תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

convey. But it is argued, that the offence would be the same in denying Christ, whether he really died for them, or that they had professed to believe he died for them. Certainly not. Their crime, as it is put by the apostle, is not the denying of their former profession, or denying Christ, whom they formerly professed to have bought them; but denying Christ, who had actually bought them, and whom, for that reason, they ought never to have denied, but confessed at the hazard of their lives. Farther, if they merely denied that which they formerly professed, namely, that Christ had bought them, and, in point of fact, he never did buy them, they were in error when they professed to believe that he bought them, and spoke the truth only when they denied it; and if it be said, that they knew not but he had bought them, when they denied him, this might be a reason for their not being rewarded for renouncing an error, as being done unwittingly; but can be no reason for their being punished, though unwittingly they went back to the truth of the case. There can be no great guilt in our denying Christ, if Christ never died for us.

Mr. Scott partly adopts, and partly rejects Poole's solution of this Scriptural difficulty. But as he charged St. Paul with want of exactness in writing to the Romans, so also St. Peter, in the passage before us, comes in for his share of the same censure. "It was not the manner of the sacred writers, to express themselves with that systematic exactness, which many now affect." The question is not, however, one of systematic exactness; but of common intelligible writing. Mr. Scott's observation on this passage, is, that Christ's ransom was of infinite sufficiency; and the proposal of it, in Scripture, general; so that men are addressed according to their profession: but that Christ only intended to redeem those whom he foresaw would eventually be saved."(6) On this we may remark, 1. That the sufficiency of Christ's redemption is not in question; but the Redemption itself of these deniers of Christ he is called "the Lord that bought them." In that sufficiency, too, Mr. Scott affirms, in fact, that they had no interest; for Christ did not "intend to redeem them;" on this, showing, therefore, the Lord did not "buy them," which contradicts the apostle. 2. That the "proposal of the benefits of Christ's Redemption is general;" and that men are addressed, accordingly, as those who are interested in it, we grant, and feel how well this accords with the doctrine of general Redemption; but the difficulty lies with those who hold the limitation of Christ's Redemption to the elect only, to explain, not merely how it is that men are addressed generally, but how the sins of those who perish can be aggravated by the circumstance of Christ's having bought them, if he did not buy them; and how they can be punished for rejecting him, if they could never receive him, so as to be saved by him. This aggravation of their offence, by the circumstance of Christ having bought them, is the doctrine of the text, of the force of which the above interpretations are manifest evasions.

We come now to the case of the apostates, mentioned in the Epistle to the Hebrews, vi. 4-8, and x, 26-31. With respect to these passages, it is agreed that they speak of the ultimate and eternal condemnation and rejection of the persons mentioned in them. The question then is, whether Christ died for them, as he died for such as persevere? which is to be determined by another question, whether they were ever true be lievers, and had received saving grace? If this be allowed, the proposition is established, that Christ died for them that perish; but in order to arrest this conclusion, all Calvinistic divines agree in denying that the persons referred to by the apostle, and against whom his terrible denunciations are directed, were ever true believers, or capable of becoming such; and here again we have another pregnant instance of the violence done to the obvious meaning of the word of God, through the influence of a preconceived system. For,

1. It will not be denied, that the Hebrews to whom the epistle was addressed, were, in the main at least, true believers; and that the passages in question were written to preserve them from apostacy; of which the rejection, and hopeless punishment, described by the apostle, is represented as the consequence. But if St. Paul had taught them, as he must have done, if Cal(6) Notes on 2 Peter.

