• ^ /no 
 

I 
 
 Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2018 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 https://archive.org/details/atonementitsrealOOcand 
 
THE 
 
 ATONEMENT: 
 
 Jits ITeulitu, Completeness, nnti C^teut. 
 
 ROBEKT S. CANDLISH, D.I)., 
 
 FliKK ST. UKORGK’s. KniNr.TKCili 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 T. NELSON AND SONS, PATERNOSTER ROW; 
 
 EniNBURGII ; AND NEW YORK. 
 
 MDCCCLXI. 
 

CONTENTS 
 
 PART I, 
 
 THE QUESTION VIEWED IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS AND 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 CHAPTER 1. Page 
 
 The Ftirmularies of tlie Refoimation as distinguished, in regard to this subject, from ^ 
 
 those of the Patristic Church . 17 
 
 CHAPTER H. 
 
 The Westminster Standards—Relation between tlic atonement and faith—Tlie sove¬ 
 reignty of God. 83 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 Hie nietliod of scriptural proof—Classification and examination of texts usually alleged 
 against the Calvinistic doctrine. 47 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The method of scriptural proof—Nature of the evidence in favour of the Calvinistic 
 doctrine. SC 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Method of scriptural proof—Examination of Ileb. ix. 13, 14—Re.allty and efficacy of 
 Old Testament sacrifices of atonement. I'.'3 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Tlie method of scriptural proof—Examination of Heb. ix. 13, 14—The argument “a 
 fortiori" for the atoning efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ. 112 
 
IV 
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE QUESTION VIEWED IN ITS PEACTICAL EELATION TO THE GOSPEL 
 CALL AND THE ACCEPTANCE OP IT BY FAITH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. Page 
 
 Universal dispensation of gracious forbearance—Its connection with the atonement.... 109 
 
 CHAPTER II 
 
 The dispensation of gracious forbearance—The good-will of God—Tiie universal war¬ 
 rant and encouragement to believe. 188 
 
 CHAPTEPv 111. 
 
 The completeness of the atonement—Its adaptation to the real need of the sinner. 209 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 The divine faithfulness and human responsibility—Wliere the insoluble difficulty 
 should be placed. 294 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Tlie- office of faith—to appropriate Christ—A complete atonement and a complete 
 salvation. 202 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 The nature of faith—Not simply an act of the intellect—The consent of the whole inner 
 man to the appropriating of Christ—Unites the believer to Christ. 280 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 The warrant of faith—The divine testimony, appealing to the divine name or nature 
 as exhibited in the atonement. 309 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 The warrant of faith—The sum and substance of the divine testimony in connection 
 with the exhibition of the divine name in the atonement—Hypothesis of a post¬ 
 poned atonement. 334 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 The hypothesis of a postponed atonement further considered. 352 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 The source and origin of faitli—The Spirit giving life—The life in Christ—A fruit of his 
 complete atonement. 367 
 
PBEFA CE. 
 
 This is not exactly a new book. And yet I would 
 not have it to be regarded as a mere reprint of an old 
 one. The case stands thus : In an address delivered in 
 the autumn of 1843, on the occasion of the Edinburgh 
 Commemoration of the Westminster Assembly, I made 
 some remarks on the subject of the Atonement and Faith, 
 as handled in the Protestant Confessions generally, and 
 in the Westminster Standards in particular. Having 
 subsequently learned that my views had been in some 
 I'espects misapprehended, especially in their bearing on a 
 controversy then pending as to the Extent of the Atone¬ 
 ment, I sent an explanatory paper to the Free Church 
 Magazine, and I was led to follow it up by writing several 
 additional ones, in successive monthly numbers of that 
 periodical, in 1844—5. These papers were published 
 separately, with an introductory treatise and supplemen¬ 
 tary notes, in May 1845. A second edition appeared in 
 the following month. The book was then suffered to get 
 out of print. I have been repeatedly asked, not only by 
 friends in Scotland, but by clergymen of the English 
 Church, and others, if copies were to be had, and I have 
 been earnestly urged to furnish a new edition. This I 
 was reluctant to do until I could revise and recast the 
 work, so as to present it in a moi-e satisfactory form than 
 
VI 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 tlie fi’agmentary manner of its composition admitted of its 
 having originally. I need scarcely say that for such a 
 task it is often as difficult to summon resolution as to 
 find time. This spring and summer, however, the com¬ 
 parative leisure of a somewhat prolonged convalescence 
 having made occupation of that sort rather welcome, I set 
 about what I had long contemplated ; and the result is 
 the volume as it now appears. I do not know if I have 
 much improved my treatise. The same cause which set 
 me to the work of revisal, has prevented much fresh 
 theological stud^c The learning and the literature oi 
 the subject, I did not at first, and do not now, profe.ss 
 to deal with. Many of the large and wide questions 
 that cluster round it I leave untouched. My range is 
 limited, and my object to a great extent practical. With 
 the exception of the last two chapters of the first part, 
 on the Nature of the Atonement, I have added little 
 to Avhat I formerly wrote, and have scarcely at all ex¬ 
 tended my researches or discussions in any new direction. 
 But I have re-written no inconsiderable portion of the 
 book ; I have embraced the Introduction and Notes in 
 the body of it ; I have sought to give greater order and 
 clearness to its statements ; and on the whole, while I 
 cannot flatter myself that the disadvantages arising out 
 of the way in which it at first “grew” have been alto¬ 
 gether, or nearly altogether, got over, I trust I may now 
 present my “ Topsy,” as having become a little less untidy 
 and uncouth than it then was, and therefore a little less 
 unworthy of the kind notice of such readers as may be 
 disposed to judge indulgently. 
 
PREFACk. 
 
 vu 
 
 I have been the more willing to re-adjust and re-issue 
 this treatise, because, on perusing it aftei' an interval of 
 years, I have found it, as I think, quite as suitable to the 
 ymesent aspects and tendencies of theological opinion, as 
 it was to those which were more noticeable wlien it first 
 appeared. The controversy then making some stir in the 
 north, turned expressly and ff>rmally upon the question of 
 the Extent of the Atonement. In dealing with that ques¬ 
 tion, when I had to deal with it for my own satisfaction, 
 I was very early led to regard it as chiefly important,, 
 not on its own account so much as on account of its bear¬ 
 ing upon another and more vital question,—the question 
 respecting the Nature, of the Atonement. It is in the 
 light of this last question that I have always been dis¬ 
 posed to consider the former one. The two questions, in¬ 
 deed, have always seemed to me to be in a large measure 
 one and the same. Hence, probabl}^, it happens that what 
 I have written is nearly as ap[)licable when it is the 
 Nature or iidierent efficacy of the Atonement that is in 
 dispute, as it was when it was rather the Extent of the 
 Atonement that was discussed. 
 
 There can be little or no doubt, among persons com¬ 
 petently acquainted with recent Anglican Theology,” that 
 the battle of the faith is now, as of old, to be rallied round 
 the standard of a real and effectual Atonement. I do 
 not profess, in these pages, to fight that battle. But I 
 would hesitate about intruding them again on the Chris- 
 tian public at this crisis, if I did not believe that they 
 contain materials which may be of service,—at least iu 
 clearing the ground. 
 
VIll 
 
 PBEFACE. 
 
 For, in fact, much depends on the ground being cleared, 
 and the state of the question ascertained. Whatever 
 plausibility there is in the arguments of opponents, and 
 whatever success they meet with, may be traced almost 
 entirely to the skill with which they seize on weak 
 points in weak expositions of the received doctrine, and 
 evade the reasoning of its really intelligent and able 
 advocates. This sort of skill is characteristic in our day, 
 not of avowed Socinians, but of divines connected with 
 Orthodox and Evangelical Churches. I question, for ex¬ 
 ample, if anything more unfair, as a representation of 
 that doctrine, ever appeared in the pages of tlie most un¬ 
 scrupulous Unitarian—I might say infidel—assailant of 
 it, than is to be found in the writings of Maurice and 
 Davies. I might be tempted to expose the “ Preface ” 
 Avliich the latter has prefixed to his “ Sermons on the 
 Work of Christ,” and to show with what adroitness he 
 contrives to deal, not with any professed and recogaiised 
 defenders of the obnoxious tenet,—not with any of the 
 old masters in the science of theology who have main¬ 
 tained it,—but with isolated extracts from the popular 
 and rhetorical appeals of preachers, who may not always 
 guard their illustrations with sufficient caution. I think, 
 however, that I may do better if I call attention to the 
 Lectures of an able and candid Scottish theologian of the 
 last age. Principal Plill of St. Andrews, who, in meeting 
 the precisel}^ similar artifices of the adverse controver¬ 
 sialists of his day, has been led to exhibit what he rightly 
 calls the “ Catholic opinion,” in a singularly clear and well- 
 considered point of view. 
 
PEEFACE. 
 
 IX 
 
 Inbe£:’nnino- his discussion of the “doctrine of the Atone- 
 nient” (Lectures, Book iv., ch. 3), Dr. Hill observes ;— 
 
 r “ The first tiling necessaiy is, to show tliat it may be stated in sucli a 
 manner as not to appear irrational or unjust. The objections urged against 
 it are of a very formidable kind. Christians who hold other systems con¬ 
 cerning the gospel remedy unite with the enemies of revelation in misrejue- 
 senting this doctrine; and if you form your notion of it from the accounts 
 commonly given by either of these classes of writers, you will perhaps bo 
 disposed to agree with Socinus in thinking, that whether it be contained in 
 the Scriptures or not it cannot be true. It has been said that this doctrine 
 represents the Almighty as moved with fury at the insults ofi'ered to his 
 supreme majesty, as impatient to pour forth his fury upon some being, as 
 indifferent whether that being deserves it or not, and as perfectly appeased 
 upon finding an object of vengeance in his own innocent Son. It has been 
 said that a doctrine which represents the Almighty as sternly demanding a 
 full equivalent for that which was due to him, and as receiving that equiva¬ 
 lent in the sufferings of his Son, transfers all the affection and gratitude of . 
 the human race, from an inexorable being who did not remit any part of 
 his right, to another being who satisfied his claim. It has been said that a 
 translation of guilt is impossible, because guilt is personal, and that a doc¬ 
 trine which represents the innocent as punished instead of the guilty, and 
 the guilty as escaping by this punishment, contradicts the first princii)les 
 of justice, subverts all our ideas of a righteous government, and, by holding 
 forth an example of reward and punishment dispensed by Heaven without 
 any regard to the character of those who receive them, does, in fact, encour¬ 
 age men to live as they please. 
 
 “ These objections are the more formidable, that they have received no 
 small countenance from the language of many of the most zealous friends of 
 this doctrine. The atonement presents a subject of speculation most in¬ 
 teresting to the great body of the people, who are always incapable of meta¬ 
 physical precision of thought; it enters into loose and popular harangues 
 delivered by many who are more accustomed to speak than to think ; and 
 the manner of stati;ig it has been too often accommodated to pnjudiccs 
 Avhich are inconsistent with truth, and adverse to morality. It is not sur¬ 
 prising that, in such circumstances, the mistakes of the friends of this doc¬ 
 trine have given much advantage to the misrepresentation of its enemies.” 
 
 These observations, which are at least as applicable 
 now as then, are followed up by a reference to the 
 standard writers on the subject. Thereafter, and as a 
 preliminary to the examination of the teaching of Scripture 
 
X 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 on tlie subject, a section is devoted to the ckaring up of 
 the state of the question. The first point here to be 
 settled respects the nature of sin:—■ 
 
 “ The first principle upon uliich a fair statement of the doctrine of tlie 
 atonement proceeds is this, that sin is a violation of law, and that the Al¬ 
 mighty, in requiring an atonement in order to the pardon of sin, acts as 
 the supreme lawgiver. So important is tliis principle, that all the objec¬ 
 tions to the doctrine proceed upon other views of sin, which, to a certain 
 extent, appear to be just, hut which cannot be admitted to be complete 
 without acknowledging that it is impossible to answer the objections. 
 Thus, if you consider sin as merely an insult to the majesty of heaven, God 
 the Father as the person offended by this insult, and that wrath of God, 
 of which the Scriptures speak, as sometliing analogous to the emotion of 
 anger excited in our breasts by the petulance of our neighbours, it would 
 seem, according to the notioiis which we entertain, more generous to lay 
 aside this wrath, and to accept of an acknowledgment of the offence, than 
 
 to demand a reiiaration of the insult.In like manner, if, because our 
 
 Lord sometimes calls trespasses by the name of debts, we stretch the com¬ 
 parison so far as to make it a complete descriiition of sin ; if, following out 
 the similitude, we consider the Almighty as a creditor to whom the sinner 
 has contracted a debt, and forgiveness as the remission of that debt which 
 would have been paid by the punishment of the sinner,—there does not 
 occur from this description any reason wliy the Almighty may not as freely 
 forgive the sins of his creatures as a creditor may remit what is due to him¬ 
 self.Furtlier : if the intrinsic evil of sin is the only thing attended 
 
 to, and the sinner be considered in no other light than as a reasonable 
 creature who has deformed his nature, and whose character has become 
 odious, it may be thought that repentance is the proper remedy of this 
 evil.Many of the principal objections against the doctrine of atone¬ 
 
 ment remain without an answer when we confine our notions of sin to these 
 three view's of it. But .... there is a further view of it, not directly 
 included under any of these; and all the objections which I have mentioned 
 arise from the stopping short at some one of these views, or at least 
 employing the language pieculiar to them, without going on to state this 
 furtlier view, that sin is a violation of the law given by the Supreme Being. 
 But it is under the character of a law'giver that the Almighty is to be re- 
 gahlcd both in punishing and in forgiving the sins of men. For although 
 by creation he is the absolute lord and proprietor of all, who may withoht 
 challenge or control dispose of every part of his works in what manner he 
 pleases, he does not exercise this right of sovereignty in the government of 
 his reasonable creatures, but he has made known to them certain laws, 
 which express what he would have them to do, and he has annexed to these 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 XI 
 
 laws certain sanctions which declare the rewards of oheilience, and the con¬ 
 sequences of transgression. It is this which constitutes wliat we call the 
 moral government of God, of which all those actions of the Almighty, that 
 respect what is right or wrong in the conduct of his reasonable creatures, 
 form a part, and under which every man feels that he lives.” 
 
 I pass over what is said, and admirably well said, on 
 the subject of tlie divine government, as a government 
 by law, upheld and yundicated, in the last resort, by the 
 exercise of “ what divines call vindictive or punitive 
 justice,”—which, he remarks, “ far from deserving the 
 opprobrious epithets with which it has been often loaded 
 by hasty and superficial wiiters, belongs to the character 
 of the Kuler of the universe, as much as any other attri¬ 
 bute of the divine nature” (page 402). And I ask atten¬ 
 tion now to Dr. Hill’s formal statement of the doctrine 
 which he undertakes to defend :— 
 
 “ In the substitution of Jesus Christ, according to the Catholic opinion, 
 there is a translation of the guilt of the sinners to him ; by which is not 
 meant that he who was innocent became a sinner, but tliat what he suffered- 
 was upon account of sin. To perceive the reason for adopting this expres¬ 
 sion, you must carry in your minds a precise notion of the meaning of the 
 three words—sin, guilt, ami punishment. Sin is the violation of law; 
 guilt is the desert of punishment which succeeds this violation ; and punish¬ 
 ment is the suffering in oonsequence of this desert. When you separate 
 suffering from guilt, it ceases to he punishment, and becotne’s more calamity 
 or affliction; and although the Almighty may be conceived, by his sove¬ 
 reign dominion, to have the right of laying any measure of suffering uiion 
 any being, yet suffering, even when inflicted by Heaven, unless it is con¬ 
 nected with guilt, does not attain the ends of punishment. In order, there¬ 
 fore, that the sufferings of the Son of God might be such as it became the 
 Lawgiver of the universe to inflict, it was necessary that the sufferer, who 
 had no sin of his own, should be considered and declared as taking upon 
 him that obligation to punishment which the human race had incurred by 
 their sins. Then his sufferings became punishment,—not, indeed, deserved 
 by sins of his own, but due to him as bearing the sins of others. 
 
 “ Although the sufferings of Jesus Christ, in consequence of this transla¬ 
 tion of guilt, became the punishment of sin, it is plain that they are not 
 that very punishment which the sin deserved ; and hence it is that they 
 
XU 
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 are called by those who hold the Catholic opinion a satisfaction for the sins 
 of the Avorld. T!ie word ‘satisfaction’ is known in the Koinan law, from 
 which it is borrowed, to denote that method of fuKilling an obligation which 
 may either be admitted or refused. When a person, by the non-perform- 
 a,nce of a contract, has incurred a penalty, he is entitleil to a discharge of 
 the contract, if he pays the i)enalty ; but if, imstead of paying the peualty 
 itself, he offers something in place of it, the i)erson who has a right to de¬ 
 mand the penalty may grant a discharge or not, as he sees meet. If he is 
 satisfied witli that which is offered, he will grant the discharge ; if he is 
 not satisfied, he cannot be called unjust; he may act wisely in refusing it. 
 According to this known meaning of the word, the sufferings of Christ for 
 sin have received the name of a satisfaction to the justice of God, because 
 they were not the penalty that had been incurred, but were something ac- 
 cc])ted by the Lawgiver instead of it. 
 
 “ It follows from the account wdiich has been given of a satisfaction for 
 sin, that it cannot procure the pardon of the sinner without the good-will 
 of the Lawgiver, because it offers something in place of that which he was 
 entitled to demand ; and for this reason the Catholic opinion concerning 
 the nature of the remedy brought in the gospel, far from excluding, will be 
 found, when rightly understood, to magnify the mercy of the Lawgiver. 
 Those who know best how to defend it never speak of any contest between 
 the justice and the mercy of God, because they believe that there is the 
 most perfect harmony amongst all the divine perfections; they never think 
 so unworthily of God as to conceive that his fury was appeased by the inter¬ 
 position of Jesus Christ; but they uniformly repr-esent the scheme of our 
 redemption as originating in the love of God the Father, who both pro¬ 
 vided and accepted that substitution by w hich sinners are .saved ; and they 
 hold that the forgiveness of sins is free, because, although granted upon that 
 corrsideration which the Lawgiver saw meet to exact, it was given to those 
 who had no right to expect it, and who could have fulfilled their obligation 
 to punishment only by their destruction or their eternal misery. 
 
 “ One essential point irr the statement of the Catholic oirinion yet re¬ 
 mains. Allowing that it became the Ruler of the universe to exhibit the 
 righteousness of his government, by punishing transgression at the time 
 w hen remission of sins was preached in the gospel, and that we are thus 
 able to assign the reason of that translatiorr of guilt, without which a guilty 
 world could not be saved, it may still be inquired upon what principle an 
 innocent person w'as made to suffer this punishment; and it is one part of 
 the objections to the Catholic opinion, that no reason of expediency, not 
 even mercy to the human race, can render it right or fit that he wdio had 
 done no sin should be punished as a sinner. When the Socinians are asked 
 in what manner they can account for the sufferings of Jesus Christ, they 
 resedve them into an act of dominion in the Creator. But this is an account 
 to which those who hold the Catholic opinion cannot have recourse, because 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 xm 
 
 their whole system proceeds upon this princijde, that the Almighty is to be 
 considered, in every part of this transaction, not as an absolute proprietor, 
 who does what he will with his own, but as a righteous governor, who de¬ 
 rives the reasons of his conduct from the law's which constitute his govern¬ 
 ment.- In the Catholic opinion, therefore, the consent of Him who endured 
 the sufferings is conjoined with the act of the Lawgiver, who accepted them 
 as a satisfaction for sin; and it is by the conjunction of these two circum¬ 
 stances—the consent of the Sufl'erer and the acceptance of the Lawgiver— 
 that the sufferings of Christ are essentially distinguished from all other in¬ 
 stances of vicarious punishment.” 
 
 An important passage follows, in wliieh the irrelevancy 
 of reasoning, from the mere analogy of earthly jurispnj- 
 dence, against the principle of substitution in the divine 
 government, is exposed in a manner peculiarly applicable 
 to some of our modern impugners of that principle. I 
 quote the passage only partially, for it is a long one:—• 
 
 “ When you turn to human judgments, you will find nothing exactly 
 similar to what is called a satisfaction for sin by the sufi'erings of Christ; 
 and a little attention will satisfy you that the dissimilarity is not accidental, 
 but is founded on the nature of things. In those cases in which the penalty 
 incurred by breach of contract is a sum of money, or a prestation that may 
 be performed by any one, he who pays the sum, or does the service for the 
 person originally bound, undergoes what may properly be called vicarious 
 punishment; but he cannot be said to make satisfaction, because he does 
 the very thing which was required, and the liberation of the panel be- 
 C('mes, in consequence of such substitution, a matter of right, not of favour. 
 In those cases in which the penalty incurred is a punishment that attaches 
 to the person of the panel—as imprisonment, banishment, stripes, or 
 death, human law does not admit of substitution ; because there cannot 
 be that concurrence of the acceptance of the lawgiver, and the valid 
 
 consent of the substitute, without which substitution is illegal. 
 
