Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

the provisions of a general atonement, intended as the means of salvation to all.

In the whole of this book it has been "the writer's end," to prove the universal extent of the atonement of Christ. The atonement has been exhibited as capable of utter failure. It is now intended to show that it shall not utterly fail, but that it shall infallibly prosper in the actual salvation of special and particular persons. We will, therefore, proceed with calmness and candor, to examine the harmony between the particular salvation of certain persons, and the unlimited extent of an atonement for all.

1. There is the same relation between the atonement and all, as there is between providence and all. Providence is the means of supplying all men with physical and moral furniture necessary for the ends of their being here. It furnishes all men with capacities, means, and opportunities for action and improvement. All men are sufficiently supplied with abilities, means, and opportunities for advancement in wealth, learning, liberty, and civilization. This is the general provision, but the history of six thousand years, tells us, that the advancement of men has not been as general as the provision. The designs of the general provision are fully secured only in special cases, and in all such cases it comes to pass by "the BLESSING of God." In the provision there is nothing to exclude any man from wealth, learning, &c. Nevertheless, wealth and learning are only enjoyed in special instances. Take learning as an example. The provision for improvement is general and open to all. The sun, and the moon, and the stars, have always presented the appearances which they did to NEWTON and his scholars, yet the cases are special and few in which men, like them, tabernacle among the heavens, and take stars and systems for their books. NEWTON acted freely in availing himself of the general provision, and every man who is not a NEWTON, acts freely in disregarding it. It is assuredly, to the glory of God to suppose that He intended to

produce a Newton, and that the endowments of his mind were designed to be conferred on him. You cannot find an adequate cause, in an intelligent universe, for such a product, but "the blessing of God," according to his will and purpose. Yet Newton was as free and laborious as if there were no purpose of the kind.

Why may it not be so with mankind and the provision of the atonement? There is no decree to exclude any from the benefits of the atonement. They who accept the atonement are conscious that they act freely under the blessing of God, which is only another name for divine influences. The atonement is a remedy in moral government like any other remedy in providence. Medicinal virtues are given to plants and minerals, as a general provision for diseases among men, but the application of them is special and particular. As to providence, no one will argue that the provision was made BECAUSE particular persons were to be healed. Unfettered common sense teaches us that particular persons were healed BECAUSE of the special application of the general provision to individual persons. After the same manner, the atonement was not made for all, because God intended to save some; but some particular persons are saved because the Holy Spirit "takes of" the general atonement, and sovereignly applies it to particular

cases.

2. The same relation exists between atonement and all, as between the word of God and all. By the word of God, I mean all that God has revealed to man as a system of motives. These motives, in all their extent and influence, belong to all accountable beings. Some have these motives exhibited more abundantly and more clearly than others. Some, under their influence, become better fathers or children than others, or better masters and servants. Wherever these motives are successful, it is by the blessing of God, and whereever they fail it is by the voluntary negligence of man. The provision of motives is general, but the instances of

successful result are special and particular. The general provision of motives was not made because these particular instances of success were to be realized, but these instances come to pass because God specially blessed the general provision. It were highly incongruous to argue that the general provisions of the British constitution were made only for the particular instances in which they were observed, but were never intended for those who disregarded them.

Again I would ask, Why may it not be thus with the atonement? Providence is the medium of furnishing all accountable beings with abilities and means; divine revelation is the medium of influencing all by motives; and the atonement is the medium of saving all by faith. Man is free in using providence, he is free in yielding to motives, he is free in pleading the atonement. There is a speciality in the providential furniture, there is a speciality in the operation of motives, and there is the same speciality in the application of the atonement. It is therefore undeniable that the special application of the benefits of a universal atonement is in perfect agreement with the whole constitution of the moral system that we occupy; and that if our creeds clash with this, they must clash with the universe.

Let us try to illustrate this case of speciality. Suppose we say, and "O let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once"-suppose we say that, on the foresight of this world's being peopled by sinful generations, there would have been no atonement but for God's intention to save. He foresaw that after all his provision, men would be so wicked that they would not accept of this atonement, and that, therefore, he determined to exercise his sovereignty to secure some, whom he gave to his Son as persons, in whom the designs of his death should be infallibly magnified and made honorable. Jesus Christ knew these, definitely and personally, and had a direct reference to them in his sufferings and death. If a special reference to them in the divine government does not involve a denial of a

general providence, I cannot see, how a special reference to them in the death of Christ can imply a denial of a general atonement.

Should some objector say "since it was foreseen that some would not accept of it, why was an atonement made for them?" I would say, that the objector cannot claim an answer. He replies against God. He must suppose another system of the universe. He might as well ask, why God took the Israelites out of Egypt, when only two of them entered Canaan,-or ask, why God made free and accountable creatures. Jesus Christ has taught his disciples to say, "Even so Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight."

Perhaps, however, we might be within the bounds of legitimate inquiry, if we were to suppose that it is impossible, on the present principles of moral government, to make an atonement for the sins of the elect, without affecting the sins of the others. On the present principles it is impossible to administer, even providence itself, for the benefit of some, without affecting others. What would you think of a medicine that would only cure the predestinated? What would you think of a land that would yield a harvest only to those who were decreed to sow it? What would you think of the sun shining only on the good and the elect? Just such a thing would be an atonement that would only benefit the select few decreed.

But I will take the favorite notion of the atonement. I will suppose an army of a thousand soldiers to rebel against their rightful sovereign. And I will suppose that the king is determined to save five hundred of them, and that, to effect this honorably, the king's son consents to suffer ignominy and death for the sin of these five hundred. Now, I mean, that this cannot be done without affecting the other five hundred. An atonement is an equivalent for a threatened punishment; and the design of an atonement is, to suspend the execution of the penalty, and yet secure the ends of that execution. These ends could not be secured in the five hundred

to be saved without affecting the five hundred left. Let us consider, what are the ends of punishment that are to be secured by an atonement? They are to shew the evil of rebellion, to express the king's determination to maintain his law, and to shew that even when he pardons, it is on honorable grounds. The king cannot condemn the rebellion of the five hundred to be saved, without, by the same measure, condemning the rebellion of the rest. Yea, he intends to express to the rest his determination to maintain his law.

This comparison would be valid if the five hundred left were in the same state as fallen angels. The atonement of Christ even affects devils, so far as to express the wickedness of their rebellion, the determination of Jehovali to honor his government, and that he will exercise mercy only on grounds honorable to his law. The devils feel this-they believe it and tremble. If the five hundred left are intended to represent the "rest" of mankind, the analogy fails. Let us suppose that after the king's son died for the five hundred to be saved, the government issued a proclamation, declaring that the other five hundred perished because they refused the benefits of the son's death. "REFUSED the benefits of his death?" an astonished empire would exclaim, "when it is known that he only died for the favored five hundred!" "Perished solely for refusing the benefits?" might the hardened rebels mutter, "when it was a previous fixed arrangement, that his death should not be available for us?"

This comparison, then, does not give a correct representation of the circumstances of mankind in connection with the atonement. The relation of the atonement to all mankind, to the saved, and to the lost, I conceive to be somewhat of this kind. It was foreseen that this world would be inhabited by a sinful race of accountable beings. They were to be in a state of probation. The accepting of the atonement of the Seed of the woman was to be the test of their probation, as the tree of knowledge was of Adam's. They had

« ÖncekiDevam »