vinism be the doctrine of the New Testament, that they never could so fall away, and so perish, this was no warning at all to them. To suppose he held out that as a terror, which he knew to be impossible, and had taught them also to be impossible, is the first absurdity which the Calvinistic interpretation involves. 2. It will not be denied, that he speaks of these wretched apostates, as deterring examples to the true believers among the Hebrews; but as such apostates never were believers, and were not even rendered capable, by the grace of God, of becoming such, they could not be admonitory examples. To assume that the apostle, for the sake of argument and admonition, supposes believers to be in the same circumstances and case as those who never were, and never could be believers, and when he had instructed them, that their cases could never be similar, is the second absurdity. 3. The apostates in question are represented, by the apostle, "as falling away" from "repentance," and from Christ's "sacrifice for sins." The advocates of the system of partial redemption affirm, that they fell away only from their profession of repentance and doctrinal belief of Christ's sacrifice for sins, in which they never had, and never could have, any interest. Yet the apostle places the hopelessness of their state on the impossibility of "renewing them again to repentance;" which proves that he considered their first repentance genuine and evangelical; because the absence of such a repentance, as they had at first, is given as the reason of the hopelessness of their condition. He moreover heightens the case, by alleging, that there remained "no more sacrifice for sins;" which as plainly proves that, before their apostacy, there was a sacrifice for their sins, and that they had only cut themselves off from its benefits by "wilfully" renouncing it; in other words, that Christ died for them, and that they had placed themselves out of the reach of the benefit of his death, by this one act of aggravated apostacy. The contrast lies between a hopeful and a hopeless case. Theirs was once a hopeful case, because they had "repented," and because there was then a "sacrifice for sins;" afterward it became hopeless, because it was "impossible to renew them again unto repentance," and the sacrifice for sin no more remained for them: they had not only renounced their profession of it, but had renounced the sacrifice itself, by renouncing Christianity. Now, so to interpret the apostle, as to make him describe the awful condition of apostates, as a "falling away" into a state of hopelessness, when, if Calvinism be the doctrine of the New Testament, their case was never really hopeful, but was as hopeless, as to their eternal salvation, before as after their apostacy, is the third absurdity.

4. But it is plain that theirs had been a state of actual salvation, which could only result from their having had an interest in the death of Christ. The proof of this lies in what the apostle affirms of the previous state of those who had finally apostatized, or might so apostatize. They were "enlightened;" this, the whole train of Calvinistic commentators tell us, means a mere speculative reception of the doctrine of the Gospel; they had "tasted of the heavenly gift," and of "the good word of God;" that is, say Poole and others, "they tasted, not digested; they had superficial relishes of joy and peace," and are to be compared "to the stony-ground hearers, who received the word with joy." "And were made partakers of the Holy Ghost ;" that is, say some commentators of this class, in his operations, "trying how far a natural man may be raised, and not have his nature changed:"(7) others, "by the communication of miraculous powers." They had

tasted of the powers of the world to come;" that is, they had felt the powerful doctrines of the Gospel, but as all reprobates may feel them, sometimes powerfully convincing their judgment, at others troubling their consciences. "All these things," says Scott,(8) "often take place in the hearts and consciences of men, who yet continue unregenerate." These interpretations are undoubtedly forced upon these authors by the system they have adopted; but it unfortunately happens for them, that the apostle uses no term less strong in describing the religious experience of these apostates than he does in speaking of that of true believers. They were "enlightened," is said of these apostates, "the eyes of your understanding being enlightened," is (8) Notes.

(7) POOLE in loc.

said of the Ephesians; and "being turned from darkness to light" is the characteristic of all believers. The apostates "tasted the heavenly gift," this, too, is affirmed of true believers, "much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ," Rom. v. 17. To be made "partakers of the Holy Ghost," is also the common distinctive character of all true Christians. "If any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his;" "but ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." "To taste the heavenly gift" and "the good word of God," is also made the mark of true Christianity: "if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." Finally, "the powers of the world to come," that is, of the Gospel dispensation, or the power of the Gospel, stand in precisely the same case. This Gospel is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth." Since, then, the apostle expresses the prior experience of these apostates by the same terms and phrases as those by which he designates the work of God in the hearts of those whose Christianity is, by all, acknowledged to be genuine, where is the authority on which these commentators make him describe, not a saving work in the hearts of these apostates, during the time they held fast their profession, but a simulated one? They have clearly no authority for this at all; and their comments arise not out of the argument of St. Paul, nor out of his terms or phrases, or the connexion of these passages with the rest of the discourse, but out of their own theological system alone; in other words, out of a mere human opinion which supplies a meaning to the apostle, of which he gives not the most distant intimation. To make the apostle describe the falling away from a mere profession unaccompanied with a state of grace, by terms which he is constantly using to describe and characterize a state of grace, is the fourth absurdity.

We mark, also, two other absurdities. The interpretations above given are below the force of the terms employed; and they are above the character of reprobates.