 The imperfect knowledge which every human lawgiver has of the cir¬ 
 cumstances of the case disqualifies him from judging how far the ends of 
 punishment may be attained by substitution, so that it is wiser for him to 
 follow the established course of justice which lays the punislmient upon the 
 transgressor ; and in capital punishments the law of nature forbids substi¬ 
 tution, because no warmth of att'ection, and no apprehension of utility, war¬ 
 rant a man voluntarily to sacrifice that life which is the gift of God to him, 
 merely that another who deserved to die might live. For these reasons, in 
 everything which seems to approach to a substitution amongst men, there 
 
XIV 
 
 rREFACE. 
 
 is wanting that concurrence of the acceptance of the law'giver, and the con¬ 
 sent of the substitute, without wliich substitution is illegal. But these 
 two circumstances meet in the substitution of Christ; and it is this 
 peculiar concurrence which forms the complete vindication of the Catholic 
 opinion. 
 
 “ Jesus Christ was capable of giving liis consent to suffer and to die for 
 the sins of men, because he had that power over his life which a mere man 
 cannot have. Death did not coine upon him by the condition of his being; 
 but having existed from all ages in the form of God, he assumed, at a par¬ 
 ticular season, the fashion of a man for this very cause, that he might .suffer 
 and die. All the }iarts of his suiferings were known to him before he visited 
 this world ; he saw the consequences of them both to mankind and to him¬ 
 self ; and, with every circumstance fully in his view, he said unto his Father, 
 as it is written in tiie volume of God’s Book concerning him, ‘ Lo, I come 
 to do thy will, 0 God ! ’ (Heb. x. 7.) His own words mark most explicitly 
 that he had that power over his life which a mere man has not; ‘ No man 
 taketh my life from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it 
 down, and I have power to take it again ’ (John x. 18). And upon tliis 
 power, peculiar to Jesus, depends the significancy of that expression which 
 his apostles use concerning him, ‘ He gave himself for us ’—that is, -with a 
 valid, deliberate consent he acted in all that he suffered as our substitute.” 
 
 I close with one more brief extract, in which the value 
 of Christ’s expiatory sufferings is indicated :•— 
 
 “ It affords a favourable view of the coiisi.stency of the Catholic opinion, 
 that tlie very same dignity of character which qualified the Substitute to 
 give his consent implies the strongest reasons for the acceptance of the Law¬ 
 giver,—the other circumstance which must concur in order to render vicari¬ 
 ous suffering a satisfaction to justice. The support whicli the liuman 
 nature of Jesus received from his divine, enabled him to sustain that wrath 
 which the Law'giver saw meet to lay upon a person who was bearing the 
 sins of the world. The exalted character of the Sufferer exhibited to the 
 rational creation the evil and heinousiiess of sin, which the supreme Law¬ 
 giver did not choose to forgive without such a substitution ; and the love 
 of God to the human race, which led him to accept of the sufferings of a 
 Substitute, was illustrated in the most striking manner by his not sparing 
 for such a purpose a person so dear to him as his own Son.” 
 
 Edinburgh, December 1860. 
 
PART 1. 
 
 THE QUESTION VIEWED IX ITS RELATION TO 
 HUMAN SYSTEMS AND THE METHOD 
 OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF, 
 
THE ATONEMENT; ITS EFFICACY 
 AND EXTENT. 
 
 -4- 
 
 PART 1. 
 
 THE QUESTION VIEWED IN ITS EELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS 
 AND THE METHOD OF SGEIPTURAL PEOOF. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE FORMULARIES OF THE REFORMATION AS DISTINGUISHED, IN 
 REGARD TO THIS SUBJECT, FROM THOSE OF THE PATRISTIC 
 CHURCH. 
 
 The question, or set of questions, with which this chapter 
 
 treatise is occupied belongs, in an especial manner, - 
 
 to the theology of the Reformation, as it is em-udnbr^' 
 bodied in the symbolic books and academic sys- jue^tleo- 
 terns of the sixteenth, and more particularly the 
 seventeenth century. 
 
 The truth as it is in Jesus is doubtless essen¬ 
 tially the same everywhere and always; and the 
 apprehension of it, for salvation, by those to whom 
 it is presented, must everywhere and always be in 
 substance the same act or process. Christ cruci- 
 
 2 
 
18 THE QUESTION IN ITS EELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS, 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Ctii'istian- 
 ity always 
 the same; 
 hut dif¬ 
 ferently 
 viewed in 
 different 
 ages. 
 
 fieri, and faith appropriating Christ ciaicified, are 
 the unchanging conditions of the spiritual life ; 
 the outer or objective power, and the inner or 
 subjective principle, uniting to effect what that 
 formula expresses,—“ Christ living in me’" (Gal. ii. 
 20). But while thus far Christianity, whether 
 doctrinally or practically considered, is identical 
 in all ages, there is room for diversity in respect 
 of the manner, more or less explicit and articulate, 
 in which its several parts or elements may be 
 developed, recognised, and expressed. Circum¬ 
 stances may cause a greater stress to be laid on 
 certain of its doctrinal aspects, or of its practical 
 applications, at one period than at another; and 
 different habits of mental discipline, as well as 
 different kinds of moral training and experience, 
 may occasion, even where there is real agreement, 
 considerable variety of exposition. 
 
 The objective doctrine of the atonement made 
 by Christ, and the corresponding subjective doc¬ 
 trine of belief in that atonement, are, as I think, 
 instances in point. For I am persuaded that such 
 speculations and inquiries as have in modern times 
 gathered round these doctrines can scarcely be 
 understood, or intelligibly dealt with, unless care 
 be taken to keep in view the general character 
 and tendency of the theological era which to a 
 large extent they represent. It is for this reason 
 that I begin, in the outset of my argument, with 
 
FORMULARIES BEFORE AND AFTER THE REFORMATION. i9 
 
 what in fact originated the train of thought which 
 led to my writing on the subject at all;—a brief 
 general notice, that is to saj^, of a certain contrast 
 that may be observed between the formularies of 
 the post-Reformation Church and those of earlier 
 date ; and a more particular explanation of the im¬ 
 portance which came irr consequence to he attached 
 to the precise adjustment and balancing of verbal 
 statements,—in a somewhat more evangelical and 
 more spiritual line, howeA'er, than that in which 
 the Fathers used to cultivate the art so skilfully. 
 The subject is interesting in itself, as well as 
 in its bearing upon the forms which modern 
 controversies on the Atonement and on Faith 
 have assumed; on which account I hesitate all the 
 less in making some cursory consideration of it 
 the commencement or starting-point of the discus¬ 
 sion upon which I am entering relative to these 
 great matters. 
 
 I have to obseiwe then generally, in the first 
 place, that an important distinction may be noticed 
 between the Patristic and the Reformation formu¬ 
 laries, as regards the circumstances in which they 
 were prepared, and the corresponding character 
 which they came to assume respectively. 
 
 And secondly, and more particularly, I have to 
 point out the influence of this distinction, as tending 
 to give a particular turn and direction, in modern 
 times, to the orthodox or doctrinal manner of view- 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. 
 
 Contrast 
 of tlie era 
 of tlie Re¬ 
 formation 
 with tlie 
 era of the 
 Fathers. 
 
20 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Creeds 
 and Con¬ 
 fessions 
 before tlie 
 Reforma¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Character 
 of the 
 Apostles’ 
 Creed. 
 
 inof the atonement, in .connection with that evan- 
 gelical or practical faith of which it is the object. 
 
 To these topics I devote the first two chapters 
 of this first part of my treatise, as preliminary to 
 the discussion of the method of Scriptural proof. 
 
 Of the creeds and confessions current before the 
 Keformation, it may be said, in a general view, 
 that they were drawn up while the Church was 
 on her way to the priestly altar, the monkish cell, 
 and. the scholastic den. She was on her way out 
 of all the three when the Reformation Formularies 
 were prepared. Religion was becoming ritual and 
 ascetic; theology subtile, speculative, and mystical; 
 when the Apostles’ Creed passed into the Nicene 
 form, and that again effloresced into the Atha- 
 nasian. Even .the Apostles’ Creed itself, simple 
 and sublime as it is, may be held in some measure 
 chargeable with a fiiult, or defect, which after¬ 
 wards became more conspicuous. It is chiefly, if 
 not exclusively, occupied with the accomplishment 
 of redemption ; it says little or nothing about its 
 application. The person and work of Christ, as 
 the Redeemer, are the prominent topics. The 
 Holy Ghost is merely named; his office as the 
 author of regeneration, faith and holiness, is not 
 so much as mentioned; of course, therefore, those 
 inward movements and changes which he effects 
 in the redeemed soul are altogether omitted. For 
 
SUBTILE SBECULATIONS OF THE EAELY CHURCH. 
 
 21 
 
 this apparent imperfection, the concise brevity of chapter 
 the document may be pleaded as a reason ; and it —^ 
 may be urged, in addition, that even on the subject 
 of the Eedeemer's person and work its statements 
 are very meagre. That is true. Still the begin¬ 
 ning of that tendency which was soon more fully 
 developed is to be noticed; the tendency, I mean, 
 to exercise and exhaust the intellect of the Church Growing 
 in the minute analysis of such mysteries of the to the 
 Divine nature as the Trinity and the Incarnation; tiveran.er 
 to the neglect, comparatively, of those views ofexpeu-" 
 saving o-race which, beintr more within the range 
 of human experience, appeal not to the intellect 
 only, but to the heart as well. 
 
 Several causes might be pointed out as contri- causes of 
 buting to foster this tendency. Abstract specula- deucy, 
 tions about the manner of the Supreme Being's 
 essential and eternal existence, as well as about 
 the sense and mode in which divinity and 
 humanity may become one, were but too con¬ 
 genial to the mixed Grecian and Oriental philo¬ 
 sophy then in vogue, and found an apt and ready 
 instrument of logical and metaphysical debate in 
 the almost endlessly plastic language in which they 
 were embodied. Hence arose the interminable 
 array of subtle here.sies which forced upon the 
 orthodox an increasing minuteness of definition 
 from age to age ; successive councils being obliged 
 to meet the ever-shifting forms of error with new 
 
22 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PAM 
 
 I. 
 
 Value 
 of the 
 Nicene 
 and Atha- 
 nasiaii 
 Creeds. 
 
 Their 
 
 sliortcora- 
 
 Ing. 
 
 guards and fences,—new adjustments of words 
 and syllables, and even of letters, fitted to stop 
 each small and narrow gap at which an unscrupu¬ 
 lous, hair-splitting ingenuity of sophistry might 
 strive to enter in. It is not therefore to be im¬ 
 puted as a fault to the Nicene Fathers, or to the 
 followers of Athanasius, that the creeds which they 
 sanctioned set forth the mysteries of the Trinity, 
 and the union of the two natures in one person, 
 with a prolixity of exact and carefully balanced 
 statement, from which we are apt now to recoil, 
 —scarcely understanding even the phraseology or 
 terminology employed. On the contrary, it is to be 
 regarded as, upon the whole, matter of thankful¬ 
 ness, that, at the risk of being charged with prying 
 too presumptuously into things too high for them, 
 men of competent learning, and sufficiently skilled 
 in the philosophic gladiatorship of their day, were 
 led by the keen fencing of adversaries to intrench 
 in a fortress at all points so unassailable, the fun¬ 
 damental verities of the Christian faith. 
 
 At the same time the remark holds true that, 
 while rendering this service to doctrinal Chris¬ 
 tianity, they were far less at home in its experi¬ 
 mental departments. It may have been their 
 misfortune, as much as, or more than, their fault. 
 But certainly the Church which they were guiding 
 so truly among the quicksands of Arian and semi- 
 Arian subtlety, and anchoring so firmly on the 
 
EITUALISM AND ASCETICISM. 
 
 2.3 
 
 “ great mystery of godliness, God manifest in the chapter 
 flesh” (1 Tim. iii. 16), was fast losing hold, in — 
 another direction, of the living spirit of the gospel 
 of Christ. In fact, the growing minuteness of 
 scholastic speculation in the transcendental region 
 of essences, human and divine, simply kept pace 
 with a growing ignorance of divine grace in the 
 practical region of Christian experience and the 
 Christian walk. Here, ritualism and asceticism Preva- 
 
 divided the fleld between them ;—ritualism for the 
 vulgar; asceticism for the initiated;—ritualism for 
 the general body of the baptized, whom it was the 
 business of priestcraft to amuse, to overawe, to 
 soothe, to manage, by a system of imposing cere¬ 
 mony and convenient routine ; and asceticism, 
 again, for more earnest souls, for whom, if they 
 are to be managed, something more real than the 
 husks of ordinary formality must be found. Be¬ 
 tween the two, the gospel of free grace, giving 
 assurance of a present, gratuitous, and complete 
 salvation; and the new birth of the soul in the 
 believing of that gospel; were thrust out of the 
 scheme of practical religion. Kegeneration and 
 Justification, in the evangelical sense of these 
 terms, were set aside, in favour of the sacramental 
 virtue of the Font and the Altar, the discipline of 
 penance, and the mediatorship of the Virgin and 
 the saints. They find no place, therefore, in the 
 Creeds; which, after going into the nicest details 
 
 lence of 
 litualism 
 and asceti¬ 
 cism as 
 obscuring 
 the doc¬ 
 trines of 
 grace. 
 
24 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Tlie mys¬ 
 teries of 
 the Ti1- 
 nity, In¬ 
 carnation, 
 Ac., pre¬ 
 sented too 
 abstractly. 
 
 respecting the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the 
 h^qoostatical union of the two natures in the one 
 person of Christ, leave almost untouched the entire 
 field of the sinner’s personal history, in his being 
 turned from sin to the living God, and fitted for 
 glorifying and enjoying him for ever. 
 
 Hence these high mysteries are presented in an 
 academic, theoretical form, almost as if they were 
 algebraic signs or expressions, to be adroitly shifted 
 and sorted upon the scholastic board, but with 
 little or no reference to the actual business of the 
 spiritual life. It must ever be so, when they are 
 handled in this abstract way. The distinction of 
 persons in the Godhead is a truth which comes 
 home to the heart, when it is viewed in theology, 
 as it is set forth in Scripture, not theoretically, in 
 itself, but practically, in its bearing upon the 
 change which a man must personally undergo, if 
 he is to be renewed, sanctified, and saved. Then 
 the love of the Father, the righteousness and grace 
 of the incarnate Son, and the indwelling power 
 and fellowship of the Spirit, are felt to be not 
 notions, but facts;—facts, too, that may be matter 
 of human experience as well as of divine dis¬ 
 covery. Otherwise it is only the skeleton of 
 divinity that is exhibited, to be dissected and 
 analyzed; without the flesh and blood,—and above 
 all, without the warm breath of life,—which it 
 must have if it is to be embraced. 
 
ANGLICAN DIVINES OF LAST CENTUKY. 
 
 25 
 
 I miglit refer, in proof and illustration of this 
 remark, to the Anglican Theology of the last cen¬ 
 tury, and to the manner in which the doctrine of 
 the Trinity, with its dependent truths, was dis¬ 
 cussed by its ablest defenders, at a time when 
 confessedly salvation by grace alone was not the 
 common theme of the pulpits of our land. With 
 all our grateful admiration of those giants in 
 Patristic learning and logic—such as Bishop 
 Horsley and others—whose vindication of the 
 faith will never become obsolete, we cannot but be 
 sensible of a certain hard, dry, formal and techni¬ 
 cal aspect or character imparted to their treatment 
 of the whole subject. The incomprehensible sub¬ 
 limities of heaven were so subjected to the mani¬ 
 pulation of the limited human understanding,— 
 and that, tOo, irrespectively of their practical 
 bearing on the wants and woes of earth,—as to 
 be repulsive, in certain quarters, rather than 
 attractive ; and, in fact, without excusing, we 
 may perhaps thus explain, the difficulty which 
 some sensitive minds felt in assenting to those 
 minutim of Trinitarian definition which might 
 seem adapted rather to the subtleties of doubtful 
 disputation in the schools, than to the anxieties and 
 exigencies of the divine life in the soul. At all 
 events, the analogy now suggested is instructive. 
 And it is fitted, I think, to confirm the truth of 
 the representation which I have been giving of 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. 
 
 Illustra¬ 
 tion of this 
 defect in a 
 certain 
 school of 
 Anglican 
 theology. 
 
PART 
 
 I. 
 
 The Re- 
 foraiation 
 formu¬ 
 laries. 
 Conver¬ 
 sion and 
 experience 
 of Lutlier. 
 
 Earthly 
 
 and 
 
 heavenly 
 tilings 
 (John hi. 
 12 ). 
 
 26 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 the circumstances in which the Church formularies 
 that arose out of the controversies of the early 
 centuries were compiled; the influences to which 
 the compilers of them were exposed; and the 
 character which, in consequence, they have im¬ 
 pressed upon them,—especially in what may be 
 called the latest edition of them,—that which 
 bears the justly honoured name of Athanasius. 
 
 The Reformation formularies originated in the 
 life, rather than in the teaching, of Luther. His 
 conversion may be said to be their type and model, 
 as well as their source and parent. They are the 
 issue of it. Joining hands with the Fathers, through 
 Augustine, and with the Apostles, through Paul, 
 he did for theology what Socrates boasted to have 
 done for philosophy;—he brought heavenly into 
 contact with earthly things. The whole move¬ 
 ment with which he was associated was eminently 
 spiritual and practical. It was cast in the mould 
 of our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus, as 
 the principle of that conversation is explained by 
 our Lord himself: “ If I have told you earthly 
 thing.s, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe if 
 I tell you of heavenly things?” (John iii. 12.) 
 The earthly things,—the facts or doctrines con¬ 
 nected with the new birth, its necessity, its nature, 
 and its cause,—however they may be discovered 
 or revealed, are yet such as, when discovered or 
 revealed, fall within the range and cognizance of 
 
SALVATION PRACTICALLY VIEWED, 
 
 27 
 
 liuman thought, and touch a chord in the deepest chapter 
 feelings of human nature. The soul, awakened to 
 reflection upon itself and upon its Maker, recog¬ 
 nises, as if instinctively, the solemn truth, that 
 nothing short of a new creative energy or impulse 
 on the pait of its Maker, can restore the right 
 relation in which it should stand to him, and 
 re-establish harmony where otherwise hopeless 
 discord must ever continue to reign. To a spirit 
 thus convinced, the heavenly things—the facts or 
 doctrines of redemption, the love of the Father in 
 the gift of his Son, and the power that there is to 
 heal in the lifting up of the eyes to Him of whom 
 the serpent lifted up in the wilderness was the 
 type—come home as not inanimate and abstract 
 speculations in divinity, but living realities bring¬ 
 ing life to humanity. The whole plan of salva- practical 
 tion now assumes a practical and, if one may say of the plan 
 so, a personal character. It is not a theory about tion! 
 God; it is God himself interposing to meet the 
 miserable case of man. There is still, indeed, a continued 
 
 .. .. . . . need of 
 
 need ot defanitions and propositions, in setting it system, 
 forth systematically and defending it against the 
 subtleties of error. Tliese, however, are now 
 framed with a far more direct refei'ence than be¬ 
 fore to the great and urgent business of the sin¬ 
 ner’s salvation. What God is in himself, and 
 wbat God does out of himself, are considered as 
 questions immediately affecting the lapsed state 
 
28 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 TART 
 
 I. 
 
 System 
 bearing 
 more on 
 the inner 
 life of the 
 soul. 
 
 Tlie appli¬ 
 cation as 
 weli as the 
 purchase 
 of redemp¬ 
 tion. 
 
 and possible recovery of the liiinian family; and the 
 particulars of the change effected in and upon the in¬ 
 dividual man when he is saved, as well as the acts 
 or habits of the spiritual life to which he is called, 
 form the main substance of the dogmatic articles in 
 which the truth is henceforth to be embodied. 
 
