said, the theology of 
 Dr W., and of too many besides, makes no provision. According 
 to that theology, the law, instead of being fulfilled, is superseded 
 and set aside. 
 
 Another thing we would have nearly allied to this — the same 
 privilege under a different name, produced exactly in the same way, 
 and yielding exactly the same fruits — is to be dead to sin. " How 
 shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein] Know ye 
 not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were 
 baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by 
 baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead 
 by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in 
 newness of life. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified icith 
 Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we 
 should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. 
 Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but 
 
260 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Let not sin 
 therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in 
 the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments 
 of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as 
 those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instru- 
 ments of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not have 
 dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under 
 grace." " Who His own self bare our sins in His own body on 
 the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: 
 by whose stripes ye were healed." " Forasmuch then as Christ 
 hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the 
 same mind (thought or idea): for he that hath suffered in the flesh 
 hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest of his 
 time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." 
 
 This long array of passages might be made yet longer by the 
 addition of several others, and the doctrine taught in each of 
 them is the doctrine of them all, that the death of Christ is the 
 death of believers; that, though previously the slaves of sin, under 
 its " dominion," constrained to " obey it in the lusts thereof," yet 
 they have now by dying — dying in the death of their Surety — 
 freed themselves from its power, and are as truly delivered from it 
 as the slave is by death delivered from his master. Further, they 
 are exhorted to arm themselves with this opinion, to reckon them- 
 selves dead, indeed, unto sin, and, in this persuasion, to set them- 
 selves vigorously to the practice of holiness, the only way hi 
 which holiness can possibly be practised, less or more. " To be 
 dead to sin," says Mr Frazer, whose Exposition of Romans vi. and 
 rii. is allowed, by competent judges, to be the best extant, 
 " signifies an advantage, blessedness, and privilege, of a true 
 Christian's state, rather than mere matter of duty. The meaning 
 of the expression may, I think, be taken from what is said of 
 death and the grave, Job hi. 19 — There, the servant is FREE from 
 Jus master. The poor slave- — such was commonly the condition of 
 servants of those countries and times — is free from the yoke of the 
 rigorous lord under whose dominion he was. As the case continued 
 to be the same, it need not be wondered at that the expression, in 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 261 
 
 somewhat the proverbial way, should continue in language from 
 the time of Job to the time of Paul. "We shall likewise find a 
 great deal in Paul's discourse here (Rom. vi.) that directs us so 
 to understand the expression." * " He that hath suffered in 
 the flesh," says Archbishop Leighton, f " and is dead to it, 
 dies indeed in the Lord; rests from the base turmoil of sin; 
 it is no longer his master. As our sin was the cause of 
 Christ's death, His death is the death of sin in us, and 
 that not simply as He bore a moral pattern of it, but as the 
 real working cause of it. The death of Christ has, in this 
 respect, an effectual influence on the soul, and kills it to sin. ' I 
 am crucified with Christ,' says St Paul, Gal. ii. 20. Christ and 
 the believer do not only become one in law, so as His death 
 stands for theirs, but are one in nature, so as His death for sin 
 causes their death to it. They are 'Baptized into His death' 
 Pom. vi. 3." 
 
 Now, this is what we must have; not merely the moral effect of 
 the Saviour's death exerting a moral influence, but what, in one 
 point of view, is still more essential, the legal effect of it exerting 
 a legal influence — interposing between us and sin, and parting us 
 for ever, just as the slave is by death parted from his master, or 
 the wife from her t)'rant husband. The new theology is wanting 
 here — totally wanting. It fails to effect our dying to sin. In other 
 words, it fails to accomplish the great object of religion — the sanc- 
 tification of the soul. Where is the value of such a system] 
 What purpose is served by its propagation % 
 
 I might go on to show, as indeed I have already had occasion 
 to do, that the same system is equally powerless, considered as 
 opposed to the might of Satan, and that another thing we would 
 have is freedom from the tyranny of that dread adversary. " Shall 
 the prey be taken from the mighty, shall the lawful captives be 
 delivered]" As matters stand, sinful men are not merely the 
 captives of Satan, but his laicfid captives. Condemned by the 
 law, and cast out from the favour of the Most High, they lie 
 
 * Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, p. 44. 
 + Commentary on the First Epistle of Peter, chap. iv. 1, 2. 
 