They are below the force of the terms employed. To "taste the heavenly gift" is not a mere intellectual or sentimental approval of it; for this heavenly gift is distinguished both from the Holy Spirit, and from the word of God, mentioned afterward; which leaves us no choice but to interpret it of Christ: and then to taste of Christ, is to receive his grace and mercy; "if so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious." Thus the Greek fathers, and many later divines, understand it of the remission of sins; which interpretation is greatly confirmed by Rom. v., where "the gift," "the free gift," and "the gift by grace," are used both for the means of our justification and for justification itself. To "taste the heavenly gift," then, is, in this sense, so to taste that the Lord is gracious as to receive the remission of sins. To be made "partakers of the Holy Ghost," follows this in the nsual order of describing the work of God in the heart. It is the fruit of faith, the Spirit of adoption and sanctification-the Spirit in his comforting and renewing influences following our justification. To restrain this participation of the Holy Ghost to the endowment of miraculous powers, requires it to be previously established, either, 1. That all professing Christians, in that age, were thus endowed with miraculous powers, of which there is no proof; or, 2. That only those who were thus endopted with miraculous gifts were capable of this aggravated apostacy; and then the apostle's warning would not be a general one, even to the Christians of the apostolic age, nor even to all the believing Hebrews, which it manifestly is. On the other hand, since all true believers, in the sense of the apostle, received the Holy Ghost in his comforting and renovating influences, the meaning of the phrase becomes obvious, and it lays down the proper ground for a general admonition. Again: "to taste the good word of God," is still an advance in the process of a genuine experience. It is tasting the good word, that is, the goodness of the word in a course of experience and practice; having personal proof of its goodness and adaptation to man's state in the world: for to argue from the term "taste" as though something superficial and transitory only were meant, is as absurd as to argue from the threat of Christ that those who refused the invitation of his servants should not "taste" of his supper, that he

only excluded them from a superficial and transient gustation of his salvation here and hereafter; or that, when the Psalmist calls upon us to "taste and see that the Lord is good," he excludes a full, and rich, and permanent experience of the Divine goodness. Finally, if by the "powers of the world to come," it could be proved that the apostle meant the miraculous evidences of the truth of the Gospel, it would not follow, that he supposes the persons spoken of to be endowed with miraculous powers; but that to taste these powers was rather to experience the abundant blessings of a religion thus confirmed and demonstrated by signs and wonders and divers miracles, according to what he urges in chap. ii. 4, of the same epistle. The phrase, however, is probably a still farther advance upon the former, and signifies a personal experience of the mighty energy and saving power of the Gospel. Thus the interpretation of the Calvinists has the absurdity of making the apostle speak little things in great words, and of using unmeaning tautologies. To "partake of the Holy Ghost" is, according to them, to have the gift of miracles, and to taste "the powers of the world to come" is to have the gift of miracles. To taste the "heavenly gift" is to have a superficial relish of Gospel doctrine, and "to taste the good word of God" is also to have a superficial relish of Gospel doctrine: but how, then, are we to take the term "taste," when the apostle speaks of tasting "the powers of the world to come?" According to these comments, this can only mean that they had a superficial taste of the power of working miracles!

But as these interpretations are below the force of the terms, so they are above the capacity of the reprobate. "They had, moreover," says Scott, "tasted of the good word of God, and their connexions, impressions, and transient affections made them sensible that it was a good word, and that it was for their good to attend to it; and their purposes of doing so had produced such hopes and joys, as have been described in the case of the stony-ground hearers, Matt. xiii. 21, 22." That Mr. Scott had no right apprehension of the class of persons intended by those who received the good seed upon stony ground, might easily be proved; but this is beside our present purpose. We find in the words quoted above (and we refer to Mr. Scott rather than to the older divines of the same school, because it is often said that Calvinism is now modified and improved), "convictions," "impressions of the goodness of the word," and purposes of attending to it, ascribed to the non-elect; persons to whose salvation this bar is placed, that, according to this commentator, and all others who adopt the same system, Christ never "intentionally" died for them. We ask, then, are these "convictions, impressions," and "purposes," from the grace of God working in man, or from the natural man wholly unassisted by the grace of God? If the latter, then, what becomes of the doctrine of the entire corruption of human nature, which they profess to hold, and that so strenuously? "In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing." By the flesh, the apostle means, doubtless, his natural and unassisted state. Yet how many "good things" are ascribed, by Mr. Scott, to the very reprobate? "Conviction of the truth of the Gospel" was doubtless "good," and showed, in that day especially, when the prejudices of education had not yet come in to the aid of truth, an honest spirit of inquiry, and a docile mind. "Impressions" are still better, as they argue affection to truth, which the natural man, as such, hates; and these are improved into an acknowledgment "of the goodness of the word," though it is a reproving word, and a doctrine of holiness, and consequently of restraint. To this the merely "carnal mind," which St. Paul declares to be "emnity against God," is here allowed not only to assent, but also to perceive with some taste and ap. proving relish. "Purposes of attending to this good word" are also admitted, which is a still farther advance, and must by all be acknowledged to be "good," as they are the very basis of real religious attainment. Yet if all these, which, in the judgment of every spirit