 I am persuaded that a minute comparison of 
 the Reformed Confessions with one another, and 
 Avith the older Creeds, will fully \mrify the repre- 
 sentastion Avhich I have been giving. And the 
 explanation, I am persuaded also, is to be found 
 in the position occupied by the Reformers when 
 they burst the bands of servile subjection to man, 
 and came forth in the liberty with Avhich Christ 
 makes his people free. Religion Avas then making 
 her escape out of the school, the cloister, and the 
 confessional; and she was making her escape—as 
 her great champion made his escape—not easily 
 and lightly, but through a painful and protracted 
 exercise of soul, amid sin’s darkest terrors and the 
 most desperate struggles of the aAvakened conscience 
 for relief. When she began, after the joy of her 
 first direct dealing with the free grace and full sal- 
 Auation of Avhat we may almost call a rediscovered 
 gospel, to realize herself,—to ascertain and gather 
 up, as by a sort of reflex or reflectiAm process of 
 faith, the attainments and results of her first loAm, 
 —it Avas natural, and indeed unaAmidable, that 
 she should give prominence to those views of 
 
THE UEFOEMED CREEDS. 
 
 29 
 
 the origin, accomplishment, and application of re- cnAPT::R, 
 demption, which touch the region of the practical — 
 and experimental. Hence the compilers of her midered 
 formularies, while they entered thoroughly into tic Mtho- 
 the labours of their predecessors, and adopted 
 implicitly the Patristic modes of thought and 
 speech on such subjects as the Trinity and the 
 Incarnation,—thus rendering due homage to the 
 orthodoxy of former generations,—assigned com¬ 
 paratively little space to these mysteries, and 
 dwelt far more largely on those doctrines of sav¬ 
 ing grace which the earlier creeds scarcely noticed. 
 
 The Atonement, as the method of reconciliation 
 between God and man, was considered more than 
 before in its connection with the divine purpose 
 appointing it, and the divine power rendering it 
 effectual. Pedemption was viewed, not merely 
 as a sort of general influence from above, telling 
 on mankind collectively and universally; but as 
 a specific plan, contemplating and securing the 
 liighest good of “such as should be saved.'’ The xhesove- 
 sovereignty of God, carrying out his eternal de- 
 cree, in the person and work of Christ, and in |ngs 
 the personal work of the Spirit, was the ruling ’li^uauy*' 
 and guiding idea. The rise and progress of evan¬ 
 gelical faith, penitence, and love, in the soul of 
 man,—the dealings of God with the individual 
 sinner, and the dealings of the individual believer 
 with God,—formed in large measure the sub- 
 
30 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 ■ TART 
 I. 
 
 Tendency 
 to a barren 
 dognia- 
 tisra. 
 
 Eormu- 
 laries com¬ 
 piled amid 
 the fresh¬ 
 ness of 
 Reforma¬ 
 tion life. 
 
 stance of the theology taught in the divinity halls, 
 and defined in the symbolic books, of the Pro¬ 
 testant Churches ; and gave a distinctive turn to 
 the questions and controversies which arose among 
 them. These, indeed, were almost as apt as the 
 discussions of the early centuries, to degenerate 
 into hard and dry logomachy, or word-fighting. 
 Accordingly, as the first fresh evangelical life of 
 the Reformation times decayed, and barren ortho¬ 
 doxy to a large extent took its place in the pulpit 
 and in the chair, a certain cold and callous famili¬ 
 arity in handling the counsels of God and the 
 destinies of men began to prevail,—as if it had 
 been upon a dead body that the analytical dissect¬ 
 ing knife was ruthlessly operating;—and this 
 may have contributed to bring the system which 
 took shape in the hands of Calvin into disrepute 
 with sensitive or fastidious minds, acquainted with 
 it only in its hard, dogmatic, logical form, after Cal¬ 
 vin’s spirit had gone out of it. But the system 
 was in its prime of spiritual life and power when 
 nearly all the Reformation Confessions and Cate¬ 
 chisms were fashioned in accordance with it. The 
 Westminster Standards, in particular, which were 
 about the last of these compositions, were the pro¬ 
 duct of an agitation as instinct with practical 
 earnestness as it was skilful in controversy and 
 profound in learning. They were elaborated, 
 moreover, in an Assembly in which all the various 
 
THE WESTMINSTEE POEMULAEIES. 
 
 31 
 
 shades of evangelical opinion were represented, chapter 
 and in which the utmost pains were taken to avoid —h 
 
 , 1 !• 1 • Westmin- 
 
 extreme statements ; while the relative bearings stor as- 
 of divine revelation and human consciousness were, us"de-’ 
 if not with the formality and ostentation which 
 modern science might desire, yet in fact so carefully ^"rk 
 weighed and balanced, as to impart a singularly 
 temperate and practical tone to the Calvinism of 
 the creed which it ultimately sanctioned. This 
 all intelligent students of the Westminster Formu¬ 
 laries will acknowledge to be one of their most 
 marked characteristics. It is, indeed, the feature 
 which has fitted them for popular use, as well as 
 for being the test and the testimony of a Church’s 
 profession ; so that they may profitably be read for 
 private, personal edification, as well as erected into 
 a public ecclesiastical bulwark of the truth. Of 
 them especially, as of the Reformed Confessions 
 generally, it may be truly said that they teach 
 divinity in its application to humanity. The 
 “heavenly” mysteries of the Atonement and of 
 Election are brought into contact with what we 
 may venture to call the “ earthly” mysteries of 
 conversion and justification,—repentance, faith, and 
 holiness; and all throughout, these heavenly and 
 earthly things are viewed, not with a vague re¬ 
 ference to mankind at large, but with a special 
 I'eference to individuals, as one by one they are to 
 be either lost or saved. 
 
32 THE QUESTION IN ITS EELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PAUl 
 
 I. 
 
 Questions 
 raised as 
 to the 
 Atone¬ 
 ment and 
 faith. 
 
 Tlie Re¬ 
 formation 
 and evan- 
 Relical 
 stand¬ 
 point. 
 
 It is not wonderful tliat out of this way of 
 handling the doctrines of grace, there should arise 
 questions touching the transcendental problems of 
 fate and free will, such as cannot but occasion 
 difficulty and embarrassment in defining these 
 doctrines separately, and still more in adjusting 
 them harmoniously together. Inquiries into the 
 exact nature and extent of the Atonement, and 
 into the nature, office, and warrant of faith,— 
 deep-searching as they must necessarily be, and 
 on that account distasteful to those who will 
 accept nothing but what is on the surface,—may 
 thus be seen to be inevitable. And thouffiitful 
 
 O 
 
 minds may learn to be more and more reconciled 
 to the prosecution of such inquiries, in proportion 
 as they come ^practically nearer the stand-point, or 
 point of view, from which—instead of a yoke laying 
 all individual life jirostrate at the feet of a general 
 crushing tyranny over the thoughts and feelings 
 of mankind—the emancipated soul welcomed the 
 gospel of the sovereign and free grace of God, as a 
 proclamation to each and every one of the children 
 of men, that “ whosoever shall call on the name of 
 the Lord shall be saved” (Acts ii. 21); in terms of 
 the Lord’s own comprehensive saying—“ All that 
 the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him 
 that cometh to me I will in no wise ca,st out” 
 (John vi. 37). 
 
THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS. 
 
 33 
 
 CHAPTER 11. 
 
 THE WESTMINSTER STANDARDS—RELATION BETWEEN THE ATONE¬ 
 MENT AND FAITH—THE SOVEREIGNTY OP GOD. 
 
 The design of tins second preliminary chapter will chapter 
 be best accomplished, as I think, and the point of — 
 view in which tire,- subject of the atonement and 
 faith is considered in the present treatise will be 
 best indicated, if I begin with some remarks on 
 the alleged complexity of modern creeds. This Length 
 is often urged as an objection to these creeds, and uxity o°f 
 especially to the Westminster Standards, with fomikion 
 reference to the important object of Christian 
 union. The acknowledged harmony of the Reformed 
 Confessions among themselve.s, is undoubtedly a 
 fact highly favourable to that object. Bat it is 
 said there is, on the other hand, an unfavourable 
 characteristic common to them all, and at least as 
 marked in those of Westminster as in any others. 
 
 They are long, prolix, and minute. And this is 
 carried, as it is argued, to such an extreme as to 
 present a serious obstacle to what in these days is 
 felt to be so desirable,—the merging of minor dif¬ 
 ferences in the great essential truths which make 
 all believers one in Christ. I am far from think¬ 
 ing that nothing may or ought to be attempted in 
 
 3 
 
34 THE QUESTION IN ITS EELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Possibility 
 of llieir 
 being 
 slioi-iened 
 aiul sim- 
 plilied. 
 
 Caution to 
 be ob- 
 serviid. 
 
 Unity of 
 truth and 
 subtlety of 
 error. 
 
 the direction of simplifying and shortening the 
 Church formularies now in use. But the attempt 
 must always be a difficult and delicate one ; and 
 it should never be contemplated without a most 
 reverential and scrupulous regard to the spirit of 
 the Reformation revival which originated them,— 
 nor without an anxious study of the mutual bear¬ 
 ings and relations of the parts of the evangelical 
 system among themselves, as well as of the consis¬ 
 tency of the system as a whole. In this view, the 
 observations which follow seem to me to be practi¬ 
 cally of very considerable importance. 
 
 The use of human standards generally is al¬ 
 leged to be unfavourable to Christian unity, inas¬ 
 much as they embrace so wide a field, and contain 
 such minute statements of doctrine, that it is im¬ 
 possible to expect a hearty and unanimous concur¬ 
 rence in so many various particulars on the part 
 of all true believers. A sufficient answer to the 
 objection may be found, I think, in the considera¬ 
 tion that these standards are intended to shut out 
 error; and that in proportion to the consistency 
 and harmony of the truth of God, is the all-per¬ 
 vading subtlety of the error of Satan. The truth 
 of God is perfectly harmonious, and is one com¬ 
 plete whole ; all the parts of it fit into one another, 
 and are mutually dependent upon each otlier. And 
 as this edifice, thus reared by God, is complete and 
 compact in all its parts, so the subtle influence of 
 
SUBTLETY OF EKKOR. 
 
 35 
 
 Satan is often applied to the undermining of one chapter 
 
 part of the building, in the knowledge that if he - 
 
 succeed in that, he can scarcely fail to effect the 
 destruction of all the rest, 
 
 I might illustrate this policy of the adversary a littie 
 by showing how error, in what at first sight may leavenetu 
 appear an unimportant detail of Christian theology, lump, 
 affects the whole system, and essentially mars the 
 entire scope and spirit of the gospel. It may 
 seem, for instance, that the discussion regarding 
 the precise nature of saving faith is a compara¬ 
 tively unimportant one,—that it is a discussion on 
 which Christian men may afford to differ ; and yet 
 an error on this point might easily be shown to 
 affect the doctrines of the Divine sovereignty,—of 
 human depravity,—of the extent and nature of the 
 atonement, and of justification by faith alone. I iiiustra- 
 might show, for example, that tliose who make 
 justifying faith to consist in the belief of the fact Nature of 
 that they are themselves pardoned and accepted,— 
 and who maintain, consequently, that in order to 
 his being justified, a man must believe that Christ 
 died personally for him as an individual—are, 
 in consistency, compelled to adopt a mode of state¬ 
 ment in regard to the bearing of Christ’s death 
 upon all men indiscriminately, and particularly 
 upon the lost, which strikes at the root of the 
 very idea of personal substitution altogether ; 
 making it difficult, if not impossible, to hold that 
 
36 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Definition 
 in Shorter 
 Cate¬ 
 chism. 
 
 Christ actually suffered in the very room and 
 stead of the guilty. According to such a defini¬ 
 tion or explanation of faith as is given in the 
 Shorter Catechism, in which it is described as “ a 
 saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon 
 Jesus Christ alone for salvation, as he is offered to 
 us in the gospel,” it is unnecessary to define the 
 precise relation which the death of Christ has to 
 mankind universally, and its precise bearing on 
 the condition of the finally impenitent and the 
 lost. For it must be admitted, I apprehend and 
 maintain, that the death of Chiist has a certain 
 reference to all men universally ;—such a reference 
 as to impose upon all men universally the obliga¬ 
 tion to hear and to believe. The offer of salvation 
 through the death of Christ is made, in the gospel, 
 to all men universally. It is an offer most earnest 
 and sincere, as well as most gracious and free on 
 the part of God. But it could scarcely be so, 
 without there being some sort of relation between 
 the death of Christ and every man, even of 
 those that ultimately perish, who is invited, on 
 tlie credit and warrant of it, to receive the sal¬ 
 vation offered. What may be the nature of that 
 relation—what may be the precise bearing of 
 Christ’s death on every individual, even of the lost, 
 I presume not to define. My position is—that it 
 is unnecessary to define it. For I do not ask the 
 sinner to believe in the precise definition of that 
 
RELATION OF THE ATONEMENT TO ALL MEN. 
 
 37 
 
 relation respecting himself. Even if the sinner 
 could put into articulate language his thecny of 
 the exact bearing of the death of Christ on him¬ 
 self, he would still be an unreconciled sinner, 
 unless he complied witli the proposal of reconcilia¬ 
 tion founded upon it, in terms of the gospel call 
 and gospel assurance, indicated by the apostle : 
 “ Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as 
 though God did beseech you by us ; we pray you 
 in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God. For 
 he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no 
 sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of 
 God in him” (2 Cor. v. 20, 21). 
 
 Such a view of justifying and saving faith 
 relieves and exempts those who hold it from the 
 necessity of prying too curiously into the relation 
 between Christ’s death and impenitent and unbe¬ 
 lieving sinners, to whom God has made a free, 
 unconditional, and honest offer of the blessino- of 
 reconciliation. For if we hold that faith is the’ 
 actual personal closing with God’s free and uncon¬ 
 ditional gift, on the part of the individual sinnei', 
 we are not required to state, in the form of a cate¬ 
 gorical proposition, what is the precise relation 
 between the death of Christ and all mankind. And 
 so we are left free to maintain, that while, in some 
 way unknown to us,—the effect of whicli, liow- 
 ever, is well known, namely, that it lays the foun¬ 
 dation for the free offer in the gospel of salvation 
 
 OHAPTEH 
 
 II. 
 
 IteUfion 
 of the 
 atoneiTieiit 
 to all men. 
 
PAKT 
 
 I. 
 
 The doc¬ 
 trine of 
 substitu¬ 
 tion. 
 
 38 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 universally to all men,—Christ’s death has a bear¬ 
 ing oh the condition even of the impenitent and 
 lost; yet, in the strict and proper sense, he was 
 really, truly, and personally, a substitute in the 
 room of the elect, and in the room of the elect 
 only. 
 
 On the other hand, if I hold the doctrine that 
 faith is the belief of a certain fact concerning 
 Christ’s death and my interest in it,—that it is 
 the mere belief of a certain definite proposition, 
 such as that Christ died for me,—I am compelled 
 to make out a proposition concerning Christ’s 
 death which shall hold true equally of believers 
 and unbelievers, the reprobate and the saved; 
 which proposition I am to believe, simply as a 
 matter of fact, necessarily true in itself, whether I 
 believe it or not. But how is this to be done ? 
 I am to believe that Christ died for me. Then, 
 I must believe that in a sense which shall be true 
 independently of my belief,—in a sense, therefore, 
 which shall be equally true of me whether I am 
 saved or lost. Does not this compel me to make 
 Christ’s dying for me, though I should be one of 
 the chosen, amount really to nothing more than 
 what is implied in his dying for the finally 
 reprobate ? Accordingly, it is to be observed, that 
 those who tal^e this view of saving faith carefully 
 avoid the use of any language respecting the atone¬ 
 ment which would involve the notion of personal 
 
THE DOCTRINE OP SUBSTITUTION 
 
 39 
 
 substitution. They do not like to speak of Christ 
 being put actually in the room of sinnerfs, • con¬ 
 sidered as personally liable to wrath. They use a 
 variety of abstract and impersonal phrases—such 
 as, Christ’s dying for sin—his death being a 
 scheme for removing obstacles to pardon, or for 
 manifesting God’s character and vindicating his 
 government,—with other expressions, all studiously 
 general and indefinite, and evading the distinct 
 and articulate statement of Christ having died as 
 a substitute in the actual room and stead of guilt}^ 
 sinners themselves.* 
 
 The illustration now suggested of the inter- 
 twining, or interlacing, as it were, of the several 
 parts of the one divine system of truth, might be 
 extended ; and it might be shown how the scheme 
 of the sovereign mercy of God—the entire, radical, 
 and helpless corruption of human nature—the 
 utter impotency of man’s will—the perfection of 
 God’s righteousness—the freeness of God’s grace 
 —the simplicity and child-like nature of a holy 
 walk—how all these things are intimately asso¬ 
 ciated together, so that unsoundness in one runs 
 through all. In fact, it may be said of every 
 error, that, if traced to its ultimate source, it will 
 be found to take its rise in a denial of tlie doctrine 
 which is the leading characteristic of the West- 
 
 * Tliis subject is resumed aud considered more fully in the second part of the 
 treatise. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 II. 
 
 Evasion 
 of the idea 
 of substi¬ 
 tution. 
 
 Assertion 
 ofthesove¬ 
 reignty 
 of God tlie 
 leading 
 cliaructer- 
 istic of tlie 
 Westmin¬ 
 ster Stand¬ 
 ards. 
 
40 THE QUESTION IN ITS EELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS, 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Kot as a 
 nieve spe¬ 
 culative 
 dogma. 
 
 minster Standards—the doctrine of the absolute 
 sovereignty of God. 
 
 For it is unquestionably this doctrine of the 
 absolute sovereignty of God that in the Westmin¬ 
 ster, as in the other Keformed and Calvinistic Con¬ 
 fessions, rules in every part, and gives consistent 
 unitv to the whole. It is not, however, as an 
 abstract and speculative notion about God, the 
 result of a lofty attempt to sit, as it Avere, behind 
 his throne, and scan beforehand (ct 'priori) his 
 eternal plan of government, that this doctrine is 
 thus exalted to pre-eminence ; but rather as a 
 truth of practical application, gathered {aposteriori) 
 out of those personal dealings of God with man¬ 
 kind generally, and with individual men, of which 
 it is the one ultimate solution or rationale ; sug¬ 
 gesting the laAv or principle common to all of them, 
 and therefore fitted to silence, if not to satisfy, 
 all who reverently accept the divine teaching. It 
 is not as gratifying a theoretical inquisitiveness 
 that it is put forward, but as meeting practically a 
 real case of need. 
 
 The question. How is God to treat the guilty? 
 —as an urgent anxiety of the conscience, and not 
 merely a curious speculation of the intellect,—must 
 be ever kept in view, as that which originates the 
 Evangelical theology, and is in fact its starting- 
 point, whatever may be the systematic arrange¬ 
 ment adopted in its symbolic books. It is tins 
 
LAW AND SOVEEEIGIvTY. 
 
 41 
 
 very circumstancej indeed, that distinguishes the chapter 
 theological school which I have ventured thus to 
 designate hy the term Evangelical, from wdiat may 
 be called the Scholastic or the Orthodox ;—that The Evnn- 
 whereas this last, as it might seem, has for its Lun-’ 
 theme chiefly the nature of the Supreme Being f,o'm ui\ 
 and his ]n'Ovidence, considered as a sort of theorem o^iiodex 
 to be demonstrated, the other aims from the^”‘|^^'’‘ 
 first, and all throughout, at some tolerable work¬ 
 ing out of the problem of man’s necessity, and the 
 way in which God proposes to deal with it. Sin, weas of 
 
 law, go- 
 
 as the transgression of law,—and that not a law of veinmeot, 
 nature merely, whether physical or spiritual, or judgment, 
 both, but a law of government, the authoritative, 
 commanding will of a holy and righteous Ruler ;— 
 sin, as an offence or crime to be penally visited in 
 terms of law;—criminality, guilt, demerit, blame¬ 
 worthiness ;—judicial condemnation and wrath ;— 
 judgment, punishment, vengeance or retribution;—• 
 these ideas, together with the sense of personal 
 degradation and pollution, and of the unloveliness 
 as well as the unrighteousness of a godless and 
 selfish spirit, enter deeply into the foundation on 
 which the evangelical divinity rests. 
 