262 SUMMARY OF PRINCIPLES THAT 
 
 exposed an easy prey to him. He is not slack to seize upon them, 
 and to wreath them in his chains. He holds them fast, and who 
 shall rescue them out of his hands? Omnipotence itself cannot 
 deliver them, so long as the sentence under which they lie is not 
 executed; that is, so long as the law which condemns them is not 
 fulfilled. So long as this is the case, he is justly regarded as 
 mighty indeed — terrible beyond expression. The gospel, however, 
 exhibits Christ fulfilling the law, magnifying it, and making it 
 honourable; and what, then, becomes of this terrible one? His 
 power is subverted, and the prey he has seized is wrenched from 
 his hands. " Thus saith the Lord, The captives of the mighty 
 shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible one shall be 
 delivered." Suppose the new theology to be true — suppose Christ 
 not to have fulfilled the law, and what do you suppose? You 
 suppose the power of Satan to be unassailable, and his prisoners 
 to remain for ever in his horrid grasp. 
 
 I might still go on to observe that we would have our old man 
 crucified with Christ, that the body of sin may be destroyed. 
 The Christian life consists in putting off the old man, and putting 
 on the new. The duty would be impossible, were it not for what 
 Christ has done. The old man would set us at defiance, were not 
 his power legally subverted — were not the sentence of the law, which 
 gives him his power, fully executed upon us in the person of our 
 Surety. But, regarded in this light, he is "condemned in the flesh;" 
 he is fixed to the cross of Christ, "like the handwriting of ordinances 
 which was against us," or like the principalities and powers which 
 Christ has "spoiled and made a show of openly." There is he 
 suspended, and there shall he be suspended till he expires. His 
 struggles may be violent, most painful, most alarming to us, yet if 
 we understand our advantages, we need not fear them. They are 
 only the struggles of a criminal undergoing his sentence — the 
 pangs and throes of approaching dissolution. 
 
 This language may be somewhat figurative, but it is not more 
 so than that of the Scriptures. It requires no great discernment 
 to perceive that the whole destiny of man — his ruin and his 
 recovery— consists in the breach and the fulfilment of a law. By 
 
HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. 2G3 
 
 the breach of it we fell, by the fulfilment of it we are restored. 
 It is an indestructible law, eternal and unchangeable as the nature 
 from which it springs. Its claims must be satisfied, its honour 
 must be maintained, and this can be done only in one way — ■ 
 by enduring its sentence. Its sentence has been endured by 
 Christ, and in His amazing wisdom and amazing loving-kindness 
 He has contrived to endure it as if it had been endured by us in 
 our own persons. Assuming our nature, assuming our sin, obey- 
 ing and suffering in our stead, His obedience is our obedience, and 
 His death is our death. This great truth has now been stated so 
 often, that the reader, perhaps, is tired of it, yet it can hardly be 
 stated too often. It is the very mystery of the gospel. The 
 grand problem to be solved was, how mercy might be exercised 
 without injury to justice; how sin might be punished, and the 
 sinner saved; how the law might be vindicated, and the breaker 
 of the law escape; how God might be just, and at the same time 
 be the Justifier of the ungodly. This was the problem, and it was 
 not to be solved by wisdom less than divine. Our friends who 
 differ from us suppose it to be solved, not truly, as we think, not 
 honestly, not in a way worthy of God, but by a kind of semblance, a 
 kind of compromise, by an as if, or as it were, a certain sacrificing 
 of principles to appearances, of rectitude in the strict and proper 
 sense, to something bearing a resemblance to rectitude; all which 
 we oppose, we reject, we condemn, not only as derogatory to the 
 honour of the infinitely wise and holy Jehovah, but as utterly at 
 variance with what He has revealed to us in His word. By the 
 union of Christ with our nature, and our union with His person, 
 the whole mystery is solved, the whole object is accomplished, and 
 accomplished in such a way that salvation is brought to us, and 
 glory is brought to God in the highest — 
 
 " With Christ the Lord we die to sin, 
 With Him to life we rise." 
 
 " the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge 
 of God ! how unsearchable are His judgments, and His ways past 
 finding out! Of Him, and through Him, and to Him, are all 
 things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen!" 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Note A. — Page 26. 
 