al man, would be considered as placing such persons in a very hopeful state, and would give joy to angels, unless they were admitted to the secret of reprobation, are to be ascribed to nature; then the carnal mind is not absolutely and in all cases "eumity against God :" in our flesh some good thing may dwell;" and we are not by nature dead in trespasses and sins."

Let us then suppose, since this position cannot be maintained in defiauce of the Scriptures, that these are the effects of the grace of God, and the influences of the Holy Spirit in man: to what end is that grace exerted? Is it that it may lead to salvation? This is denied, and consistently so; for can such convictions, and desires, and purposes lead to true repentance, when Christ gives true repentance to none but to the elect? Nor can they lead to pardon, because Christ has not intentionally "died for the persons in question." Is the end, then, as Poole, or rather his continuator, states it, that the Holy Spirit may "try how far a natural man may be raised" without ceasing to be so? If that is affirmed, for whose sake is the experiment tried? Not surely for the sake of the Holy Spirit, whose omniscience needs no instruction by experiment: not for ours; for this, instead of being edifying, only puzzles and confounds us, for who can tell how far this experiment may go, and how far it is making upon himself? This, too, is so very unworthy an aspersion upon the Holy Spirit, that it ought to make sober men very much suspect the system which requires it. Is it then, finally, as some have affirmed, to make the persons more guilty, and to heighten their condemnation? How few Calvinists, in the present day, are bold enough to affirm this, although the advocates of that system have formerly done it; and yet this is the only practical end which their system will allow to be assigned to such an act as that which, by a strange abuse of terms, is called the operation of "common grace" in the hearts of the reprobate. In no other practical end can it issue, but to aggravate their guilt and damnation, as the old divines of this school perceived and acknowledged. Either, then, their interpretation of these passages affirms a change in the principles and feelings of the persons spoken of by the apostle in this epistle, much above the capacity and power of reprobates, greatly as it falls below the real import of the terms used; or else those who advocate the doctrine of reprobation are bound to the revolting conclusion, that the Holy Spirit thus works in them only to promote and deepen their destruction.

To that class of texts which make it the duty of men to believe the Gospel, and threaten them with punishment for not believing, and which we adduced to prove, by necessary implication, that Christ died for all men, it has been replied, that it is the duty of all men to believe the Gospel, whether they are interested in the death of Christ or not; and that they are guilty and deserving of punishment for not believing it. By this argument it is conceived that all such passages are made consistent with the doctrine of the limited extent of the death of Christ.

On both sides, then, it is granted, that it is the bounden duty of all men who hear the Gospel to believe it, and that the violation of this duty induces condemnation; but if Christ died not for all such persons, we think, it is plain that it cannot be their duty to believe the Gospel; and if this can be established, then does the Scriptural principle of the obligation of all men to believe, which is acknowledged on both sides, refute all limitation of the extent of Christ's atonement.

To settle this point, it is necessary to determine what is meant by believing the Gospel. Some writers in this controversy seem to take it only in the sense of giving credit to the Gospel as a Divine Revelation; and not for accepting and trusting in it in order to salvation. But we have, in the New Testament, no such division of the obligation of believing into two distinct duties, one laid upon one class of persons, and the other upon another class. So far from this, the faith which the Gospel requires of all is trust in the Gospel ;"repentance towards God, and faith (trust) in our Lord Jesus Christ." Will any say, that when all men are commanded "every where to repent," two kinds of repentance are intended, one ineffectual, the other effectual; one to death, the other to life? And if not, will he contend that God commands one kind of faith to some, a faith which cannot lead to salvation; another kind of faith, which does lead to salvation, to others? that he commands a dead faith to the reprobate, a living faith to the elect? For, according to the intention of the command, such must be the duty; and if it is the duty of the reprobate to believe with the mere faith of assent, which, as to them, is dead, then no more was ever required of them, in the intention of Qon, then this dead faith. But if men will affirm this,