 It is in the light of these ideas that two all- 
 important inquiries, in particular, present them¬ 
 selves for consideration ; the one, as to what God 
 has done and does ; the other, as to what man 
 has to do. On the one hand, the atonement, 
 
42 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART with the soi't of treatment of us on the part of 
 . God for which it makes provision ; and on the 
 
 foi'ced°"* other hand, faith, or the response on our part 
 L Ast^the which God’s movement toward us calls for; must 
 n!enr vicwecl US hearing upon what consciousness 
 
 and Scripture alike attest to be the realities of the 
 sinner’s position before God. So viewed, they 
 cannot be slurred over or disposed of under any 
 vague generality of expression—any broad, undis¬ 
 tinguishing formula—setting forth, for example, 
 some undefined universal expression or exercise 
 of God’s holy love, and some undefined universal 
 regeneration of humanity, as if that were all the 
 grace and salvation presented in Christ to the 
 acceptance of sinful men. Somewhat more of 
 Its nature, definition, even in detail, is craved. I desire to 
 know, if it please God in his word to reveal it, as 
 I rejoice to find that it has pleased him to reveal 
 it, what it is that the atonement really does for 
 such a one as I am—a sinner in the sight of the 
 Holy God^—a criminal at the bar of the Righteous 
 Judge ? Is it a real judicial transaction, in 
 "^hich an infinitely sufficient Substitute really 
 and actually takes the place of the breakers of 
 God’s law, and consents, in their stead, to fulfil 
 the obligations which they have failed, and must 
 ever fail, to fulfil; and to suffer in his own person 
 the penalty of their disobedience, taking upon 
 himself their responsibilities, liaving their guilt 
 
THE ATONEMENT AND FAITH. 
 
 43 
 
 reckoned to liis account, and submitting to be so ohaptea' 
 dealt with, in the character and capacity of their 
 representative, as to meet that necessity of pun¬ 
 ishment which otherwise must have entailed upor^ 
 them retribution without redress or remedy? Is 
 that the sort of atonement which a gracious God 
 and Father has provided, in the voluntary incar¬ 
 nation, life, and death of his only-begotten and 
 well-beloved Son, for his children who, like me, 
 have rebelled against him ? Certainly, I feel at 
 once that it is such as to meet my case. But I its extent, 
 soon perceive, also, that if that, or anything like 
 that, is a true representation of its nature, the 
 question of its extent is necessarily forced upon 
 me. I cannot help myself. Whether I will or 
 not, I must come up to and face that question, if 
 my notion of the atonement is thus articulate 
 and unequivocal;—as I now see it must be if it is 
 to satisfy either God’s justice or the sinner’s con¬ 
 scious need. The substitution of the Son of God, 
 in the sense and for the purpose now defined—is 
 it for all men ? And if not for all men, then how 
 is it determined for whom it is? Then anain, 2.Asto 
 
 . faith. 
 
 if it shall appear, as I apprehend it must appear, 
 upon reflection, that the very fact of such a substi¬ 
 tution precludes the idea of its being designed for 
 any whom it does not save, there are other press¬ 
 ing practical questions which force themselves upon 
 me. How am I, in ignorance of its destination,— 
 
44 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Its war- 
 
 nil it. 
 
 Its origin. 
 
 with no means of discoverino; or even o’uessiim 
 who they are for whom the Surety and Substi¬ 
 tute made atonement,—to arrive at anything like 
 a satisfactory persuasion that I may rely on his 
 havin" made atonement for me ? How am I to 
 
 o 
 
 refijard that universal offer of a free and full sal- 
 vation, based upon the atonement, which is so 
 unreservedly and earnestly announced in the Gos¬ 
 pel ? And how am I, on the sole warrant of that 
 universal offer, and with no pointing of it per¬ 
 sonally to me, to be emboldened, nevertheless, to 
 appropriate the salvation as really mine ? Still 
 further, yet another question may occur to perplex 
 me. The sense of my own helpless incapacity 
 and distaste for anything like spiritual life—the 
 feelinof of that evil heart of unbelief in me that is 
 ever departing from the living God—may incline 
 me to welcome the thought of a divine agency 
 being put forth to produce in me that state of 
 mind, whatever it may be, which insures my 
 personal interest in Christ, as an atoning Substi¬ 
 tute for me. But how is such an interposition of 
 the Spirit to fit into the exercise of my own 
 faculties of reasoning and choice ? Or what is 
 there, in the assigning of this divine origin to 
 fiiith, to explain or get over the difficulty of my 
 taking home to myself personally a call addressed 
 equally to all men, in connection with an atone¬ 
 ment wdiich, from its very nature, must be 
 
PRACTICAL BEARING OF QUESTIONS RAISED. 
 
 45 
 
 limited to those—how many or who they may be 
 I cannot tell—whom he who made it actually and 
 personall}’, in law and judgment, represented ? 
 
 These are questions which touch the region of 
 what is practical and experimental in religion ; 
 and that not merely in a selfish point of view, or 
 as bearing on one’s own peace and happiness and 
 hope, but also, and at least equall}'', in connection 
 with that mission of evangelical love to which 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 II. 
 
 Snell ques¬ 
 tions all- 
 important 
 in personal 
 leligion, 
 and in 
 dealing 
 witli man¬ 
 kind. 
 
 every real Christian feels himself called. They 
 are not questions meeting us in any transcen¬ 
 dental sphere of ontological speculation, into which 
 an attempt to scan the mysteries of the Divine 
 existence might introduce us. They lie along the 
 path which we have ourselves to tread, and 
 which we would have all our fellow-men to tread 
 with us, that a haven of satisfying rest may be 
 reached—a shelter from the thick clouds of guilt 
 and wrath. It is not, therefore, theoretically, but 
 chiefly in its practical aspects and bearings, that 
 the whole subject to which they relate falls to be 
 considered. Such, at least, is the way of consid¬ 
 ering it which, as it seems to me, is most needed 
 for earnest minds and in earnest times. And if, 
 in thus considering tlie subject, we find that our 
 inquiries, when prosecuted by the liglit which 
 divine discoveries shed upon the darkness of 
 human experience, shut us up at last to a recoer- 
 nition of the unexplained decree and absolute 
 
46 THE QUESTION IN ITS RELATION TO HUMAN SYSTEMS. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Acquies¬ 
 cence in 
 the Di¬ 
 vine sove¬ 
 reignty a 
 relieC 
 
 sovereignty of the Most High, as the final resting- 
 place of the tempest-tossed soul; if at every turn, 
 and in every branch of the investigation, we find 
 that in the last resort we must be fain to content 
 ourselves with the assurance, that He whom we 
 have learned to trust and love as the only wise 
 God, and as our Friend and Father, rules supreme, 
 and that his will, simply as his will, must, for the 
 present, be accepted always as the ultimate reason 
 of all things ; the conclusion will be to us, amid 
 the perplexities and apparent anomalies of the 
 reign of grace on earth, as satisfying as it was to 
 Christ himself,—when, contemplating the rejection 
 of his gospel by the proud, and its warm welcome 
 among the poor, he “ rejoiced in spirit, and said, 
 I thank thee, 0 Father, Lord of heaven and earth, 
 that thou hast hid these things from the wise and 
 prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes : even 
 so. Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight” 
 (Luke X. 21.) 
 
THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF, 
 
 47 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF—CLASSIFICATION AND EXA¬ 
 MINATION OF TEXTS USUALLY ALLEGED AGAINST THE CALVIN- 
 ISTIC DOCTRINE. 
 
 I DO not intend to discuss in detail the Scriptural chapter 
 
 III. 
 
 evidence of .the doctrine of the atonement, or to - 
 
 attempt anything like a direct, full, and formal 
 exposition of all that Scripture teaches regarding 
 its nature and extent, or regarding the saving 
 faith of which it is the ground and object. 
 Enough of this will, as I trust, be brought out, in 
 dealing with the practical difficulties of the ques¬ 
 tion, whether viewed on the side of God and his 
 free gift of salvation, on the one hand, or viewed 
 on the side of man and his acceptance of that 
 free gift, on the other hand. The statements and 
 indications of the divine word may thus be best 
 understood wlien contemplated in their applica¬ 
 tion to the facts and necessities of human experi¬ 
 ence. But it is desirable to clear the way, by The Bible 
 indicating at this stage, however imperfectly, the used.^*^"'^ 
 right method of using the Bible as an anthorit}^ 
 in this whole inquiry. Tliis, accordingly, I shall 
 endeavour to do in the remaining chapters of this 
 first part of my treatise ;—not by any means so 
 as to exhaust the subject, but rather with a view 
 
48 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Mere cit¬ 
 ing of 
 texts not 
 enough. 
 
 Division of 
 the sub¬ 
 ject. 
 
 to offer hints and suggestive specimens for its 
 further discussion. For it demands some sense 
 and intelligence to handle the divine word, as an 
 umpire in controversy, with the reverence and 
 deference to which its infallibility entitles it. 
 The mere citing of texts on this side, or on that, 
 is but a poor and doubtful compliment. Too 
 often has Holy Writ been treated like a stammer¬ 
 ing or prevaiicating rustic in the witness-box, 
 whose sentences and half sentences unscrupulous, 
 brow-beating; advocates on either side delight to 
 twist and torture at their pleasure. It is chiefly 
 as a protest against such a mode of dealing, with 
 reference to the questions raised about the atone¬ 
 ment, and about faith, that my observations are 
 offered. These observations will be directed to 
 the following points :— 
 
 In the first place. To indicate the proper classi¬ 
 fication of texts commonly quoted in this contro¬ 
 versy as decisive against the Calvinistic view, and 
 the proper princijiles of their interpretation when 
 classified. 
 
 Secondly, To state generally the method of 
 proof on the other side, as illustrating the fair 
 and legitimate way of gathering intelligently, 
 from various incidental notices and references, as 
 well as from express declarations and formaV 
 arguments, what is to be received as, upon the 
 whole, the teaching of Scripture on the subject; and. 
 
TREATMENT OF SCRIPTURAL ARGUMENT. 
 
 49 
 
 Thirdly, To give a particular instance of the 
 direct teaching of Scripture, by the exposition of 
 one passage, in which the harmony of the Old and 
 New Testaments, in asserting the efficacy of an 
 atoning sacrifice, conspicuously appears. 
 
 Under the first of these three heads, I shall deal 
 in the present chapter with the texts—most, if not 
 all of them—which are usually alleged in support 
 of the universality of the atonement, or the doc¬ 
 trine that the efficacy of Clirist’s atoning work, 
 his obedience and death, is co-extensive with 
 the human race ; my object being to show that, 
 when rightly classified and interpreted, according 
 to their several contexts, they do not really touch 
 the question at issue, or decide anything the one 
 way or the other, in regard to it. 
 
 Under the second head, I propose in chapter 
 fourth to show how, not mere isolated texts, but 
 unequivocal doctrinal statements and arguments, 
 require or favour the opposite view of the atone¬ 
 ment, making it clear that some of the most 
 important positions of Scripture, relative to the 
 life of God in the soul of man, cannot otherwise 
 be maintained. 
 
 The third head I devote to giving a specimen, 
 as it were, in chapters fifth and sixth, of what 
 the Old and the New Testaments alihe teach as 
 to the actual effect of an atonement, or of an 
 
 atoning sacrifice offered, accepted, and applied. I 
 
 4 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 in. 
 
 Texfs al¬ 
 leged 
 against 
 Ciilvini.sif 
 to be 
 classified 
 for inter- 
 pietatioii 
 
 How Cal. 
 vinism 
 claims the 
 support of 
 Scripture. 
 
 Teaching 
 of tlie Old 
 and New 
 Testa¬ 
 ments on 
 the naturj 
 of sacri¬ 
 fice. 
 
50 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUEAL PEOOP. 
 
 PART do SO, because, to ray raind, the whole stress of 
 —L the controversy lies in that direction. I ara 
 chiefly anxious to fix attention on the inquiry— 
 What is it that the atonement really does, or 
 effects ? To this inquiry I regard every other 
 question as subordinate. And, therefore, I would 
 attempt to indicate the line of Scriptural testi¬ 
 mony regarding it, before I proceed, in the second 
 part of the treatise, to grapple with the subject 
 in some of its practical bearings, and in the view 
 of some of its practical difficulties. 
 
 r The word of God is the sole and supreme 
 authority upon all religious questions. “ To the 
 law, and to the testimony: if they speak not 
 according to this word, it is because there is no 
 light in them” (Isa. viii. 20);—that is the uni¬ 
 versally applicable watchwmrd of sound theolo- 
 scriiiture, gical study. It ought especially to be held sacred 
 
 not philo¬ 
 sophy, the in its application to topics which, from their very 
 
 ultimate , .... • t i i o 
 
 standard, iiature, admit and invite a considerable amount of 
 philosophical argument into the discussion of 
 .^them.' The risk of “ philosophy, falsely so called,” 
 being suffered to mar the simplicity of a purely 
 Biblical faith, cannot be too scrupulously kept in 
 mind and guarded against. Psychology and 
 metaphysics, as neighbours at least, if not hand¬ 
 maids of divinity, need to be carefully watched. 
 But the jealous dread of human reasoning may 
 
MANNER OF DEALING WITH SCRIPTURE. 
 
 51 
 
 become itself an unreasoning prejudice, 'when it chapter 
 shrinks from anything like a clear and compre- — 
 hensive view of the logical bearings of such a 
 controversy as that relating to the extent of the 
 atonement; and the appeal to the Bible may 
 come to be according to the sound rather than 
 the sense, and may degenerate into little more 
 than a sort of lip homage, if particular expressions 
 are seized upon, isolated, and appropriated by dis¬ 
 putants, apart from those general considerations, 
 of a Scriptural as well as rational authority and Meaning 
 weight, on which it may be found, after all, that tune to be 
 the settlement of the meaning of these very tabbed by 
 expressions themselves must, for the most part, dunion!' 
 largely depend. 
 
 For it is a great mistake to imagine that t^ 
 treat a subject scripturally means merely to string 
 together a catalogue or concordance of quotations; 
 or that the mind of tlie Spirit is to be ascertained, 
 on any matter, by a bare enumeration of some of 
 his sayings with regard to it. His meaning is to 
 be known, as the meaning of any other author is 
 to be known. In the case of an ordinary writer instance 
 of books, especially if he is a man of diversified dina"y'' 
 tastes and talents,—a voluminous writer also, and 
 one of vast compass and variety,—having man}^ 
 different styles for different uses and occasions, and 
 personating by turns many different characters, 
 real or imaginary, whom he makes the vehicles 
 
THE METHOD OF SCRII’TURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART for conveying his sentiments,—we gather his real 
 —• and ultimate mind on any particular subject, not 
 so much from separate sentences and phrases, culled 
 and collected, perhaps, to serve a purpose, as from 
 an intelligent and comprehensive study of his 
 leading train of thought, with special reference to 
 the scope and tenor of his reasoning on those large 
 ^— and wide views of truth which from time to time 
 The Spirit^occupy aud till liis soul. Surely when the Divine 
 thorofthe Spirit is the author with whose very miscellaneous 
 
 Bible. ^ ^ . 
 
 ^ works we have to deal, the same rule of simple 
 justice and fair play ought to be observed. This 
 seems to be what is meant by “ the analogy of 
 Tiieana- the faith;” to which, as a rule or canon of Scrip- 
 
 lofty of , , , , . . . 
 
 the faith, tural interpretation, sound and judicious divines 
 , are accustomed to attach considerable value, fit 
 fis substantially the principle sanctioned by the 
 Apostle Peter when he wishes, as it would seem. 
 
 ity of to guard against a garbled, disjointed, and piece- 
 
 Bible. 
 
 meal mode of quoting the words of revelation : 
 “No prophecy of Scripture is of any private in¬ 
 terpretation ; for the prophecy came not in old 
 time by the will of man ; but holy men of God 
 spake as they were moved bj^ the Holy Ghost ” 
 (2 Peter i. 20, 21). He, not they, is virtually the 
 author. And it is not as detached utterances of 
 different persons, but as, in all its varied parts 
 and fragments, the manifold and multifarious 
 work of one person, the Divine Sjiirit, that the 
 
TO THE LAW AND TO THE TESTIMONY. 
 
 53 
 
 “sure word of prophecy” is to be read and under -t 'chapter 
 stood. —■ 
 
 Unquestionably, the rule, as I have stated it, 
 is a right one. At the same time, it must be 
 frankly admitted that there is danger of excess or 
 of error in tlie nse and application of the rule. It 
 may lead to a habit of dogmatical theorizing, and 
 vague, presumptuous generalizing, on the one 
 hand ; or, on the other hand, to a loose exegesis 
 and a careless way of handling and examining 
 texts ; or to both of these evils together. The particular 
 appeal must uniformly be sustained as relevant to be ex- 
 and legitimate when it is demanded that particu¬ 
 lar passages shall be consulted, as being the real 
 tests or touch-stones by which all general views 
 must be tried. Nor may the natural import and 
 literal force of such passages, taken simply as they 
 stand in the places where they occur, be sacrificed 
 or evaded, out of deference to any system, however 
 apparently Scriptural, or to any foregone conclusion 
 of any sort. All that any one is entitled to insist General ^ 
 upon IS, that general views oi truth, ii they seem tionsnot 
 to have a bearing on the interpretation of parti- regarded 
 cular passages, shall not necessarily be kept out of 
 sight in the examination of them ; and above all, 
 that when particular passages are alleged as having 
 a bearing upon general views of truth, care shall 
 be taken to ascertain how far the Great Author 
 meant them to be authoritative for the end alleged; 
 
54 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Sort of 
 texts usu- 
 iilly iso¬ 
 lated, and 
 quoted as 
 conclu¬ 
 sive. 
 
 or how far he may not rather, on the contrary, 
 have intended them to serve quite another purpose 
 altogether. 
 
 It is in strict accordance with these notions, 
 safe enough, surely, and sufficiently honouring to 
 tlie Bible, that I wish now to enter upon the con¬ 
 sideration of those texts, of which there is a con¬ 
 siderable number, that are very often brought 
 forward as asserting the universality of the re¬ 
 demption purchased by Christ; and asserting it 
 so expressly and explicitly, in words the most 
 unequivocal, as to preclude all arguments on 
 the other side ; as when it is said that Christ is 
 “ the propitiation ” for “ the sins of the whole 
 world” (1 John ii. 2) ; or that he “died for all” 
 (2 Cor. V. 14); or tliat “ by the righteousness ol 
 one, the free gift came upon all men unto justifi¬ 
 cation of life ” (Rom. v. 18) ; or that Christ must 
 needs “ taste death for every man ” (Heb. ii. 9) ;— 
 all of which, together with other similar statements, 
 are continually urged as if they were in terms 
 decisive of the question, and as if nothing but a 
 reckless tampering with the language of inspira¬ 
 tion could blunt the edge of their testimony. 
 Against so summary a procedure, and on behalf 
 of a more cautious and humble style of criticism, 
 I venture to protest ; and in support of my pro¬ 
 test, I ask the attention of common readers of the 
 Bible, first to what may be said of the statements 
 
OPINION OF MOSES STUAET. o5 
 
 now referred to collectively, and then to what 
 may be said of some of them more in detail. 
 
 Considering the entire series of texts collectively, 
 or in the mass, I may in the outset avail myself, 
 in a general way, of the judicious observations of 
 Professor Moses Stuart, who, as the closing sen¬ 
 tence of the very paragraph I am about to quote 
 sufficiently proves, can scarcely be suspected of 
 any undue leaning to the strict Calvinistic doctrine. 
 I refer to the passage for the sake of the general 
 principle it contains. As to the particular text in 
 connection with which he introduces it, I shall 
 presently give my own view of its interpretation; 
 a view which seems to me to exhaust its meaning 
 more fully than that suggested by this eminent 
 commentator. In his Commentary on Heb. ii. 9, 
 he thus writes : “'Y irep iravro^ means, all men 
 without distinction — i.e., both Jew and Gentile. 
 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. 9. Compare Pom. iii. 29, 30 ; x. 11-13.) 
 In all these, and the like cases, the words all, and 
 cdl men, evidently mean Jew and Gentile. They 
 are opposed to the Jewish idea, that the Messiah 
 was connected appropriately 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 expres- 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
 General 
 observa¬ 
 tions of 
 Moses Stu¬ 
 art on 
 such texts. 
 
56 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCKIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 XIsus To- 
 queiidi of 
 the New 
 Testa¬ 
 ment. 
 
 sions, 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 king¬ 
 dom ; 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 the}^ 
 when strictly scanned by the usus loquendi of the 
 New Testament, decide directlv airainst the views 
 of those who advocate what is called a 
 redemjption. The question, in all these phrases, 
 evidently respects the offer of salvation, the oppor¬ 
 tunity to acquire it through a Bedeemer ; not the 
 actual application of promises, the fulfilment of 
 which is connected only with repentance and faith. 
 But whether such an offer can be made with sin¬ 
 cerity to those who are reprobates (and whom the 
 Saviour knows are and will be such), consistently 
 with the grounds winch the advocates for particular 
 redemption maintain, is a question for the theolo¬ 
 gian, rather than the commentator, to discuss.” 
 
 With this high authority we who hold the Cal- 
 vinistic doctrine might be satisfied. And when, 
 in the face of it, we find men still reiterating these 
 particular texts, hs if the mere sound of the words 
 were to be conclusive, and they had nothing to do 
 
A GOOD RULE OF INTERPRETATION. 
 