 It is not to be expected that I should enter into the question 
 respecting the Light of Nature, and the Salvation of the Heathen. 
 The discussion, were it raised, would require a volume. Waiving 
 the direct testimony of the Scriptures, which it had been easy to 
 produce, I have contented myself with referring in the text to the 
 authority of Calvin and of the Westminster Confession. Well am 
 I aware, however, that with multitudes such authorities are of small 
 avail. In these days of liberality there are thousands of enlightened 
 and sentimental Christians, who would look upon the idea of limiting 
 salvation, to those who know the Bible, or who believe on the 
 Saviour whom the Bible reveals, as very horrid bigotry. With 
 such Christians I have no wish to come into collision. There 
 is little hope of their convincing me, or for me of convincing them. 
 I have no inclination to make the attempt. It is singular enough 
 that opinions on the subject, which sober-minded men would call 
 somewhat wild, are to be traced up to an early period. As far 
 back as the days of Justin Martyr, we find that venerable writer, 
 in his second Apology, i. 46, speaking of the Pagans who lived 
 /xerd \6yov according to reason, as being in reality a kind of Christians, 
 among whom he particularly mentions Socrates and Heraclitus — 
 
 EwKparris ko.i 'Hpd/cXetros /ecu Si 6/ul6loi. avrois. From the days of Justin 
 
 downwards, it has been the practice of all who, as Justin expresses 
 
 it, have been inclined to speak handsomely of the heathen, to shelter 
 
 themselves under his wing; and the greater part of them, like him, 
 
 have singled out Socrates as a paragon of virtue. 
 
 2 I 
 
2GG APPENDIX. 
 
 It is not for me, in this place, either to praise Socrates or to 
 blame him. I have no doubt that, compared with many others of 
 his contemporaries, he might be called both a great and a good 
 man. Yet it appears, even from the testimony of his panegyrists, 
 particularly of Plato in his Apology, that he was what we are 
 accustomed to call a profane swearer. Scarcely could he utter a 
 sentence but the expression, na Ala, or pv Ala, was occurring, which, 
 if it did not indicate that he was an Atheist, as his accusers alleged, 
 proved him at least to be anything but pious. So much was the 
 late Dr Dick of Glasgow — a truly learned and excellent man, 
 perhaps the profoundest and most accurate theologian of his day 
 — impressed with this feature in the character of Socrates, that, in 
 conversing on the subject, he would not scruple to say, as I 
 remember well, " He was just such a person that, had he lived 
 among us, neither you nor I would hare spoken to Mm."* 
 
 Since I have come to anecdotes, I shall take leave to give 
 another relating to the same subject. The late Dr Lawson of Sel- 
 kirk, travelling in a stage-coach, now many years ago, fell in with 
 a talkative stranger, who, judging from his appearance that he 
 was a Scottish minister, imagined that he might amuse himself 
 and the company by exposing his bigotry. Having introduced 
 the question respecting the salvation of the heathen, and having 
 reprobated in strong terms the narrow-mindedness of all who 
 entertained any doubts on the subject, he turned to Dr Lawson, 
 and said, " Do you, sir, suppose that such a man as Socrates will 
 be excluded from heaven V Without being in the smallest degree 
 ruffled, Dr L. put an end to the conversation by replying, " If you 
 and I meet in heaven, as I trust we shall, and if we find Socrates 
 there, I am sure we will be both glad to see him, and if he is not 
 there, there mil be a good reason for it !" 
 
 * It is possible, indeed, that Plato may have put some things into the mouth 
 of Socrates, both good and bad, which Socrates never uttered. What Bays 
 Diogenes Laertius l Aiunt Socratem cwm Platonis Lysidem audissct reeitari, 
 yroh Dei Immortalcs diiseisse quam multa de me mcntitur adolescens/ ScripsU 
 quippe non pauea vir ilk quce Socrates non dixit. — Le PhUosoph: vita Lib. 3. 
 
APPENDIX. 2G7 
 
 Note B.— Page 39. 
 
 Public justice is administered not on the principle of retribu- 
 tion, but for the sake of moral impression. There is a wide 
 distinction in this respect between the procedure of human 
 tribunals and the procedure of the Most High — a distinction 
 which all men must acknowledge, and do acknowledge. Black- 
 stone, while he denies that the object of human punishment is the 
 expiation of crime, omits not to add — " That must be left to the 
 just determination of the Supreme Being." The decision of Paley 
 on the subject is substantially the same as Blackstone's — " By the 
 satisfaction of justice I mean the retribution of so much pain for so 
 much guilt, which is the dispensation we expect at the hand of God, and 
 which we are accustomed to consider as the order of things which perfect 
 justice dictates and requires." Yes, perfect justice does " dictate and 
 require" nothing less, and nothing less do we " expect at the 
 hand of God." He will " lay judgment to the line, and righteous- 
 ness to the plummet;" He will " bring every work unto judgment, 
 with every secret thing, whether it be good or evil." The reason 
 why human governments must be satisfied with public justice, and 
 can with propriety aim at nothing else, is their essential im- 
 potency. They have neither the power nor the knowledge to 
 execute justice in any other sense. They cannot tell what is sin's due 
 as an offence against God; nor though they could tell, have they the 
 capacity to render to it the proper retribution. It would be the 
 extreme, not of folly only, but of impiety also, for them to propose 
 to inflict punishment, except with a view to the security of the com- 
 monwealth, and they are particularly warned against the attempt. 
 •• Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord;" 
 this constitutes a solemn dissuasive applicable to governments as 
 well as private individuals, against usurping the exclusive preroga- 
 tive of God to administer retributive justice. But " retributive jus- 
 tice" is not only an attribute of God; it is an attribute essential 
 to His nature — for shall not the Judge of all the earth do right ? 
 and one also which is inseparable from the intuitive conception and 
 belief which mankind have universally held respecting Him as the 
 