they must show us such a restricted and modified command from God; and they must point out, in the cominands which we have to believe in Christ, such a distinction of the obligation of believing into a higher and lower duty. There is no such modified command, and there is no such distinction; but, on the contrary, the faith which is required of all is that, and not less than that, whereof cometh salvation; for with remission of sins and salvation it is constantly connected. "He that believeth shall be saved." "Whosoever believeth on him shall not perish." "That believing ye might have life through his name." "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." The faith, then, required of all is true faith; true faith following true repentance, the trust of a true penitent in the sacrifice of Christ as offered for his sins, that he may be forgiven, and received into the family of GoD. If this, then, be the faith which is required of all who hear the Gospel, it is not, and cannot be, the duty of those to believe the Gospel, in the Scriptural sense of believing, for whom Christ died not. 1. Because it is impossible, and God cannot command a thing impossible, and then punish men for not doing it; for this contradicts all notions of justice and benevolence. Nor does it alter the case whether the impossibility arises from a positive necessitating decree, or from withholding the aid necessary to enable them to comply with the command; such persons as those for whom Christ died not never had, and never can have, the power to exercise the saving faith which is enjoined upon them; and being impossible to them, it never could be the subject of express command and obligation as to them; which nevertheless it is. 2. Because, according to the Calvinistic opinion, it is not in the intention of God that they should believe and be saved: what, therefore, he never intended, he could not command; and yet he has plainly commanded it. 3. Because what all are bound to believe or trust in is true; but it is false, according to this system, that Christ died for the reprobate, and therefore they are not bound to believe or trust in him, though they are both commanded to believe, and threatened with condemnation if they believe not.

Here, then, is the dilemma into which all must fall, who deny that the necessary inference from the universal obligation to believe in Christ, is, as we have stated it, that he died for all. If they deny the universality of the obligation to believe, they deny plain and express Scripture, which commands all men to believe; if they aflirm the obligation to believe to be universal, they hold that men are bound to do that which is impossible; that the Lawgiver commands them to do what he never intended they should do; and that they are bound to believe and trust in what is not true, namely, that Christ died for them, and thus to lean upon a broken reed, and to trust their salvation to a delusion.

This is a difficulty which the theologians of this school have felt. The Synod of Dort says,(9) “It is the promise of the Gospel, that whosoever believes in Christ crucified should not perish, but have everlasting life; which promise, together with the injunction of repentance and faith, ought, promiscuously and without distinction, to be declared and published to all men and people to whom God in his good pleasure sends the Gospel." But as some of the later Calvinists found themselves perplexed with this statement, they began to differ from the Synod; and, allowing that Christ died for all whom he commands to believe in him, denied that God had commanded all men so to believe.(1) These divines chose to fall on the opposite horn of the dilemma, and thus expressly to deny the word of God. Others have endeavoured to escape the difficulty by making faith in Christ a command of the moral law, under which even reprobates, as they take it, unquestionably are, and argue, that as by the principle of moral law, all are bound to believe every thing which God hath revealed, so by that law all are bound to believe in Christ, and, failing of that, are by the moral law justly condemned. I were easy, in answer to this, to show, that no man in the state of a reprobate, as they represent it, is under law of any kind, except a law of necessity to do evil; but waiving this, it were as easy to prove, that, because the moral law obliges

(9) Act. Syn. Dord, part 1, cap. 2, art. 5. (1) Vide WOMACK's Arcana Dogmatum, p. 67,

us, "in principle," to do all which God commands, the command to the Jews to circumcise their children was a command of the moral law, as that to believe in Christ is a command of the moral law, because, in principle, it obliges us to believe what God has revealed. But should it be admitted that all are bound, by the moral law, to believe all that God reveals, yet, according to them, it is not revealed that Christ died for all; this we contend for, but they contend against all are not, upon that very principle, therefore, bound to believe that Christ died for them. Farther, those who hold this notion, contend that the moral law commands us to do a thing impossible, and contrary to truth; and thus they fall upon the other horn of the dilemma.