 57 
 
 but to accumulate “ alls ” and “ everys,” taken in- chapter 
 
 discriininately out of the Bible, very much as - 
 
 children heap up at random a pile of loose stones, 
 without regard to context, or connection, or ana- 
 logy,—the usus loquendi of the New Testament, Testimony 
 as Professor Stuart calls it,—-we might simply versaiy. 
 appeal to this testimony of an adversary, as prov¬ 
 ing, at the very least, that our opponents are not 
 entitled to make such short work of this argu¬ 
 ment as they are so very much inclined to do. 
 
 But, for sake of further illustration, I shall 
 take up several of these passages separately. In 
 doing so, I shall make it my first inquiry, in each 
 case, what is the precise point under discussion. 
 
 For I must here advert to another maxim or priil^ 
 ciple of interpretation, quite as important as the \ 
 one which I have been insisting on. It is a good Kuieonm.. 
 
 terpreta- 
 
 general rule, well known, though, alas! not so well tion. 
 observed, among controversialists, as a rule which 
 ought to I'egulate their discussions of one another’s 
 views, and their citations of other parties to bear 
 them witness : That a writer’s authority, in any Authority! 
 given passage, does not extend beyond the par- thor not \ 
 ticular topic which he has on hand. You may ItretohPd \ 
 appeal to him as pronouncing a judgment on the w*iu™hp is 
 matter before him, but not as deciding another 
 (piestion which may not, at the time, have been 
 in his mind at all. Nothing' can be fairer, or 
 more necessaiy, than this maxim ; which may be 
 
68 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART regarded as a fair extension or explanation of the 
 
 -- general canon of interpretation already indicated.^ 
 
 Reason- All eamest and simple-minded man offers his 
 oiruie. opinion frankly on what is submitted to him, 
 without being careful always to guard and fence 
 himself round on every side, lest some incidental 
 remark or phrase he may happen to let fall, in the 
 warmth and energy of Ids feeling, on a subject, 
 perhaps, in which he takes a deep interest, should 
 be laid hold of and brought up as the expression 
 of his deliberate judgment on some collateral topic, 
 which, all the while, may have been miles away 
 from his thoughts. He relies on your intelligence 
 and honesty—on your good sense and your good 
 faith. If he did not,—if he felt himself bound to 
 be ever qualifying and defining his terms and state¬ 
 ments and arguments, lest what he gives you as 
 his mind on one point should be used by you as 
 authority on another,—all the freshness and fair¬ 
 ness, the generosity and cordiality, of friendship 
 and friendly converse or correspondence, would be 
 at an end ; and stiff and strait-laced ceremony 
 Riiieap- would rule the day. pThis remark pre-eminently 
 applies to the style and manner of Holy Scrip- 
 \ ture. For there is no one feature of the Spirit’s 
 , > communications to us more signally conspicuous 
 .than this, that he always gives himself to one 
 'thing at a time. Using as his instruments earne.st 
 and simple-minded men, who speak as they are 
 
CLASSIFICATION OF TEXTS—FIRST CLASS. 
 
 59 
 
 moved by him, the Hol}^ Ghost, identifying him- chapter 
 
 self with each, in turn of thought and style of - 
 
 writing, and entering into the very mind of the 
 individual whom he inspires, gives forth, through 
 him, a frank and full utterance on each subject as 
 he takes it up, with the same unstudied ease and 
 unsuspicious freedom—often even with the same 
 impetuous rapidity of involved grammar and 
 abrupt rhetoric—with which the writer himself, 
 if left alone, would have poured out his whole 
 soul. Hence the ease with which anomalies and 
 inconsistencies may be raked together, for the use, 
 or abuse, of minute critics who have no mind, and 
 subtle cavillers who have no heart, to understand 
 what the Spirit says, through honest men, to their 
 fellow-men. But “ Wisdom is justified of her . 
 children.” “ He that hath ears, let him hear.” __1 
 
 The separate passages which I mean to notice 
 may be conveniently brought together in five dis¬ 
 tinct classes :— 
 
 I, Take, in the first place, these two texts, First class 
 
 . • of texts. 
 
 namely, first, that in the Bpistle to the Bomans: 
 
 “ 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 to justification of life” (v. 18);—and*, 
 secondly, that in the Second Epistle to the Corin¬ 
 thians : “For the love of Christ constraineth us; 
 because we thus judge, that if one died for all, 
 
60 
 
 THE BIETHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 lioni. V. 18. 
 
 Principle 
 •if imputa¬ 
 tion. 
 
 then were all dead : and he died for all, that they 
 which live should not henceforth live unto them¬ 
 selves, but unto liim which died for them, and 
 rose again ” (v. 14?, 15). 
 
 In the first of these passages (Rom. v. 18) the sole 
 object of the apostle is to explain, or assert, the prin¬ 
 ciple of imputation,—the principle upon which God 
 deals with many as represented by one, or with one 
 as representing many. For this end, he draws a 
 parallel between the imputation of Adam’s sin and 
 the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Evi¬ 
 dently, however, the whole value of the compari¬ 
 son turns upon the nature of the transaction on 
 either side, not upon its extent. The identity, 
 or agreement, or correspondence, intended to be 
 pointed out, is an identity in respect of principle. 
 To stretch the language used, so as to make it 
 decide the question of extent, is to represent the 
 apostle as inconsistent with himself in the very 
 matter which he is formally and exjiressly discuss¬ 
 ing. For what is the principle of imputation, as 
 he lays it down ? It implies these two things : 
 first. That a vicarious headship be constituted in 
 one person; and, secondly. That the whole result 
 or consequence of the trial upon which that one 
 person is placed, whether it be success or failure, 
 be actuallv and in fact communicated and con- 
 veyed to all whom he represents. Of this last 
 condition, he is most careful to prove that it was 
 
PRINCIPLE OF IMPUTATION. 
 
 61 
 
 realized in the imputation of Adam’s sin; and for 
 this purpose he insists very specially on the uni¬ 
 versality of death,—its having reigned “ even over 
 them that had not sinned after the similitude of 
 Adam’s transgression” (ver. 14.) But it is a 
 condition which, if insisted on at the other side of 
 the antithesis,—and without it the parallel wholly 
 fails and the doctrine of imputation is gone,—is 
 positively irreconcilable with the notion of a 
 general or universal redemption, except upon the 
 hypothesis of universal salvation. For it is of the 
 very essence of the principle of imputation, accord¬ 
 ing to this parallel, that precisely in the same 
 manner in which the guilt of Adam’s sin, with the 
 death which it entailed, did, in point of fact, as 
 well as in law, pass from him to those who were 
 represented by him and identified with him ; so, 
 the righteousness of Christ, with the life and sal¬ 
 vation which it involves, must be really and 
 actually, in its consequences as well as in its merit, 
 made over to all the parties interested. Hence, if 
 the parallel is pressed, in regard to the extent as 
 Avell as the nature of the two transactions, life and 
 salvation by Christ must actually be as universal 
 as death by Adam. Thus, if this text be unwisely 
 pressed beyond the purpose which the writer, at 
 the time of writing, had in his view,—in a man¬ 
 ner contrary to the rule of sound criticism and 
 sound sense,—it is really not the limitation of 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 in. 
 
62 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF, 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 2 Cor. V. 
 li lo. 
 
 Union of 
 believers 
 with 
 Christ in 
 his death 
 and in liis 
 life. 
 
 Christ’s work to his people that will come to be 
 called in question, but the fact of the final con¬ 
 demnation of any of the wicked. 
 
 An observation nearly similar may be made in 
 reference to the second of the two passages in this 
 class (2 Cor. v. 14, 1 5). There, the apostle’s theme 
 is the union and identification of believers with 
 Christ in his death and in his life. His object is, 
 to remind them that as Christ’s death has become 
 theirs, so also has his life. Hence it is to his 
 purpose to argue thus: First, “If one died for all, 
 then were all dead;” all became dead, or literally, 
 died,—namely, in and with him, tlirough partici¬ 
 pation in his death. And, secondly, “ He died for 
 all, that they which live”—the living—those who 
 through participation of his death become par¬ 
 takers also of his life—“ should not henceforth 
 live unto themselves, but unto him which died for 
 them and rose asfain.” Such reasoning is relevant 
 and conclusive for the apostle’s object. He thus 
 brings out the principle of imputation,—that what¬ 
 ever befalls the Head must be held to pass, and 
 must actually pass, efficaciously, to all whom he 
 represents; and he connects with it the principle 
 of vital union,—that all thus represented are par¬ 
 takers in all things, in his death and in his life, 
 ^ wi th the Head. The whole argument in the con¬ 
 text depends on these two principles. The ques¬ 
 tion of the extent of the atonement is not once 
 
SECOND CLASS OF TEXTS. 
 
 C3 
 
 "before the writer throughout the whole of his ohaptkr 
 fervid practical appeal, in which he is not dogma,- —1 
 tizing, but simply enforcing the high standard of 
 spiritual privilege and duty. The bearing of 
 Christ’s death on the unregenerate is not within 
 the scope of his reasoning; and to regard him as 
 giving a decision on that point, instead of urging 
 home its bearing upon believers, is to introduce an 
 element altogether heterogeneous. Not only is the 
 argument thus hopelessly perplexed, but, as in the 
 former case, it is found to tell in favour of the no¬ 
 tion of universal salvation rather than anything else; 
 making actual salvation, through the death and life 
 of Christ, co-extensive with death through the sin 
 of Adam. For in that case we must interpret the 
 expression “ then were all dead,” as referring to 
 this death of all men through Adam’s sin. Such, 
 however, is not really in the apostle’s view. What 
 he has befoi'e him is the death which the “all” 
 for whom Christ died do themselves die, in and 
 with him, when, in virtue of their being united 
 to him, they are “crucified with him” (Gal. ii. 20). 
 
 II. A second class of texts may embrace the second 
 following, namely, first, that in the First Epistle to texTs.”^ 
 Timothy: “For there is one God, and one medi¬ 
 ator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 
 who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified 
 in due time” (ii. 5, 6);—secondly, that in the 
 Epistle to Titus: “For the grace of God that 
 
04 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PAKT bringetli salvation hath appeared to all men or, 
 — “ The grace of God that hringeth salvation to all 
 
 men, hath appeared’' (ii. 11, marginal reading); 
 —and thirdly, that in the First Epistle of John: 
 “ My little children, these things write I unto you, 
 that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have 
 an advocate with the Fatlier, Jesus Christ the 
 righteous: and he is the propitiation for our sins; 
 and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the 
 whole world" (ii. 1, 2). 
 
 Of these and the like passages it may be con¬ 
 fidently affirmed that the universality asserted in 
 them is plainly a universality of classes, condi¬ 
 tions, and characters of men, not of individuals. 
 
 1 Tim. ii. Tlius, ill the first of these three passages (1 Tim. 
 ii. 1-6), the apostle is exhorting that prayer be 
 made for all men, kings and rulers as well as 
 subjects. This was a very necessary specification 
 at a time when those in authority, being too often 
 oppressors, might seem to have little claim on 
 Christians for such kindness. Notwithstandinfj 
 that consideration, the apostle would have inter¬ 
 cession offered for kings and rulers; and, in short, 
 for men of all ranks, and all situations and circum¬ 
 stances in the world. It is to enforce this uni¬ 
 versality of intercessory prayer, in opposition to 
 the idea of excluding or omitting any set of men, 
 even the most undeserving, that he introduces as 
 an argument, first, the universality of the Father s 
 
CHRISTIANS OP ALL CLASSES ONE, 
 
 65 
 
 love, who has no respect of persons, but “ will have 
 all men to be saved, and to come unto the know¬ 
 ledge of the truth"' (ver. 4); and, secondly, the 
 universality of the Son’s mediation, which has re¬ 
 gard to men, as such, without excepting any por¬ 
 tion of the race; for he “gave himself a ransom 
 for all, to be testified in due time’" (ver. 6). 
 
 In the second passage, also (Tit. ii. 1-11), admit¬ 
 ting the marginal reading of the eleventh verse to 
 be preferable—“ The grace of God that bringeth 
 salvation to all men hath appeared"’—the design 
 of the apostle evidently is to gather and collect 
 together, in one company, those whom he has 
 been distributing into detachments, according to 
 age, sex, office, and station. Aged men; aged 
 women ; young women; young men ; Titus, the 
 pastor; servants;—these he has been, in the pre¬ 
 ceding part of the chapter, directing severally 
 as to their several duties (ver. 2-10). And 
 now, at the eleventh verse, having adverted to the 
 things wherein the}^ are separated from one an¬ 
 other, he closes with an appeal to that wherein 
 the}’’ agree. For he would have them to remember, 
 and deeply feel, that though theirrelations in societ}^, 
 with their corresponding trials and obligations, 
 may be, and must be, diversified, calling for differ¬ 
 ent modes of applying the principles and maxims 
 of the Gospel to the practical details of the every¬ 
 day business of life,—still their position, as be- 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
 Titus iL 
 1 - 11 . 
 
66 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 T John il. 
 2 . 
 
 lievers, is one, and the motive to obedience is one 
 and the same—“ the appearing of the grace of 
 God.” For that grace “ bringeth salvation to all 
 men” alike—however in age, sex, office, or station, 
 they may differ from one another. And it teaches 
 and binds them all alike to a sober, righteous, and 
 godl}'- life, in the hope of the glorious appearing of 
 Him whose saving grace has appeared already;— 
 “ For the grace of God that bringeth salvation to 
 all men hath appeared ; teaching us that, denying 
 ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live 
 soberl}', righteously, and godly, in this present 
 world; looking for that blessed hope, and the 
 glorious appearing of the great God and our Sav¬ 
 iour Jesus Christ” (ver. 11-13). Such is the 
 argument. The \ery force and beauty of it as 
 an appeal to the intermediate place, or middle 
 stage, which all believers in common occupy, be¬ 
 tween the two “ appearings,” the gracious and the 
 glorious, must be admitted to turn upon these 
 being, as to extent, commensurate. The nni- 
 versalfty, therefore, of the former, or gracious ap¬ 
 pealing, must be measured by that of the latter, 
 or glorious appearing : as to which there can be 
 no room for question, since it is “ unto them that 
 look for him that he is to appear the second time, 
 without sin, unto salvation” (Heb. ix. 28). 
 
 In the third text cited as falling under the 
 second class (1 John ii. 2), the matter is, if po.s- 
 
COMMON FELLOWSHIP OF BELIEVERS. 67 
 
 sible, still more plain and certain. Let it be noted ohaptkr 
 that in his first chapter, of which the beginning of 
 the second chapter should form a part,—for there 
 is no pause in the sense till the close of the second 
 verse of the second chapter at the soonest,—the 
 apostle’s discrimination of the persons—“ we,” 
 
 “ you,” “ they”—is very accurate and exact. In 
 the beginning of the first chapter, he speaks of 
 what he and his fellow-apostles witnessed of the 
 manifestation of THE LIFE ; and at the third verse 
 he takes in those whom he is immediately address- 
 inii: “ That which we have seen and heard 
 
 declare we unto you, that ye also may have 
 fellowship wdth us that is, may have the same 
 fellowship which we have, or be partakers with 
 us in “ our fellowship,” which “ truly is with the 
 Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ” (i. 1-3). 
 Thereafter, the apostle associates those" to whom 
 he thus writes with himself and his fellow-apostles 
 —the taught with the teachers—and speaks in 
 the first person, as now comprehending both; ‘Mf 
 we walk in the light,” you and we together, “ as 
 he is in the light, we have fellowship one with 
 another”—we with him and he with us, or you 
 and we together with him—“ and the blood of 
 Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin” 
 
 (ver. 7). Twice, indeed, he briefly keeps up the 
 distinction, when, as a master, he tells them, as his 
 disciples, what he would have them to learn, and 
 
G8 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART what is the great object of his testimony and 
 — teaching. First, he says, “ These things write I 
 unto you, that your joy may be full” (i. 4) ; and 
 again he adds, “ These things write I unto you, 
 that ye sin not” (ii. 1). As their teacher, he 
 would have them, as his scholars, to apprehend 
 more and more that these two attainments consti¬ 
 tute the twofold end of all Christian doctrine and 
 Christian influence ;—fulness of joy, on the one 
 hand; and on the other hand, freedom from sin. 
 But the “you” and the “I” or “we,” are soon 
 again merged in one, “ we.” The apostle puts, as, 
 alas ! he must put, the possible case of those to 
 whom he writes, with all their knowledge of Chris¬ 
 tian doctrine and subjection to Christian influence, 
 being tempted to sin. Even you, my little chil¬ 
 dren, notwithstanding your holy faith and heavenly 
 fellowship,' are in danger of contracting new guilt, 
 and needing new and fresh forgiveness continually. 
 I cannot, therefore, but make the supposition that 
 you may sin, so long as you are in this present 
 body, and in this present evil world. I dare not 
 hope that you will be altogether sinless. I cannot 
 but anticipate that you may fall into sin. For 
 though you have in you that divine seed of the 
 new life, which, in so hir as it abides in you, makes 
 sin impossible (iii. 9), you are still liable to the 
 lusting of the flesh against the Spirit. I must 
 remind 3 * 011 , therefore, that you are still apt to 
 
COMMON PECCABILITY OF BELIEVERS. G9 
 
 sin : not as if I would make allowances or grant chapteh 
 indulgences beforehand for sin ; but that I may 
 tell you of your constant need of that cleansing 
 blood which has been shed, and exhort you, on 
 the very first instant of your being overtaken in 
 a fault, to flee anew to that fountain, and to flee 
 to it hastily, “ lest any of you be hardened through 
 the deceitfulness of sin” (Heb. iii. 18). There¬ 
 fore, “ if any man sin,”—any one—any of you.— 
 
 But stay. We as well as you may be, and indeed 
 are, in the same predicament. “ If any one sin ”— 
 any of you, shall I say? Nay, let me correct my 
 phraseology. Let me make common cause with 
 you. Let us apostles and you disciples together 
 own our continual liability to sin. “ If any man” 
 
 •—any one—“ sin”—any of us —“ we have an ad¬ 
 vocate with the Father, Jesus Clirist the righteous, 
 who is the propitiation for our sins.” 
 
 Is this merely a plausible paraphrase? Is it not 
 rather really the sense and meaning of the apostle, 
 affectionately pouring out his heart to his “ little 
 children?” Then, if so, what can be the meaning 
 of the short, abrupt, but most emphatic allusion to 
 a third party—“ and not for ours only, but also 
 for the sins of the whole world?” For the apostle 
 instantly returns to the “ we” and the “ you,” and 
 throughout all the cliapter, and indeed throughout 
 all the epistle, keeps to that style and manner of 
 warm epistolary familiarity. What, therefore, can 
 
70 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 the passing introduction of this seemingly extra¬ 
 neous reference to others imply? AVhat, but that 
 the apostle, with his truly catholic love to all 
 brethren in Christ, calls to mind that others, be¬ 
 sides himself and those to whom he writes, may 
 be in the same sad case for which he has been 
 making provision? If any of us sin, we have an 
 advocate with the Father—we know where to find 
 relief—we know how we may be restored, and 
 have our backslidino-s healed. But this is too 
 good news to be kept to ourselves. Many, too 
 many, of the Lord’s people, in all successive ages, 
 may and must need the same comfort and revival. 
 For the admonition, therefore, of all, everywhere, 
 and to the end of time, who may be situated as 
 we—says the apostle of himself, his fellow-apostles, 
 and his little children, all alike,—as we, some of 
 us, or all of us, may be situated—overtaken, that 
 is, in a fault, fallen from their first love, lapsed 
 into sin—the universal efficacy of this remedy is 
 to be asserted, as available, in such circumstances, 
 not for us only, but for all 
 
 Who does not see that, when the text is thus 
 interpreted according to its connection, it cannot 
 possibly be any general or universal reference of 
 the atonement to all mankind, whether believers 
 or not, that is meant? The whole propriety, sense, 
 and force of the passage are gone, and all its sancti¬ 
 fying and comforting unction is evaporated, if it 
 
THIED CLASS OF TEXTS. 
 
 71 
 
 be held to denote anything whatever beyond that cuapter 
 special efficacy of Christ’s blood and intercession —1 
 which cleanses the believer’s conscience anew from 
 the defilement of backsliding, and delivers his heart 
 afresh from the baseness and bondage of corruption. 
 