268 APPENDIX. 
 
 Supreme Lawgiver and Judge of the universe. If Dr Wardlaw and 
 others who speak of " public justice" only meant that justice must 
 be publicly exercised, and that many advantages result from its 
 being displayed openly before the intelligent universe; and if, in 
 particular, they meant that the amazing display of justice exhibited 
 by the cross of Christ unfolds the character of God as a "just 
 God," in a glorious manner, far surpassing aught that had ever 
 been before witnessed, we should have no difficulty in assenting to 
 what they teach. It is too manifest, however, that this is not the 
 case. Their meaning is, as they are at much pains to show, that 
 in this stupendous transaction justice was satisfied, not as a prin- 
 ciple of strict retribution, but only as a principle of what, by a 
 singular misnomer, they term moral government. In the sufferings 
 of Calvary no one, according to their theory, received his due; 
 neither the Surety who died nor the sinner who is saved. The 
 penalty of the law was not inflicted, the sentence of the law was 
 not endured — it was only suspended, superseded, over-ruled. 
 Was this, then, the atonement 1 And does the promulgation of this 
 vindicate the character of God, and maintain the honour of His 
 law, and bring to His name glory in the highest 1 Surely not. The 
 song of Moses and the Lamb is of an essentially different tenor 
 from such views. "Great and marvellous are thy works, Lord God 
 Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. Who 
 shall not fear thee, Lord 1 for thou only art holy : for all nations 
 shall come and worship before thee, for thy jtidgments are made 
 manifest." 
 
 Note C— Page G8. 
 
 With regard to the mysteriousness of this doctrine, Dr Brown 
 remarks in a foot-note, " The Socinian who affirms that a mere 
 man is to judge the world, and the Arian who contends that it 
 was created and will be judged by a superangelic creature, believe 
 in the most overwhelming and unaccountable mysteries; and if 
 
APPENDIX. 269 
 
 this is really the case, I should like to be informed upon what 
 principle we are bound to relincmisk the doctrine of the trans- 
 ference of guilt to the blessed Redeemer, if it be taught in the 
 Bible, because it appears to us in some respects beyond our com- 
 prehension." In another Note, Dr B., referring to the words of 
 Dr Magee, above recited, says, " He is twitted with this very 
 severely by Nicol, and, so far as I can see, the animadversions of 
 the latter will not admit of a refutation. " If it be true," says he, 
 p. 200, " that there neither is nor can be a literal translation of 
 guilt and punishment; if to suppose it, be a thing utterly incompre- 
 hensible, then to speak of a symbolical translation of sins, or of 
 emblematic transfer of guilt (which Dr Magee does, vol. i., p. 574) 
 in the case of sacrifices, must be absolute nonsense, as there is no 
 reality to which that symbol or emblem can refer. If every figure 
 pre-supposes reality, and if there be no reality, no literal transfer 
 of guilt, there is not in Euclid an axiom more clear than that Dr 
 Magee's interpretation of the imposition of hands must be false, 
 for upon that principle it is a thing utterly incomprehensible 
 that there can exist even a symbolical transfer of guilt." Nicol 
 was a minister of the Church of Scotland, who, so far as I know, 
 continued to eat the bread of that church so long as he lived, but 
 who left behind him a Unitarian work, which was given to the 
 world by a Unitarian minister. He is one of the most ingenious 
 writers on that side of the question. The charge of " nonsense," 
 which he brings against Magee, will not apply to such men as 
 Balguy or Taylor, who were Arians, but it applies in its full force 
 to Wardlaw and Payne, and Barnes, and Brown of Edinburgh, 
 and all others of the same school, who acknowledge our Lord's 
 divinity. 
 
270 APPENDIX. 
 
 The two following Notes should be connected, the one with 
 the reference to Archbishop Usher's sentiments, referred to in 
 Chap. VII., Section vii. ; and the other with the observations 
 made on 1 Tim. ii. : — 
 
 Note D. 
 