The last class of texts we have adduced in favour of general redemption, consist of those which impute the blame and fault of their non-salvation to men themselves. If Christ died for all men, so as to make their salvation practicable, then the fault, according to the doctrine of Scripture, lies in themselves; if he died not so for them that they may be saved, then the bar to their salvation lies out of themselves, and in the absence of any saving provision for them in the Gospel, which is contrary to the doctrine of Scripture.

We enter not now upon the questions of the invincibility of grace, and free and bound will. These will come under consideration in their place; and we now confine ourselves to the argument, as it is grounded upon texts of this class, as given above. The common reply to our argument, grounded upon these texts, at least among the more moderate kind of Calvinists, is, that the fault is indeed in the will of man, and that if men willed to come to Christ, that they might have life, they would have life; and thus, they would have it understood, that the argument is answered. This, however, we deny they have neither refuted it, nor escaped its force; and nothing which is thus apparently conceded weakens the force of the conclusion, that if the bar to men's salvation be wholly in themselves, it lies not in the want of a provision made for their salvation in the Gospel; and therefore they are so interested in the death of Christ, that they may be saved by it.

For let us put the case as to the non-elect, who are indeed the persons in question. Either it is possible for them to will to come to Christ, and to believe in him; or it is not. If the former, then they may come to Christ, and believe in him, without obtaining life and salvation; for he can dispense these blessings only to those for whom he purchased them, which, it is contended, he did for the elect only. If the latter, then the bar to their salvation is not in themselves; but in that which makes it impossible for them to will to come to Christ, and to believe in hia. If it be said, that though this is impossible to them, yet that still the bar is in themselves, because it is in the obstinacy and perverse. ness of their own wills, we ask, whether the natural will of the elect is so much better than that of the reprobate, that by virtue of that better natural will, they come to Christ, and believe in him? This they will deny, and ascribe their willing, and coming to Christ, and believing in him, to the influence only of Divine grace. It will follow, then, from this, that the bar to this same kind of willing, and believing, on the part of the reprobate, lies not in themselves, where the Scriptures constantly place it, and so charge it upon men as their fault, and the reason of their condemnation; but in something without them, even in the determination and decree of God not to bestow upon them that influence of his grace, by which this good will, and this power to believe in Christ, are wrought in the elect: which is precisely what the Synod of Dort has affirmed. "This was the most free counsel, gracious will, and intention of God the Father; that the lively and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should manifest itself in all the elect, for the bestowing upon them ONLY, justifying faith, and bringing THEM infallibly by it unto eternal life."(2) This doctrine cannot, therefore, be true; for the Scriptures plainly place the bar to the salvation of them that are lost, in themselves, and charge the fault only on the wilful disobedience and unbelief of men; while this opinion places it in the refusal, on the part of God, to bestow that grace upon the non-elect, by which alone the evil of their natural will can be removed.

Nor is this in the least remedied by arguing, that as (2) Cap. 2, Art. 8.

Christ is rejected freely and voluntarily by the natural will of man, the guilt is still chargeable upon himself. For, not here to anticipate what may be said on the freedom of the will, it is confessed by Calvinists that the will of the reprobate is not free to choose to come to Christ, and believe in him, since without grace, not even the elect can do this. But if it were free to choose Christ, and believe in him, the not doing it would not be chargeable upon them as a fault. For they do not reject Christ as a Saviour, since he is not offered to them as such; and they sin not, by not believing, that is, by not trusting in Christ for salvation. For as it is not the will of God that they should so believe, they violate no command given to them to believe, unless it be held that God commands them to do that which he wills they should not do; which is only absurdly to say that he wills, and he does not will the same thing. And seeing that his commands are the declarations of his will, if the command reaches to them, it is a declaration that he wills that concerning them, which, on this system, he does not will; and this contradiction all are bound to maintain, who charge the want of faith, as a fault upon those to whom the power of believing is not imparted.

But the argument from this class of texts is not exhausted. They not only place that bar and fault which prevents the salvation of men in themselves; but they as expressly exclude God from all participation in it, contrary to the doctrine before us. "He willeth all men to be saved;" he has "no pleasure in the death of him that dieth." "He sent his Son, not to condemn the world, but that the world through him might be saved;" and he invites all, beseeches all, obtests all, and makes even his threatenings merciful, since he interposes them to prevent men from going on still in their trespasses, and involving themselves in final ruin.