 III. I bring together, in a third class, the fol- Thirdciasi 
 
 1 • XT 1 1 . . of texts. 
 
 lowing texts, i' irst, that prophecy or warning in 
 the Second Epistle of Peter (ii. 1): “ There shall be 
 false teachers among you, who shall bring in dam¬ 
 nable heresies, denying the Lord that bought them.” 
 Secondly, that solemn appeal which Paul makes to 
 the Hebrews (x. 28, 29): “ He that despised Moses’ 
 law died without mercy under two or three wit¬ 
 nesses: of how mucli 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 sancti¬ 
 fied, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto 
 the Spirit of grace?” Thirdly, Paul’s tender ex¬ 
 postulation in his First Epistle to the Corinthians 
 (viii. 10, 11): “ For if any man see thee which 
 hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, 
 shall not the conscience of him which is weak be 
 emboldened to eat those things which are offered 
 to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the 
 weak brother perish, for whom Christ died?” 
 
 And fourthly, a similar expostulation in his Epistle 
 to the Pomans (xiv. 15): “ But if thy brother be 
 grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not 
 
72 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Remark 
 applicable 
 to them as 
 a class. 
 
 charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for 
 whom Christ died.'' 
 
 We have here a class of texts in which, being 
 “ bought by the Lordbeing “ sanctified," or 
 cleansed, “ witli the blood of the covenantbeing 
 interested in Christ as “ dying for them,"—would 
 seem to be represented as consistent with men 
 “ bringing upon themselves swift destruction” 
 (2 Pet. ii. 1); “ dying without mercy,” and “ falling 
 into the hands of the living God" (Heb. x. 28-31); 
 “ perishing,” and. “ being destroyed,” through the 
 liberty of others becoming to them a stumbling- 
 block (1 Cor. viii. 11, and Rom. xiv. 15). 
 
 Now, it is remarkable that in all these passages, 
 the strong and awful appeals made turn on the 
 interest which God has in the parties referred to, 
 rather than on the interest which they have in 
 him. They assert God’s prerogative, rather than 
 their privilege. They proceed on the considera¬ 
 tion, not of any claim which they have upon God, 
 but of the claim which God has upon them. In 
 this view, what gives to these texts, rightly appre¬ 
 hended, their peculiar point, emphasis, and so¬ 
 lemnity, is not the assertion, as a matter of fact 
 (de facto), on the part of the persons referred to, 
 of the tie, or the relationship, or the obligation, 
 indicated by the expressions used; but rather the 
 assumption of it, as a matter of right {de jure), on 
 the part of God. 
 
JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO PROFESSION. 
 
 73 
 
 Thus, the first two of these texts (2 Peter ii. 1 , chapter 
 Heb. X. 28, 29) bring out, in stern relief, on a —^ 
 
 2 Pctsr ii 
 
 background of bright profession and promise, the i; Heb. x. 
 
 • • • 28 2y 
 
 black guilt of apostasy, and of the bringing in of 
 damnable heresies. The latter of the two, the 
 solemn warning of Paul, is applicable chiefly to 
 the case of private members of the Church, who, 
 beginning with “ forsaking the assembling of them¬ 
 selves together”—growing weary of godly fellow¬ 
 ship and society—lapse gradually into “ wilful 
 sin,” and are in imminent hazard of being finally 
 and fatally hardened. The former, again, the pro¬ 
 phetic intimation of Peter, has respect to “ teach¬ 
 ers” in the Church, whose insidious poison of false 
 doctrine tends to eat away as a canker, first the 
 religion of the people, and then their own. For, 
 alas! how often have ingenious innovators in the 
 faith of the gospel, or in the form of sound words 
 which embodies and expresses it, almost unwit- 
 tingly unsettled and undermined the principles of 
 others, before they have begun to feel in their own 
 souls the destructive tendency of their speculations. 
 
 In both of these instances, the object of the Spirit 
 is to paint, as with a lightning-flash across tlie 
 thunder-cloud, the perilous position of the indivi¬ 
 duals who are to be warned; to startle them with 
 a vivid insight into the view which God is entitled 
 to take, and in fact cannot but take, of their aggra¬ 
 vated sin ; to fill them with salutary alarm, by 
 
74 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART opening tlieir eyes to a clear foresight of the inevi- 
 .—^ table ruin which their sin, if persevered in, must 
 entail on them. For everywhere throughout 
 Scripture it is intimated that, whatever assurance 
 believers may have of tlieir final salvation, they 
 are to be as sensitively alive to whatever has even 
 the most remote tendency to a separation from 
 Chi’ist, as if they were every instant in danger of 
 perishing. Assurance, indeed, on any other foot¬ 
 ing, would be a carnal, and not a spiritual boon; 
 it would be disastrous, instead of being helpful 
 and beneficial to the soul. Hence the apostle’s 
 language in that remarkable passage in which he 
 intimates, that he was as jealous over himself, in 
 the article of bodily indulgence, as if he had 
 always in his eye the possibility of intemperance 
 becoming, after all, his snare, and its bitter fruit 
 his fate (1 Cor. ix. 27). It is on the same prin¬ 
 ciple that the two texts in question are to be 
 understood. They indicate, on the one hand, 
 what true Christians, whether private members or 
 ofiice-bearers in the Church, must always keep be¬ 
 fore them, as the inevitable issue of an unsteadfast 
 walk, or of false teaching, should they be seduced 
 into either of these snares. And they indicate also, 
 on the other hand, in what light God must regard 
 their sin and danger, and in what character, con¬ 
 sidering their profession to him and his right 
 over them, he cannot fail to view and visit them, 
 
CHARITY TO WEAKER BRETHREN. 
 
 75 
 
 ■wlien lie comes to judge. Their sin must fall 
 to be estimated, and their judgment must fall 
 to be determined, by the standard of their Chris¬ 
 tian name. It is as Christians that they are to 
 be considered as sinning. It is on that footing- 
 as reprobate and apostate Christians, that they are 
 to be condemned. 
 
 The other two passages in this class (1 Cor. 
 viii. 10, 11, and Rom. xiv. 15) are warnings to those 
 who, on the strength of their own clearer light 
 and more robust conscience, may be tempted to 
 despise or offend the weaker members of the 
 Church. Evidently, therefore, these texts point 
 out the light in which the parties addressed are 
 to regard those whom they are in danger of vex¬ 
 ing or misleading. They are to regard them as 
 brethren; weak, perhaps, but still brethren; in¬ 
 terested in the same Saviour with themselves, but 
 yet, notwithstanding that, not so secure as to be 
 beyond the reach of serious and fatal injury, at 
 the hands of their fellow-Christians. The lesson to 
 the strong is twofold. In the first place, do not 
 look on the weak with contempt, as if their 
 scruples were undeserving of your attention and 
 consideration. They are your brethren still, rely¬ 
 ing, as you do, on Chiist as their only surety; and if 
 they lose their hold of him, having no other reliance 
 on which to fall back. And therefore, secondly, 
 beware lest you should be inclined to plead, in 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
 1 Cor. Till. 
 10 , 11 ; 
 Rom. xir. 
 10 . 
 
PART 
 
 I. 
 
 7G THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 excuse for any use of your libert}^ that may 
 wound or insnare their consciences, that this is no 
 concern of yours, since, if they are Christ’s, he 
 will keep them safe from harm. So far as your 
 conduct toward them is concerned, you are to 
 treat them, even as you are to treat yourselves, 
 with all that delicacy and tenderness which the 
 most precarious and uncertain tenure of grace 
 might prompt. To you, the humble believer, on 
 whose unnecessary fastidiousness you are tempted 
 to look down,—and with whose minute cases 
 and questions of casuistry you are provoked to 
 trifle or to be angry,—is still, with all his weakness, 
 a brother. He is to be treated by you as a 
 brother, for whom, as well as for you, Christ 
 died. Whatever may be his security in the 
 Saviour whom he trusts, that can be no reason 
 for your taking liberties and tampering with the 
 eternal interests of his soul. Beware how you 
 deal with him, lest you should have his blood to 
 answer for. Fix deep in your minds and hearts 
 this solemn thought,—if ever, at any moment, 
 you are inclined to follow your own more liberal 
 0 })inions, without respect to their influence on him, 
 —that at that verj^ moment, whatever God may 
 think of him, he is to you simply a brother, who, 
 through your knowledge, and by your eating, is 
 placed in extreme danger of perishing and being 
 destroyed for ever. 
 
FOURTH CLASS OF TEXTS, 
 
 77 
 
 IV. The fourth class of texts to which I have cnAi-xER 
 
 to advert, consists of such as the following: “Be- - 
 
 hold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin class of 
 of the world!” (John i. 29);—“God so loved the **^^'*’ 
 world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that 
 whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
 have everlasting life” (John hi. 16);—the Sama¬ 
 ritans “ said unto the woman. Now we believe, 
 not because of thy saying: for we have heard 
 him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the 
 Christ, the Saviour of the world” (John iv. 42); 
 
 —“ I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all 
 men unto me” (John xii. 32);—“ We have seen, 
 and do testify, that the Father sent the Son to be 
 the Saviour of the world” (1 John iv. 1 4). 
 
 In regard to this series of texts, I am dis¬ 
 posed most gladly to admit that in them, as in 
 sundry other places, the universal bearing on man¬ 
 kind at large of the exhibition of the cross and 
 the proclamation of the gospel, is graciously and 
 gloriously attested. I might observe, indeed, that General 
 in strict accordance with the context and the con¬ 
 nection, each of these passages might be shown to 
 coincide, in substance, with those of the class 
 first cited, which assert the indiscriminate appli¬ 
 cability of Christ’s work, without respect of per¬ 
 sons, or distinction of “ Jew or Greek, barbarian, 
 Scythian, bond or free.” They all, therefore, 
 equally with those of that first class, fall under 
 
78 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 the general remarks of Professor Moses Stuart, 
 already quoted, as to the right and fair exegeti- 
 cal canon for interpreting such indefinite state¬ 
 ments. I cannot but think and feel, however, 
 that they go a little further, or rather, that the}^ 
 touch upon a somewhat different topic. They 
 seem to me to have respect, not to the design and 
 efficacy of the atonement, in its accomplishment 
 and application; nor even, strictly speaking, to its 
 sufficiency; but solely to the discovery which, as 
 a historical transaction, or fact in providence, it 
 is fitted to make of the Divine character generall}^, 
 and especially of the Divine compassion and bene¬ 
 volence. In that aspect, or point of view, they 
 are to be regarded as giving intimation of the 
 widest possible universality. This is particularly 
 the case in that most blessed statement: “ 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 I confess 
 I am but little inclined to qualify or explain 
 away the term “world,” as here employed. I 
 rather rejoice in this text, as asserting that the 
 gospel has a gracious aspect to tli^e world, or to 
 mankind as such. “ God so loved the world” 
 —that is, the world of mankind, in opposition or 
 contradistinction to angels; he so loved mankind as 
 such, without reference to elect or non-elect, that 
 “ he gave his only-begotten Son.” The giving of’his 
 
GOOD-WILL TO MEN. 
 
 79 
 
 Son was, and is, a display of good-will towards men, 
 —towards men as such,— towards the human race. 
 
 Let it be observed, however, that even here 
 nothing is said about God giving his Son for all. 
 On the contrary, the very terms on which the gift 
 of his Son is described imply a limitation of it 
 to them that believe. On that limitation, in¬ 
 deed, depends the fulness of the blessing conve 5 ’ed 
 by it. The design of Christ’s death is, in fact, 
 in express terms, and very pointedly, restricted 
 to them that believe,—to “whosoever believeth 
 in him.” And on that very account, this gift by 
 God of his own Son is amplified, intensified, and 
 stretched out, in regard to the amount of benefit 
 intended to be communicated, so as to make it 
 take in not only escape from perishing, but the 
 possession of everlasting life. It is the gift of his 
 Son with this limited design—namely, that “ who¬ 
 soever believeth in him might not perish, but 
 have everlasting life”—which is represented as 
 being an index and measure of his love to the 
 world at large, or to mankind as such. And it is 
 so, through the manifestation which the cross 
 gives, to all alike and indiscriminately, of what it 
 is in the mind and heart of God to do for a race 
 of guilty sinners. As to any further meaning in 
 that text, it can only be this; that, it is a testi- 
 1110113 ^ to the priority or precedency of God’s love 
 toward man, as going before, and not following 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
80 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 i-ART from, the mediation and work of Christ. I speak, 
 — of course, of the order and nature of causation, 
 not of the order of time ; for in the counsels of 
 eternity there can be no comparing of dates. But 
 it is important to adjust the connection of sequence 
 or dependence heWeen the love of God to man 
 and tlie work of Christ for man, as cause and 
 effect respectively. And one main object of this 
 statement of our Lord undoubtedly is, to repre¬ 
 sent the Father's good-will to men as the source 
 and .origin of the whole scheme of salvation; in 
 opposition to the false and superstitious idea of 
 God’s kindness being, as it were, purchased and 
 reluctantly extorted by the interposition of one 
 more favourable and friendly than himself to our 
 guilty and perishing world. 
 
 Fifth class V. Apart from the four different classes of 
 ot texts. j have been considering, there is a 
 
 single passage which seems to stand isolated and 
 alone, and which I take by itself, as forming, in 
 a sense, a fifth class. It is that passage in the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews in which Christ is spoken 
 Heb. ii. 9. of as “tasting death for every man” (ii. 9).'*' 
 
 * “ But one in a certain place testified, sayinpr, What is man, that thou art 
 mindful of him ? or the son of man, that thou visitesthim? Thou madest him 
 a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and 
 didst set him overthe works of thy hands: thou hast put all things in subjection 
 under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing 
 that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things 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 should 
 taste death for every man” (lleb. ii. 6-9). 
 
FIFTH CLASS OF TEXTS. 
 
 81 
 
 Now, as to this text, one thing, at least, is very 
 clear. The apostle’s train of reasoning in the 
 passage in which it occurs has no reference what¬ 
 ever to the question of the extent of Christ’s 
 work, but only to the depth of that humiliation 
 on his part Avhich it implied, and the height of 
 glory for which it prepared the way. In other 
 portions of this very chapter Paul distinctly 
 limits to the elect the whole of our Lord’s media¬ 
 torial character, office, and ministry; as when he 
 is spoken of as standing in the relation of “ cap¬ 
 tain of their salvation” to the “many sons” whom 
 he is “ bringing to glory” (ver. 10); and when he 
 is represented as discharging a brother’s office, in 
 his incarnation, suffering, and death, and by his 
 sympathy and saving help, to the “children,” the 
 little ones, “ whom God has given him” to be “ his 
 brethren” (ver. 13-17). In the verses now in 
 question, the apostle is expounding the eighth 
 Psalm, in connection with that high argument 
 for the superiority of Christ over the angels 
 which occupies the first two chapters of his epistle. 
 He regards that psalm as a prediction of the 
 Messiah’s exaltation, in human nature, far above 
 the visible glory of the moon-lit and starry 
 heavens; and in particular, he interprets it as 
 announcing also his previous and preliminary 
 abasement. He thus turns the lowly appearance 
 of Jesus in the flesh, which might have been 
 
 6 
 
 OIIAPTBP 
 
 III. 
 
82 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPT HEAL PROOF. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 I. 
 
 urged as an objection against his divine and* 
 heavenly rank, into an article of evidence in its 
 favour. It was in accordance with prophecy that 
 the Messiah should be thus humbled, in the first 
 instance, and should thereafter and thereupon be 
 exalted to glory. 
 
 But the apostle does not rest merely on the 
 word of prophecy. He appeals to the very na¬ 
 ture and necessity of the case, as requiring that 
 the Messiah’s exaltation should be reached through 
 humiliation,—and through humiliation, moreover, 
 in human nature. If he is to be “ crowned with 
 glory and honour,” it must, in all propriety, be on 
 account of some previous work, or warfare, or suf¬ 
 fering of some sort. It is, in fact, on account of, 
 or “ for the suffering of death.” In order to such 
 “suffering of death,” for which he is to be “crowned 
 with glory and honour,” he must “ be made” in 
 a low estate; low in comparison with his original 
 dignity and rank. In point of fact, he “ is made 
 a little lower than the angels.’” But why lower 
 than the angels? Because, for the carrying out 
 of« the purposes of the grace of God, he is “ to 
 taste death for every man.” 
 
 It is quite manifest that the number of those 
 for whom he is to taste death is an element alto¬ 
 gether irrelevant to the scope of the apostle’s dis¬ 
 course. It is their nature alone that it is in point 
 and to the pui’pose to notice. Any reference to the 
 
CHRIST TASTING DEATH FOE EVERY MAN, 
 
 83 
 
 universality of the atonement would, therefore, be chapter 
 here entirely out of place. 
 
 But this is not all. A reference, so to speak, 
 to the individuality of the atonement will be 
 found to be most significant. And such a refer¬ 
 ence this text contains. The assertion is, that 
 Christ must taste death for men; one by one, as 
 it were; individually and personally; bearing the 
 sins of each. This is opposed to the notion of his 
 death, or his work of atonement, having a refer¬ 
 ence merely to mankind collectively and in the 
 mass. Had it been a work of that sort—a method 
 of vindicating the divine justice, and opening a 
 door of pardon, common to all—it does not ap¬ 
 pear how it might not have been accomplished by 
 him without his becoming lower than the angels. 
 
 In the angelic nature itself, it might be conceived 
 possible for him to have effected the adjustment 
 required; and that, too, even by some sort of 
 “ suffering of death,” leadino' to his beins;' “ crowned 
 with glory and honour.” But the work being one 
 of substitution, representation, suretiship, and, in 
 fact, identification—in which he is not to sustain 
 a general relation to the race as a whole, but a 
 very special, particular, and personal relation to 
 men one by one—taking the place of each, and 
 meeting all the obligations, responsibilities, and 
 liabilities of each—the necessity of his manhood 
 becomes apparent. Had it been a general mea- 
 
84 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 'sure for upholding the divine government, and in- 
 
 - troducing an indiscriminate amnesty for all, there 
 
 might have been other ways. But when it was to 
 be “ the tasting of death for each,” there could be 
 but one way. He must take upon him the very 
 nature of the individuals whom, one by one,—or 
 each one of whom,—he is personally to represent. 
 
 There is much meaning to believers, and much 
 ground for mourning on the one hand (Zech. xii. 
 10 ), and for comfort on the other (Gal. ii. 20), in 
 this view of the efficacy of Christ’s death being 
 distributed among them; and that not in the way 
 of division, as if each got a part, but, as it were, 
 in the way of multiplication, so that each gets all; 
 and every man of them may as truly realize 
 Christ’s tasting death specially and personally 
 for him, as if he had been the only sinner, in 
 whose stead, and on whose behalf, Jesus was 
 nailed to the cross. 
 
 The It will be admitted, 1 think, that I have se- 
 
 texts fairly lected for classification and examination the 
 
 cl^ssi^cd 
 
 and fully sti'ongest rather than the weakest of the texts on 
 exarauitd. opponciits of the Calviiiistic system are ac¬ 
 
 customed to rely. And it can scarcely be said 
 that I have dealt with them in a perfunctory or 
 evasive manner. I have simply sought to ascer¬ 
 tain in each case what it is that the inspired 
 writer is really speaking about, or aiming at; 
 
THE STRONGEST TEXTS SELECTED. 
 
 85 
 
 giving him the benefit of the fair and reasonable 
 presumption, that he is not so illogical as gratui¬ 
 tously to introduce extraneous matter into the 
 very heart of his reasoning or discourse. My 
 exegetical skill may fail me in endeavouring to 
 apply a sound general principle of interpretation 
 to particular passages ; but I am entitled, on be¬ 
 half of Calvinism, to demand that whoever calls 
 that system or its apologists to account, on the 
 ground of these passages, shall intelligently apply 
 to them some sound principle himself. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
8G 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Calvinistic 
 doctrino— 
 what it is. 
 
 DifTerence 
 betwoeii 
 the two 
 set.s of 
 texts. 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTURAL PROOF—NATURE OP THE EVIDENCE 
 IN FAVOUR OF THE CALVINISTIC DOCTRINE. 
 
 It is not my intention to enlarge on the nuinerons 
 statements in the word of God which explicitly 
 teach, or by plain and necessary inference involve, 
 'jthe doctrine for which, as Calvinists, Ave are con¬ 
 cerned to contend; which may be said to be 
 neither more nor less than this: that for Avhom- 
 jsoever Christ died at all, for them he died effica- 
 'ciously and effectually. These statements must, 
 of course, be submitted to the test of the same 
 general rule which has been used as a criterion in 
 the case of those already quoted; and, indeed, they 
 are all such as court and challenge the trial. For 
 there is this general difference between the two 
 sets of texts—those Avhich seem to assert a general, 
 and those which rather point to a restricted and 
 limited, reference in the atoning Avork of Christ— 
 that while the former easily admit of a clear and 
 consistent interpretation, such as makes them har¬ 
 monize Avith the doctrine Avhich, at first sifjht, 
 they might be supposed to contradict, it is alto¬ 
 gether otherwise Avith the latter. It is only by 
 a process of distortion—by their being made to 
 
EVIDENCE ON THE SIDE OP CALVINISM. 
 