 The Tract of Archbishop Usher was given me by Dr Chalmers. 
 When the discussions respecting the atonement were going on in 
 the United Secession Synod, the innovating party made the freest 
 use of Dr Chalmers' name, not scrupling to affirm that he was 
 entirely of their views. I took the liberty to inquire of him if he 
 knew what they were saying, and if he was willing to lie under 
 the impeachment ] In reply, he expressed himself in milder terms 
 than could well have been expected. " I feel no doubt," he said, 
 " of being able, did I set myself to the task, to demonstrate the 
 agreement of all that I have written on the Romans with the stan- 
 dards of my church. But you, who have lately composed a volume 
 on the subject, must be sensible of this being a lengthened and 
 operose undertaking, which at present I have neither strength nor 
 leisure for, though I am not without hope that, in my remaining 
 preparations for the theological class, and when the opportunity 
 comes round, I shall, with God's blessing, be placed in more 
 favourable circumstances than now for a more thorough treatment 
 of the article in cpiestion than I have yet bestowed on it." 
 
 With regard to his views, he took occasion to praise the Letter 
 of Archbishop Usher on the Death and Satisfaction of Christ, 
 Avhich existed as a separate Tract, and of which, he said, had a 
 copy been at hand, he would have sent me one. " I may also refer 
 you," he added, " to what Edwards says on Particular Redemption 
 towards the conclusion of his book on the Will, which carries my 
 perfect acquiescence along with it." In conclusion, he intimated 
 that he was not pleased but sorry at the revival of the controversy, 
 fearing, as he did, lest " in the uproar, and among the mists of 
 polemical theology," improper things should be said. If all pos- 
 sessed the " reach and discernment of Usher," he would have been 
 less apprehensive, but few could "clear their way through the 
 
APPENDIX. 271 
 
 ambiguities of the question so dexterously and well." A few days 
 after he sent me a copy of Usher, through the hands of Mr Finlay 
 Macpherson, accompanied with a polite note. 
 
 Note E. 
 The expression, "to be testified in due time," 1 Tim. ii. 6, goes far 
 to determine the question respecting the date of the epistle. It is 
 a question, as the reader may be aware, involved in considerable 
 obscurity, and illustrious names are to be found on the opposite 
 sides of it contending, some for an early, others for a comparatively 
 recent date. A few who have paid less attention to the subject, 
 seem inclined to class the two epistles together, and to look upon 
 them as among the last the apostle wrote. This is manifestly a 
 mistake. The second was written when he was "ready to be 
 offered, and the time of his departure was at hand." The first 
 was written soon after Timothy had begun his public labours, 
 when he needed to take heed lest men should " despise his youth," 
 and to be instructed how he should " behave himself in the house 
 of God, the church of the living God." Timothy was a living 
 monument of the necessity which existed for a time of yielding to 
 Jewish prejudices. When Paul met him at Lystra, and persuaded 
 him to become his associate in the work of the gospel, he took 
 him, we are told, and " circumcised him because of the Jews, who 
 were in those quarters," and some time after Timothy had become 
 a preacher, and had taken his station at Ephesus, where he received 
 this epistle, the "mystery hidden from ages and generations" was 
 but partially disclosed. It was not generally understood that God 
 would have " all men to be saved," Gentiles as well as Jews, or 
 that Christ had "given Himself a ransom for all," hi the same 
 sense. This was a great fact " to be testified in due time," and in 
 testifying it, Paul and Timothy, with the other apostles and evan- 
 gelists, were employed from day to day. This is a circumstance 
 of much importance. Without attending to it, the epistle cannot 
 be understood. It is the key which unlocks some of its most 
 
272 APPENDIX. 
 
 important statements, and it is the more necessary to give heed to 
 this, that it seems not to be generally understood. A recent writer 
 in the Edinburgh Review (No. 197), in an article on the work of 
 Messrs Conybeare & Howson, speaking of Paul's epistles, expresses 
 himself in the following terms: — "We have yet remaining three 
 letters, two to Timotheus and one to Titus, commonly known as 
 the Pastoral Epistles. These, in style and diction, are so com- 
 pletely distinct from the others, that Avhile th^y bear indubitable 
 marks of the mind and hand of Paul, we must refuse to insert 
 them anywhere in the existing series, but must regard them as 
 subsequent and in a later manner." This is spoken somewhat 
 oracularly, as anonymous writers are accustomed to speak, but on 
 such a subject we require something more than assertion. 
 
 GLASGOW: PRINTED BY ARCHD. K. MURRAY AND CO. 
 

 iVSJtt.WCfMf/.