Perhaps not many Calvinists in the present day are disposed to resort to the ancient subterfuge of a secret and a revealed will of God ;(3) and yet it is difficult to conceive how they can avoid admitting this notion, without totally denying that which is so clearly written, that God "willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth;" and that he commands, by his apostle, that prayers should be made "for all men." The universality of such declarations has already been established; and no way is left for escaping the difficulty in this direction. The incompatibility of such declarations with the limited extent of Christ's death, is therefore obvious, unless the term "will" can be modified. But if God declares his will in absolute terms, while he has yet secret reserves of a contrary kind (to say nothing of the injury done by such a notion, to the character of the God of truth, whose words are without dross of falsehood, "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times"); this is to will that all men may be saved in word, and yet not to will it in fact, which is in truth not to will it at all. No subtlety of distinction can reconcile this. Nor, according to this scheme of doctrine, can God in any way will the salvation of the non-elect. It is only under one condition, that he wills the salvation of any man: namely, through the death of Christ. His justice required this atonement for sin; and he could not will man to be saved to the dishonour of his justice. If, then, that atonement does not extend to all men, he cannot will the salvation of all men; for such of them as are not interested in this atonement, could not be saved consistently with his righteous administration, and he could not, therefore, will it. If, then, he wills the non-elect to be saved, in any sense, he must will this independently of Christ's sacrifice for sins; and if he cannot will this for the reason just given, he cannot "will all men to be saved," which is contrary to the texts quoted he cannot, therefore, invite all to be saved; he cannot beseech all by his ministers to be reconciled to him; for these acts could only proceed from his willing them to be saved: and for the same reason, "all men" ought not to be prayed for by those who hold this doctrine, since they assume, that it is not the will of God that all men should be saved. Thus they repeal the apostle's precept, as well as the principle upon which it is built, by mere human authority; or else they so interpret the principle, as to impeach the truth of God,

(3) The scholastic terms are voluntas signi, and voluntas bene placiti, a signified or revealed will, and a will of pleasure or purpose.

and so practice the precept, as to indulge reserves in their own mind, similar to those they feign to be in the mind of God. While, therefore, it remains on record, that "God willeth all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth;" and that he "willeth not that any should perish, but that all should come to repentence," it must be concluded, that Christ died for all; and that the reason of the destruction of any part of our race lies not in the want of a provision for their salvation; not in any limitation of the purchase of Christ, and the administration of his grace; but in their obstinate rejection of both.

CHAPTER XXVI.

THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED.

So far, then, we have advanced in this discussion as to show, that while no passage of Scripture can be adduced, or is even pretended to exist, which declares that Christ did not die equally for all men, there are numerous passages which explicitly, and in terms which cannot, by any fair interpretation, be wrested from that meaning, declare the contrary; and that there are others, as numerous, which contain the doctrine by necessary implication and inference. To implication and inference the Calvinist divines also resort, and the more so, as they have not a direct text in favour of their scheme. It is necessary, therefore, in order to obtain a comprehensive view of this controversy, compressed into as narrow limits as possible, to examine those parts of Scripture which, according to their inferential interpretations, limit not merely the actual, but the intentional efficacy of the death of Christ to the elect only. The first are those passages which treat of persons said to be elected, foreknown, and predestinated to the spiritual and celestial blessings of the new dispensation; and the argument from the texts in which these distinctions occur, is, that the persons so called, elected, foreknown, and predestinated, are, by that very distinction, marked out as the only persons to whom the death of Christ intentionally extends.

be "the people of God," to be his visible church, and publicly to observe and uphold his worship. "The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth." "The Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you, above all people." It was especially on account of the application of the terms ELECT, CHOSEN, and PECULIAR, to the Jewish people, that they were so familiarly used by the apostles in their epistles addressed to the believing Jews and Gentiles then constituting the church of Christ in various places. For Christians were the subjects, also, of this second kind of election; the elec tion of bodies of men to be the visible people and church of God in the world, and to be endowed with peculiar privileges. Thus they became, though in a more special and exalted sense, the chosen people, the elect of Gon. We say in a more special sense, because as the entrance into the Jewish church was by natural birth, and the entrance into the Christian church, properly so called, is by faith and spiritual birth, these terms, although many became Christians by mere profession, and enjoyed various privileges in consequence of their people or nation being chosen to receive the Gospel, have generally respect, in the New Testament, to bodies of true believers, or to the whole body of true believers as such. They are not, therefore, to be interpreted, according to the scheme of Dr. Taylor, of Norwich, by the constitution of the Jewish, but by the constitution of the Christian church.