 87 
 
 suffer violence—that they can be so explained 
 away as to become even neutral in the controversy. 
 It is remarkable, accordingly, that the opponents 
 of the Calvinistic view rarely, if ever, apply them¬ 
 selves to the task of showing what fair construc¬ 
 tion may be put, according to their theory, on 
 the texts usually cited against them. They think 
 it enough simply to collect an array of texts 
 which, when uttered in single notes, give a sound 
 similar to that of their own trumpet. We, on 
 our part, undertake to prove that in every in¬ 
 stance, the sound, even taken alone, is, at the 
 least, a very uncertain one; and that, when com- 
 
 e 
 
 bined and blended with the sounds of other notes 
 in the very same bar or cleff, the result of the 
 harmonized melody is such as to chime in with the 
 strain which we think we find elsewhere; or, in 
 plain terms, and without a metaphor, that the 
 isolated phrase on which, as a separate utterance, 
 they are apt to rely, does really, when taken in 
 connection with its context, agree far better with 
 our view than with theirs. They, however, are 
 very unwilling to follow a similar mode of dealing 
 with the texts on which we are most inclined to 
 rest the opinion which we maintain. And j^et, 
 surely it is as incumbent upon them to explain 
 how the texts on our side are to be interpreted 
 consistently with their views, as it is on us to 
 make a corresponding attempt in regard to the 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 ir. 
 
 One¬ 
 sidedness 
 of oppo¬ 
 nents. 
 
88 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCEIPTUEAL PEOOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 texts wlncli tliey claim as theirs. This, however, 
 it would be by no means easy to do. For, as re¬ 
 gards the passages to which we appeal, it may be 
 confidently affirmed, as I shall endeavour to show, 
 that the assertion of a limited or restricted atone¬ 
 ment is by no means in them, what I have 
 proved, I think, that the assertion of a universal 
 redemption would be, if admitted, in the other 
 series of passages which I have been considering, 
 —namely, an excrescence upon the argument in 
 hand, not in point or to the purpose, but intrusive 
 and embarrassing;—embarrassing, I of course 
 mean, not to the controversialist, but to the critic, 
 in his exegesis or exposition of the particular 
 verses under review. On the contrary, this asser¬ 
 tion of limitation or restriction, as being the 
 characteristic feature of Christ’s work, is at the 
 very heart of the passages now to be examined. 
 Not only is it essential to the writer’s, or the 
 speaker’s, argument or reasoning being such as the 
 occasion requires; it is, in fact, essential to what he 
 says having any meaning at all. This will appear 
 evident, I apprehend, as I proceed now to con¬ 
 sider some of the principal passages in which the 
 doctrine of a limited atonement is asserted or im¬ 
 plied. These may be conveniently classed accord¬ 
 ing to the several practical ends or objects with 
 which the doctrine stands connected, and to which 
 it is made subservient. 
 
CERTAINTY OF SALVATION. 
 
 89 
 
 I. The certainty of the salvation of believers chapter 
 
 IV, 
 
 is in a remarkable manner bound up in Scripture —i- 
 
 »-ri Til 6 C6r« 
 
 with the doctrine in question. This security of tainty of 
 theirs—this certainty of tlieir being saved—may connected 
 be considered in two lights;—as ordained by God, limited 
 and as realized by tlie'mselves. It is, of course, 
 chiefly in the former point of view that the fact 
 stands immediately connected with Christ’s dying 
 for them, and for them alone ; although the con¬ 
 nection will be seen to touch also their own ex¬ 
 perimental realization of the fact. They for whom 
 Christ died cannot perish; and as it is his dying 
 for them that makes their perishing an impossi¬ 
 bility, so it is their being enabled to apprehend 
 his dying for them that gives them personal as¬ 
 surance of their perishing being an impossibility. 
 
 With this explanation, let some of the Scrip¬ 
 tural proofs of the connection now alleged be fairiy 
 weighed. 
 
 It is very clearly brought out in the tenth joim x. 
 chapter of John’s Gospel, and that in several ways. 
 
 Thus, in the first ])lace, it is explicitly declared ciuistiays 
 by Christ himself that he was to die for his people: life for his 
 “ I am the good shepherd, and 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” (ver. 14, 15). That this 
 declaration is exclusive—implying that he lays 
 down his life for them alone, without any refer- 
 
90 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUKAL PROOF. 
 
 PA RT 
 I. 
 
 Clirist’s 
 sheep 
 given to 
 liim by 
 the 
 
 Father. 
 
 ence to the world at large—is to be inferred 
 necessarily from the connection in which he intro¬ 
 duces it. He is enlarging on the security which 
 his people have in him; and it is as the proof of 
 their security—the only tangible proof which he 
 alleges—that he brings in the appeal to the fact 
 of his dying for them. That, however, would be 
 no proof at all, if othei’s besides his sheep were in¬ 
 terested in his death; or, which is the same thing, 
 if an}^ for whom he laid down his life might, after 
 all, perish. 
 
 Hence, let it be observed secondly, in a subse¬ 
 quent part of the chapter the Lord expressly 
 gives this as the reason why some believe not, 
 and therefore are lost,—that thev are not of his 
 sheep, for whom he lays down his life: “Jesus 
 answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: 
 the works that I do in my Father’s name, they 
 bear witness of me. But ye believe not, because 
 ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you” (ver. 
 25, 26). Again, on the other hand, the safety of 
 believers, or the security that they shall never 
 perish, is made to depend on their being his 
 sheep, to whom he gives eternal life: “ My sheep 
 hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow 
 me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they 
 shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them 
 out of my hand” (ver. 27, 28). Not only so; 
 their safety is further made to depend on their 
 
THE THREEFOLD CORD. 
 
 91 
 
 being the sheep whom the Father hath given to 
 him: “ My Father, which gave them me, is greater 
 than all; and none is able to pluck them out of 
 my Father’s hand” (ver. 29). Let the connection 
 of the two gifts here indicated be noticed; and 
 let it be noticed also how they stand related to 
 Christ’s laying down his life for the sheep. His 
 giving them eternal life follows as a consequence 
 from his laying down his life for them; and that 
 again follows as a consequence from their being 
 ' given to him by the Father. They are his sheep, 
 given to him, while others are not given to him, 
 by the Father; he lays down his life for them as 
 such; he giveth to them, as such, eternal life. He 
 lays down his life for those whom the Father hath 
 given him ; and to those for whom he lays down 
 his life, he giveth eternal life. This is that three¬ 
 fold cord, not to be quickly broken, which fastens 
 believers to the Lock of Ages: the Father’s gift 
 of a people to the Son to be his sheep ; the Son’s 
 dying for his sheep thus given to him by tlie 
 Father; and his giving to them, as the fruit of 
 his dying for them, eternal life. But unless all 
 the three lines in this cord are of equal extent, it 
 cannot hold fast—it must yield, or warp, or break. 
 Nor, on any supposition of a wider jDurpose in the 
 death of the Son than in the gift which the 
 Father makes to him of a chosen number to be 
 his sheep, is there any value in the assurance with 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 The tliree- 
 fold cord. 
 
92 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCKIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 I’AET 
 
 I. 
 
 Isaiah liii. 
 10 - 12 . 
 
 Christ 
 shiill see 
 liis seed. 
 
 wliicli the Lord rivets the cord of saving grace to 
 tlie eternal throne : “ I and iny Father are one'’ 
 (ver. 80). For though it is undeniable that one¬ 
 ness of nature between the Father and the Son 
 is involved in that great sajdng,—which, but for 
 that oneness of nature, would be high presump¬ 
 tion in the mouth of any teacher, and poor com¬ 
 fort for his scholars,—still it is with a very special 
 reference to the oneness of counsel between him¬ 
 self as giving eternal life to those for whom he 
 lays down his life, and the Father as giving them* 
 to him, that the Lord says so emphatically, “ I and 
 my Father are one." 
 
 2. The connection now asserted is clearly in¬ 
 dicated in the closing verses of the fifty-third 
 chapter of Isaiah, in which the Father’s faithful¬ 
 ness is represented as being pledged in covenant 
 to the Son for the success, if one may so say, of 
 his undertaking as Eedeemer.* In these verses 
 the Divine promise to the Messiah, that “ he shall 
 see his seed,’’ is specially represented as turning 
 upon “his soul being made an offering for sin.’’ 
 It is said of him that “ he bare the sin of many,” 
 
 * “Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him ; he hath put him to grief: -when 
 thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, lie shall see his seed, he shall pro¬ 
 long his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall 
 see of the travail [sorrow] of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge 
 [the knowledge of himself] shall my righteous servant justify many; for ho 
 shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, 
 and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hatli poured out his 
 soul unto death : and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare tlie 
 sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Isa. liii. 1(>-12). 
 
Christ’s travail and satisfaction. 
 
 93 
 
 when “ he poured out his soul unto death.” And chapter 
 
 IV. 
 
 that the “many” whose “sin he bare” are iden- —^ 
 tical with that “seed” of his which he is to “see,” is 
 as clearly to be gathered from the whole strain of 
 the passage, as that the “many” whom, as “the 
 righteous servant of God,” he is to “justify, through 
 the knowledge of himself,” are identical with 
 those “ whose iniquities he is to bear.” 
 
 As regards the interpretation of this whole pas¬ 
 sage, I own it seems amazing that any can read 
 that single marvellous and momentous clause : “ He “ iie shau 
 
 gg0 Qf Hl6 
 
 shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied ” travail of 
 —knowing what “ the travail of his soul ” means, and be 
 and believing it to have been his really taking 
 upon himself the guilt, and enduring the curse, of 
 a broken law—and yet admit it to be possible 
 that any for whom he can be said, in any sense, 
 to have died on the cross should, after all, perish 
 for ever. Was his soul in travail for any of the 
 lost ? Was it in travail for any who are not given 
 to him to be his seed ? Would this have been 
 consistent with his seeing the fruit of that travail 
 of his soul, so as to be satisfied ?—adequately 
 satisfied, according to the measure of the Father’s 
 satisfaction in him? “He shall see his seed;” 
 
 “ he shall see of the travail of his soul.” The two 
 tilings go together. The “ pouring out of his soul 
 unto the death ” is, as it were, the very birth- 
 pang, through which the relation of his people to 
 
94 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Tlie tra¬ 
 vail of 
 Christ's^ 
 soul. 
 
 himself, as “ his seed,” is constituted, and his life 
 is communicated to them. His anguish is their 
 quickening. So “ seeing his seed,”—seeing them 
 begotten, as it were, through “ the travail of his 
 soul,”—he is to be “ satisfied.” Can anything be 
 clearer than this identification ? His seed are 
 they for whom his soul travailed; and all for 
 whom his soul travailed are his seed ; so called, 
 as being the recompense and result of his agony 
 —the purchase of his pain—the fruit of the 
 grievous labour of his spirit on their ac¬ 
 count. 
 
 Nor does the view here indicated turn upon the 
 precise meaning of the word rendered “travail,” 
 as if it denoted the pang of child-birth, any more 
 than does the meaning of that other expression 
 which the Apostle Paul uses, when, claiming such 
 a tender interest in his converts as a mother has 
 in those whose birth has cost her sorrow (John 
 xvi. 21), he thus affectionately appeals to them: 
 “ My little children, of whom I travail in birth 
 again until Christ be formed in you” (Gal. iv. 19). 
 It may be allowed that the term here emplo3^ed 
 by Isaiah means grief and labour generally. Still, 
 this sorrow of Messiah’s soul, of which he is to see 
 a satisfying issue, stands connected with his “ see¬ 
 ing his seed ;” and still, therefore, it would appear 
 that they for whom this sorrow is endured must 
 be identified with his seed; and that they are his 
 
HE SHALL SEE HIS SEED. 
 
 95 
 
 seed, because his agony of soul, endured on their 
 behalf, is the very cause of their life. 
 
 8. In the sixth chapter of the Gospel by John, 
 we may conceive of our Lord as appealing, almost 
 in express terms, to that very promise of the 
 everlasting covenant to which Isaiah refers, as a 
 guarantee that the Messiah shall not live and die 
 in vain : “ He shall see his seed ; he shall see of the 
 travail of his soul, and be satisfied.” The Man of 
 Sorrows virtually pleads that promise as his ground 
 of confidence and comfort, amid his “ endurance of 
 the contradiction of sinners against himself” And, 
 on that ground, we find him asserting very strongly 
 the impossibility of any of his people being lost. 
 
 He is speaking to the unbelieving Jews; and, 
 taking a high tone of sovereign authority, he ex¬ 
 poses, with withering severity, the impotency of 
 their unbelief. They were apt to regard him as, 
 in some sort, a candidate for their favour; as if 
 he were presenting himself to their choice, and 
 soliciting their suffrages, like one dependent upon 
 them, and standing at their mercy,—a view which 
 sinners are still too generally apt to take of Him 
 with whom, in the gift and offer of himself and 
 his salvation, they have to do. The Lord gives 
 no countenance to such trifling and dallying with 
 his paramount claims, and his peremptory com¬ 
 mands and calls. Let not these unbefievers 
 imagine that he has need of them, or that they 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 John vi. 
 33 - 51 . 
 Christ sure 
 of having 
 a believ¬ 
 ing people. 
 
 Tlie unbe¬ 
 lief of 
 men vain. 
 
96 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 All that 
 come to 
 Christ, be¬ 
 ing given 
 to him 
 by the 
 Father, 
 sure of 
 salvation. 
 
 can either benefit or injure him. They may reject, 
 they may oppose, they may persecute liis person 
 and his cause ; but they hurt only themselves. 
 His triumph is certain, whatever they may do ; he 
 is sure of havins; followers and friends enough. 
 Such, in substance, is his remonstrance and ex¬ 
 postulation addressed to unbelievers in the thirty- 
 sixth and following verses ; and such the assurance 
 which he has, that, notwithstanding their unbelief, 
 “he shall see his seed.” 
 
 In further support of that assurance, he first 
 cites the Father’s deed of gift, as the ultimate 
 source of his security on this head,—as making 
 it infixllibly certain, both that “all that the Father 
 giveth him shall come unto him,” and also, that 
 “whosoever cometh to him he will in no wise cast 
 out ” (ver. 37). And then he goes on to explain, 
 with special and exclusive reference to them, the 
 precise meaning of those general statements re¬ 
 specting himself which so much scandalized the 
 Jews. This he does in such statements as these; 
 “ The bread of God is he which cometh down from 
 heaven and giveth life unto the world” (ver. 33);— 
 “ I am that bread of life ” (ver. 48) ;—“ I am the 
 living bread which came down from heaven ; if 
 any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever; 
 and the bread that I will give is my flesh, wdiich 
 I will give for the life of the world” (ver. 51). 
 Do these announcements convey the impression of 
 
THE father’s gift TO THE SON. 97 
 
 his death having a wide and general reference to all 
 mankind indiscriminately ? Are we to understand 
 what he says about his coming down from heaven 
 to “ give life unto the world/’ and his “ giving his 
 ilesh for the life of the world,” as pointing to a 
 universal atonement ? Where, then, so far as his 
 own confidence was concerned, would he have any 
 security that his death might not be in vain ? In 
 the decree of the Father, it may be replied, and 
 his deed.of gift, promising to his Son a chosen 
 seed. True, he is to “give his flesh for the life of 
 the world and if that expression is to be pressed 
 as proving the universality of his atonement, many 
 of those for whom he died are to be lost—man}^ 
 “see him, and believe not” (ver. 36). Still, it is 
 certain that some will take advantage of the 
 general provision of grace ; for “all that the Father 
 o-iveth him shall come to him.” Such is the view 
 
 O 
 
 which is sometimes given. But it is only one- 
 half of what satisfies Christ. Their coming to 
 him is made sure by the sovereign will of the 
 Father; and so also is his not casting them out, 
 but receiving them in order to ffive them life. 
 
 O O 
 
 That, however, he can do only by giving his life 
 for them. “ I came down from heaven,” he says, 
 “ not to do mine own will, but the will of him that 
 sent me. And this is the Father s will which hath 
 sent me, that of all which he hath given me I 
 
 should lose nothing, but should raise it up again 
 
 7 
 
 CIUPTEK 
 
 IV. 
 
 Clirist ful¬ 
 fils the 
 Fatlier’s 
 ■will on be¬ 
 half of 
 those 
 given to 
 him. 
 
98 
 
 THK METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Christ 
 secure of 
 a believ¬ 
 ing people. 
 
 at the last day. And this is the will of him that 
 sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and 
 believeth on him, may have everlasting life: 
 and I will raise him up at the last day ” (ver. 
 88-40). It is the will of the Father that they 
 whom he has given me should come to me. It is 
 the will of the Father also that I should in no wise 
 cast them out; that I should lose none of them ; 
 that every one of them, in me, should have ever¬ 
 lasting life ; and that I should “ raise him up at 
 the last day.” And this will of the Father, under 
 whicli both their coming to me, and my receiving 
 them and giving them life, fall—and by which 
 both are rendered certain—is not merely his will 
 of good pleasure, or what he desires, but his will 
 of decree, or what he determines. That Christ 
 came to give life to the world, as such—the world 
 of mankind, without respect of persons, Gentiles 
 as well as Jews—is a declaration similar to those 
 other announcements : “ He came to seek and to 
 save the lost”—“he is the Lamb of God that 
 taketh away the sin of the worldand, like 
 them, it is full of encouragement to sinners of all 
 descriptions and of all degrees. Were it left on 
 that footing, however, there would seem to be an 
 element of indistinctness and precariousness intro¬ 
 duced into the transaction. But the certainty of 
 his work being effectual is infallibly secured, by 
 there being a people given to him by the Father, 
 
CHRIST SAVES THE PEOPLE GIVEN TO HIM. 
 
 99 
 
 and by liis “ giving liis flesh ” as “ the living bread ” chapter 
 being a service or sacriflce restricted to them; —1 
 
 since now, whatever others do, they are sure to 
 come ; and coming, they are sure of being received 
 by him and having life in him. 
 
 I may obseiwe, in leaving this passage, that it security 
 bears very closely on that pei'sonal and practical ulvers in 
 point of view in which the doctrine of the cer- 
 tainty or security of the salvation of Christ’s people 
 is to be considered as most important; its being 
 not merely ordained by God, but capable of being 
 realized by themselves. This the Lord presses as 
 a strong inducement to sinners to come to him ; 
 assuring them, that coming unto him, they never 
 can be, in any wise, cast out—they shall be, and 
 must be, infallibly safe. And what constitutes 
 their security? Is it not the will of the Father 
 specially ordaining for them, and therefore restrict¬ 
 ing to them, the life-giving work of the Son ? 
 
 4. As bearing upon the same personal and prac¬ 
 tical point of view, I might refer to other portions 
 of Scripture in which the atoning death of Christ 
 is represented as securing the salvation of his 
 people. For indeed, in every instance in which 
 they are called upon to realize their security at all, 
 it is upon the footing of his d^dng for them, and 
 in respect of the exclusive reference which his 
 work of propitiation has to them. 
 
 On this footing the Lord himself places the 
 
100 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PAET 
 
 I. 
 
 John xvii. 
 The Inter¬ 
 cessory 
 ])i'aycr of 
 Clirist for 
 those 
 given to 
 liim by the 
 Father. 
 
 matter in his farewell intercessory prayer, as 
 recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John’s 
 Gospel. Nothing, one would think, can well be 
 clearer, to an earnest student of that prayer, than 
 this, that it proceeds throughout upon the idea of 
 the limitation of the entire work of Christ to the 
 people given to him by the Father. Of the de¬ 
 sign of his interposing as mediator at all, he inti¬ 
 mates that it is with a view to his “ giving life to 
 as many as the Father hath given him:” “ Father, 
 the hour is come ; glorify thy Son, that thy Son 
 also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him 
 power over all flesh, that he should give eternal 
 life to as many as thou hast given him” (ver. 1, 2). 
 When speaking of his “ obedience unto death,” or 
 “the work given him to do,” which he “finished” 
 ere he left the world, and by winch he “ manifested 
 the Fathers name,” he expressly restricts it all to 
 “the men which the Father gave him out of the 
 world:” “I have glorified thee on the earth; I have 
 finished the work which thou gavest me to do. 
 I have manifested thy name unto the men which 
 thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, 
 and thou gavest them me ; and they have kept 
 thy word ” (ver. 4, 6). And of his ministry of in¬ 
 tercession, which he began on earth, and now pro¬ 
 secutes in heaven, he speaks, if possible, still more 
 explicitly : “ I pray for them ; I pray not for the 
 world, but for them which thou hast given me; 
 
CHRIST INTERCEDES FOR III3 PEOPLE. 
 