To understand the nature of this "election," as applied sometimes to particular bodies of Christians, as when St. Peter says, "the church which is at Babylon, elected together with you," and sometimes to the whole body of believers every where; and also the reason of the frequent use of the term election, and of the occurrence of allusions to the fact, it is to be remembered, that a great religious revolution, so to speak, had occurred in the age of the apostles; with the full import of which we cannot, without calling in the aid of a little reflection, be adequately impressed. This was no other than the abrogation of the CHURCH STATE of the Jews, which had continued for so many ages. They had been the only visibly acknowledged people of God in all the nations of the earth; for whatever We reserve it to another place to state the systematic pious people might have existed in other nations, they views which the followers of Calvin, in their different were not, in the sight of men and collectively, acknowshades of opinion, take of the doctrines of election, ledged as "the people of Jehovah." They had no &c., lest our more simple inquiry into the sense of written revelations, no appointed ministry, no forms: Scripture should be disturbed by extraneous topics; and of authorized initiation into his church and covenant, we are now, therefore, merely called to consider, how no appointed holy days, no sanctioned ritual. All far this argument, which is professedly drawn from these were peculiar to the Jews, who were, therefore, Scripture and not from metaphysical principles, is sup- an elected and peculiar people. This distinguished ported or refuted, by an examination of those portions honour they were about to lose. They might have reof Holy Writ on which it is usually built and it will tained it, had they, by believing the Gospel, admitted not prove a difficult task to show, that, when fairly in- the believing Gentiles of all nations to share it with terpreted, they contain nothing which obliges us to nar- them; but the great reason of their peculiarity and row our interpretation of those passages which extend election, as a nation, was terminated by the coming the benefit of the death of Christ to all mankind; and of the Messiah, who was to be "a light to lighten the that, in some views, they strongly corroborate their Gentiles," as well as "the glory of his people Israel." most extended meaning. Of a divine election, or choos-Their pride and consequent unbelief resented this, ing and separation from others, we have three kinds which will explain their enmity to the believing part mentioned in the Scriptures. of the Gentiles, who, when that which St. Paul calls "the fellowship of the mystery" was fully explained, chiefly by the glorious ministry of that apostle himself, were called into this church relation and state of visible acknowledgment as the people of God, which the Jews had formerly enjoyed, and that with even a higher degree of glory, in proportion to the superior spirituality of the new dispensation. It was this doctrine which excited that strong irritation in the minds of the unbelieving Jews, and in some partially Christianized ones, to which so many references are made in the New Testament. They were "provoked," were made "jealous," and were often roused to the madness of persecuting opposition by it. There was then a NEW ELECTION of a NEW PEOPLE of God, to be composed of Jews, not by virtue of their NATURAL DESCENT, but of their faith in Christ, and of Gentiles of all nations, also believing, and put, as believers, on equal ground with the believing Jews; and there was also a REJECTION, a reprobation, if the term please any one better; but not an absolute one: for THE ELECTION was offered to the Jews first, in every place, by offering them the Gospel. Some embraced it, and submitted to be the elect people of God, on the new ground of faith, instead of the old one of natural descent; and

The FIRST is the election of individuals to perform some particular and special service. Cyrus was "elected" to rebuild the temple; the twelve apostles were "chosen," elected, to their office by Christ; St. Paul was a "chosen" or elected "vessel," to be the apostle of the Gentiles. This kind of election to special office and service has, however, manifestly no relation to the limitation of eternal salvation, either in respect to the persons themselves so chosen, or of others. With respect to themselves, it did not confer upon them an absolute security. One of the twelve elected apostles was Judas, who fell and was lost; and St. Paul confesses his own personal liability to become "a castaway" after all his zeal and abundant labours. With respect to others, the twelve apostles, and St. Paul afterward, were "elected" to preach the Gospel in order to the salvation of all to whom they had access.

The SECOND kind of election which we find in Scripture, is the election of nations, or bodies of people, to eminent religious privileges, and in order to accomplish, by their superior illumination, the merciful purposes of God, in benefiting other nations or bodies of people. Thus the descendants of Abraham, the Jews, were chosen to receive special revelations of truth; and to

« הקודםהמשך »