 101 
 
 for they are thine. And all mine are thine, and ohapteji 
 
 IV. 
 
 thine are mine; and I am glorified in them ” (ver. •— 
 9, 10). 
 
 The intercession of Christ, it is to be remem- Nature of 
 
 Christ’s 
 
 bered, is inseparably connected with his work of inter- 
 
 ’ . cession. 
 
 atonement—that work being the very ground or 
 substance of it, the most essential ingredient in 
 it. For his intercession is not a mere ministry of 
 persuasive pleading, making a merit, as it were, 
 of his atonement. It is the actual presenting of 
 the atonement itself before God his Father. This 
 consideration alone might of itself suffice to prove 
 that these two works of Christ, his work of inter¬ 
 cession and his work of atonement, must be co¬ 
 extensive ; since it is plain that, if he intercede 
 for some only of those for whom he died, he must 
 have some additional plea to urge on their behalf, 
 beyond the efficacy of his death. “ I pray for 
 them: for they are thine.” That, and that alone, is 
 the reason why I take so deep an interest in them 
 —that is the reason why I lay down my life for 
 them, and intercede for them. They are dear to 
 me, because they are thine ; “ all mine are thine, 
 and thine are mine.” Yes, though many of them, 
 
 “ not knowing what they do,” will be found among 
 the number of my persecutors and murderers, yet, 
 even when they are nailing me on the cross, I will 
 pray for them,—for whom, as well as by whom, 
 my blood is poured out,—“ Father, forgive them.” 
 
102 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCETPTERAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 The inter¬ 
 cession of 
 Christ and 
 the atone¬ 
 ment co¬ 
 extensive. 
 
 Rom. V. 
 8 - 10 . 
 
 Tile argu¬ 
 ment a 
 fortiori 
 from tlio 
 death of 
 Christ. 
 
 Thus Christ unequivocally restricts and limits 
 his own work of obedience, atonement, and inter¬ 
 cession, to those whom the Father hath given him. 
 And it is upon his work, as thus limited and re¬ 
 stricted, that he establishes their perfect security 
 in him, and would have them to realize it, in 
 terms of his loving commendation of them to his 
 Father and their Father, his God and their God: 
 “And now I am no more in the world, but these 
 are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy 
 Father, keep through thine own name those whom 
 thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we 
 are” (ver. 11). 
 
 5. In exact accordance with this prayer of the 
 Lord, we find the Apostle Paul resting the assur¬ 
 ance of believers on the death of Christ, as that 
 which, by its own exclusive efficacy, secures their 
 salvation. Take, for example, the argument a 
 fortiori in the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the 
 Romans : “ But God commendeth his love toward 
 us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died 
 for us. 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” (ver. 8-10). Are not believers here taught 
 to connect the certainty of their ultimate salvation 
 with the atoning death of Christ as that which of 
 
CIiraST’S DEATH SECURES SALVATION. 103 
 
 itself, and by its very nature, makes their ultimate chapter 
 
 • . IV. 
 
 salvation certain to all for whom lie died ? The •—h 
 reasoning in the close of the eighth chapter is 
 
 equally conclusive : “ It is Christ that died, yea Rom. riii. 
 
 • • • • 
 
 rather, that is risen again, who is even at the 
 right hand of God, who also maketh intercession 
 for us. Who shall separate us from the love of 
 Christ ?” (ver. 34, 35). And in the fourth chapter Rom. iv. 
 (ver. 16) the assurance of the promise, or its “ being 
 sure,” which is declared to be the very end or de- 
 .sign of its being “ of faith,” and “ by grace,”—or 
 gratuitous and free,—is very pointedly connected 
 with its being limited to “ all the seed.” 
 
 In tliese, and various other passages, it is uni¬ 
 formly implied, tliat to have an interest in Christ, 
 in the sense of being among the number of those 
 for whom he died, secures, infallibly, everlasting 
 salvation. And this is what every anxious and Personal 
 inquiring soul longs to have. I may be in diffi- tion of t.lie 
 
 . . argument. 
 
 culty as to my warrant to appropriate Clirist as 
 dying for me. I may have difficulty also as to the 
 evidence of my having rightly and warrantably 
 done so. But these are my only difficulties,—the 
 one in the direct, the other in the reflex, act of 
 faith. To separate between the proposition, “ He 
 gave himself for me,” and the proposition, “ I am 
 safe for eternity,”—whatever hesitation I may 
 have in timidly apprehending, and scarcely ventur¬ 
 ing hopefully to realize, that first proposition, “ He 
 
104 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 gave himself for me,”—would be to cut off the 
 very bridge by which, as a prisoner of hope, I can 
 ever dream of reaching the stronghold to which I 
 would flee for my life. And it would be fatal to 
 the life for which I flee to Christ. For Avhat is 
 that life but this : “ I am crucified with Christ: 
 nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth 
 in me : and the life which I now live in the flesh 
 I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved 
 me, and gave himself for me” (Gal. ii. 20). 
 
 Having dwelt at such length on the certainty 
 of the salvation of believers, as being so connected 
 in Scripture with the atonement of Christ as 
 necessarily to imply a limitation or restriction of 
 its virtue to them,—all their certainty of salva¬ 
 tion beiim based on the fact that Christ died for 
 them,—I must pass more lightly over certain 
 other features or characteristics of salvation which, 
 equally with its certainty, shut us up to the same 
 conclusion. This I the rather do, since the re¬ 
 marks already made may easily be applied to the 
 illustrations or examples which I have yet to give 
 of the mode of proof, on this whole subject, fn- 
 which those who hold the Calvinistic view usually 
 contend. 
 
 II. The completeness as well as the certainty 
 of the salvation of Christ’s people is, in many pas¬ 
 sages of Scripture, remarkably bound up with 
 
COMPLETENESS OF SALVATION. 
 
 105 
 
 statements and reasonings impl 3 dng a limitation 
 to them of his purchased redemption. Here I 
 might quote again some of the passages already 
 commented on, such as the tenth and the sixth 
 chapters of John’s Gospel, in which the fulness of 
 the provision made for Christ’s sheep, or for those 
 given to him by the Father, is connected, not less 
 clearly" than the security of their position, with his 
 dying for them. But there are other passages 
 which set before us this connection in a variety of 
 striking and affecting practical points of view. 
 
 1. Thus there are texts which represent the 
 death of Christ as the highest conceivable in¬ 
 stance of his love, and of the Father's; and in 
 which, on that ground, a general argument from 
 the greater to the less {a fortiori) is based upon his 
 death, as to the nature and amount of the good 
 which his believing people may expect at his 
 hands, or through his mediation. 
 
 In the fifteenth chapter of John the Lord is 
 dwelling on the abundance of fruit which he would 
 have his disciples to bring forth (ver. 5) ; on the 
 fulness of joy of which he would have them to be 
 partakers (vei'. 11); on the large desires in prayer 
 which he is ready to satisfy (ver. 7); and on the 
 copious stream of mutual love which he would 
 have to flow from himself through all their hearts 
 
 OHAFTER 
 IV. 
 
 The coni- 
 pleteness 
 of salva¬ 
 tion con¬ 
 nected 
 with a 
 limited 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Argument 
 a fortiori 
 from the 
 death of 
 Christ, as 
 the high¬ 
 est con¬ 
 ceivable 
 proof of 
 God's love 
 to his 
 people. 
 
 John XV. 
 
 (ver. 9, 10). And, to sum up the whole,—to con¬ 
 vince-them that there could be nothing, in the 
 
106 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUEAL PROOF. 
 
 UL 
 
 way of attainment or of enjoyment, too liigli for 
 them to aspire after,—he appeals to his dying for 
 them, as explaining all and justifying all: “ Greater 
 love hath no man than this, that a man lay down 
 his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye 
 do whatsoever I command you” (ver. 13, 1 4). The 
 whole force of this motive to enlargement of ex¬ 
 pectation is gone, if his death he not the pledge 
 of his special love to his friends. If no greater 
 proof of love can he given than his laying down 
 his life, and if it he not for his friends exclusively, 
 hut indiscriminately and universally for the whole 
 world, that he does lay down his life, what has he 
 in reserve to demonstrate his affection for his people? f. 
 
 Can he, on that supposition, give them any proof 
 of love greater than he gives the world ? And '- 
 what then becomes of the previous argument, 
 founded on his dying for them as the evidence of f 
 his love to them, and meant to convince them 
 that in him who had so loved them they may - 
 well hope to he, as to all the elements of holiness 
 and happiness, perfect and complete ? 
 
 The same view is supported hy the reaso.ning 
 of the Apostle Paul, in the beginning of the fifth 
 chapter of his Epistle to the Romans (ver. 1-11); 
 and in his argument a fortiori, in the eighth 
 chapter: “ He that spared not his own Son, but 
 delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with 
 liim also freely give us all things?” (ver. 32 y 
 
ciikist’s death the proof of highest love. 107 
 
 In both of these passages Paul represents believers 
 as arguing, from the mere fact of Christ's dying 
 for them, that they may claim and challenge all 
 the abundant blessings of grace and salvation. 
 This they could never do if his death was a propi¬ 
 tiation or atonement in which they had simply a 
 common interest with mankind at large, includ¬ 
 ing the reprobate and lost. They might, in that 
 case, reason from the Spirit's work in them, making 
 them Christ’s, but scarcely, as they do, from the 
 mere fact of Christ’s dying for them. 
 
 Tlie statement of our Lord, however, as I have 
 quoted it, is still more precise. It is a clear asser¬ 
 tion that he laid down his life for his friends. 
 And that this must mean that he laid it down for 
 them exclusively, is apparent from the view Avhich 
 he teaches them to take of his death, as the 
 strongest possible evidence of his love ; as well as 
 from the use Avhich he would have them to make 
 of it, as warranting unlimited aspirations of holy 
 ambition, in regard to all tliat constitutes the life 
 and fellowship of the children of God. 
 
 2. Not only generally is the deatli of Chilst, 
 as the highest proof and instance of divine love, 
 represented as in itself securing the completeness 
 of his people's salvation, but more particularly the 
 several elements or ingredients of their salvation, 
 —or of the blessedness in which it consists,—are 
 so connected with Christ’s dying for them, as to 
 
 CHArTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 Particular 
 saving 
 benefits 
 connected 
 with a 
 limited 
 atone¬ 
 ment 
 
108 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTUKAL TROOP. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Gift of the 
 Holy Spirit 
 connected 
 witli deatli 
 of Christ. 
 
 John vii. 
 37 - 39 . 
 
 preclude the possibility of that event being re¬ 
 garded in any other light than as a special atone¬ 
 ment for their sins exclusively, and as purchasing, 
 by its own intrinsic efficacy,* for them, and for 
 them alone, “ all things that pertain unto life and 
 godliness*’ (2 Peter i. 3). 
 
 The gift of the Holy Spirit, for example, of 
 which the}^ are made partakers, is so bound up 
 with the atoning work of Christ as to convey the 
 irresistible impression that they must be of the 
 same extent. I do not here refer to those move¬ 
 ments of the Spirit of God, “striving with men” 
 (Gen. vi. 3), which form part of the dispensation- 
 of forbearance,—the economy of long-suffering on 
 the part of God,—under which, for a season, man 
 is placed (2 Peter iii. 9). The relation between 
 that dispensation or economy and the atonement 
 will be afterwards considered. I point at present 
 to the gift of the Holy Spirit which is confessedly 
 peculiar to those who are actually saved,—his being 
 given for the purposes of conversion, and sanctifica¬ 
 tion, and comfort, as the Spirit of regeneration and 
 the Spirit of adoption. The Spirit is spoken of as 
 being given, in that sen.se, to the people of Christ, 
 in immediate and intimate connection with liis 
 deatli, and as the proper fruit of it. So the Evan¬ 
 gelist John puts the matter in the seventh chapter 
 of his Gospel. He is commenting on the Lord’s 
 saying, “ If any man thirst, let him come unto me 
 
THE GIFT OF THE SPIRIT. 
 
 109 
 
 and drink. He that believetli on me, as the Scrip¬ 
 ture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of 
 living water.” Upon that saying John observes, 
 “ But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that 
 believe on him should receive : for the Holy Ghost 
 was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet 
 glorified” (John vii. 87~39). To the same effect the 
 Lord himself, in his farewell discourse, as recorded 
 in John’s Gospel, declares, “It is expedient for 
 you that I go away : for if I go not away, the 
 Comforter will not come unto you ; but if I depart, 
 I will send him unto you” (John xvi. 7). In 
 both of these passages the atoning death of Christ 
 is set forth as the procuring cause of the gift of 
 the Holy Spirit to his disciples ; for it is simply as 
 the consequence or fruit of his atoning death,—and 
 as the token and proof of its being sufficient and 
 of its being accepted,—that his being “ glorified,^’ 
 or his “going away” and “departing,” has any¬ 
 thing to do with his giving or sending the Spirit. 
 In both passages, therefore, his atoning death and 
 the gift of the Holy Spirit are indissolubly bound 
 up together as cause and effect. Whoever is in¬ 
 terested in the one must, one would think, accord¬ 
 ing to the fair meaning of these passages, be inter¬ 
 ested also in the other. But the gift of the Spirit 
 that is intended is not any general influence, com¬ 
 mon to all alike, whether lost or saved. It is his 
 beings o-iven and received according to the full 
 
 O O O 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 Jotin xvl. 
 7 - 15 . 
 
110 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUHAL PROOF. 
 
 PART measure of the utmost plenitude of grace and joy 
 —h- of which saints on earth are capable. It is his 
 indwelling in them so richly as to turn their inner 
 man into a fountain of water,—a source or spring 
 even of rivers of living water. It is his coming, 
 not merely to “ convince” or “ reprove” the world of 
 sin, of righteousness, and of judgment,” so that the 
 witnesses for the truth shall find an accompanying 
 testimony of the Spirit going along with their tes¬ 
 timony in the consciences of men generally; but 
 “ to guide themselves into all truth,” and “ to take 
 of all that is Christ’s,”—all the Father’s ful¬ 
 ness that is Christ’s,—“and show it unto them” 
 (John xvi. 8-15). That being the sort of gift of 
 tlie Spirit indicated in the Lord’s gracious words 
 to his own people—and it being so manifestly 
 identified, as one might say, with his being “ glori¬ 
 fied,” and “ departing,” upon the completion and 
 acceptance of his atoning work in his death,—I 
 can scarcely see how it is possible to appropriate 
 the blessedness of these comprehensive promises 
 on any other footing than this—that they are 
 sure to all for whom Christ died. 
 
 The same conclusion, I apprehend, may be fairly 
 Acts ii. 33. drawn from what the Apostle Peter says in expla¬ 
 nation of the miracle of the day of Pentecost, and 
 the saving effusion of the Holy Spirit of Avhich it 
 was the sign, when, having charged the people 
 with the sin of “ crucifying the Lord of glory,” he 
 
THE SPIRIT GIVEN IN VIRTUE OP CHRIST’S DEATH. Ill 
 
 adds: “ This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof 
 we all are witnesses ; therefore, being by the right 
 hand of God exalted, and having received of the 
 Father the gift of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed 
 forth this, which ye now see and hear” (Acts ii. 33). 
 
 In tiaith, I might gather together all that is 
 written in Scripture of the presence and power of 
 the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers, whether 
 as shutting them up into Christ, or as renewing 
 their natm’e after his image, or as sealing their 
 acceptance in him, or as witnessing their adoption 
 in and with him, or as the earnest of the glory 
 which he is to share with them ; and I might ask 
 if the humble and earnest soul, in reading any¬ 
 thing of what is written, as to any of the high 
 privileges and hopes which the gift of the Spirit 
 thus involves, ever once dreams of separating them 
 in idea from the atoning death of his loving 
 Saviour; ever once imagines that they are not the 
 direct and proper effect of his death; or can so 
 much as conceive of his not being in a position to 
 secure, and not actually, in point of fact, securing, 
 one and all of these inestimable benefits of the 
 Spirit, to one and all of those whom he repre¬ 
 sented on the cross ? There may not always be 
 an explicit doctrinal recognition of the coincidence, 
 in respect of design, and efficacy, and extent, 
 betweer this gift of the Spirit and the atoning 
 death of Christ; but it is by grasping and hold- 
 
 CHAPTEP. 
 
 IV. 
 
112 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUEAL PROOF. 
 
 PART ing fast Christ as loving me and giving liimself for 
 ■ ' - me, that I grasp and hold fast the promise of the 
 Holy Spirit as personal to myself Practically 
 and experimentally, the joy of the Holy Ghost is 
 to me unattainable, excepting through the exercise 
 of a faith which virtually and really welds together 
 in one the dying of the Lord Jesus and the coming 
 of the Holy Ghost. To all for whom Christ died, 
 the Holy Spirit, in his saving power, is given. 
 That is the sum and substance of Scriptural truth 
 in regard to this point on which my faith fastens, 
 when, embracing Christ Jesus my Lord as dying 
 for me, I seek to realize the blessed fact of the 
 Spirit of my Lord dwelling in me. 
 
 Dutiesand JH. The atoiiing death of Christ is often spoken 
 
 responsi- ^ ^ 
 
 biiities of in Scripture in connection with the duties, 
 
 connected 
 
 with obligations, and responsibilities of his people, in 
 
 Christ’s . ... 
 
 death. sucli a manner as necessarily to imply its restric¬ 
 tion or limitation to them. Two passages, from 
 among many, may be selected which will siifli- 
 ciently illustrate and confirm this branch of the 
 argument. 
 
 1. Tlie first is that remarkable passage in which, 
 writing to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul com¬ 
 pares the marriage tie to that which binds Christ 
 
 Epii. V. and his Church in one (Eiih. v. 23-33). In the 
 
 2S-33. . . . ^ 
 
 Analogy of course of lus reasoning on this topic the apostle 
 
 tlie iTiar- . . 
 
 i-iagetie. assci'ts expre,ssly, and in terms, that Christ “ 
 
 gave 
 
“ CHRIST GAVE HIMSELF FOR THE CHURCH.” 113 
 himself for the Church’' (ver. 2 5. The bare chapter 
 
 IV, 
 
 assertion of that proposition by an inspired writer, - 
 
 in words so unequivocal, might be held sufficient 
 to prove its truth, even if it were only on this 
 one occasion that we found it so clearly and cate¬ 
 gorically expressed. There can be no doubt as to Christ 
 what we are to understand by “ the Church.” sufforthe 
 This is made clear when the object which Christ 
 had in view is declared to be, “ 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 ; but that it should be holy, and 
 without blemish” (ver. 26, 27). For the Church 
 thus defined, and identified beyond question with 
 the multitude of those who are to be ultimately 
 saved, Christ gave himself; for the Church dis¬ 
 tinctively ; for the Church alone. Words can 
 scarcely be plainer than those in which the pro¬ 
 position is affirmed, “ He gave himself for the 
 Church.” But I do not rely upon an isolated 
 proposition, however articulate and unequivocal 
 it may seem to be. I take it in the connection 
 in which it is introduced, for the purpose of 
 enforcing a practical duty—the duty of conjugad 
 afiection. The atoning death of Christ, his giving 
 himself for the Church, is cited as the proof and 
 pledge of that special love of Christ to the Church 
 
 •—special in kind as well as in amount—which is 
 
 8 
 
114 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPTUEAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 to be the model of a Christian man’s love to his 
 bride and spouse : “ Husbands, love your wives, 
 even as Christ loved the Church, and gave himself 
 for it” (ver. 25). The appeal, I maintain, is un¬ 
 meaning, frivolous, and irrelevant, if Christ is to 
 be held as having given himself for any besides 
 the Church whicli he is to “ present,” to betroth and 
 marry, ‘Ho himself, as a glorious Church, without 
 spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.” Upon any 
 such understanding, his having given himself, in 
 his atoning death, is no evidence of his special and 
 fond regard for the Church, which is his bride and 
 spouse. It can be evidence of nothing more than 
 his general good-will towards mankind at large. 
 That, however, is not surely the type of the pecu¬ 
 liar love which husbands owe to their wives. The 
 exhortation is emasculated—its whole pith is 
 gone—if it be any other love than that which 
 Christ has for his own (John xiii. 1), that the 
 apostle brings forward as the motive and the 
 measure of the conjugal love which he is enjoin¬ 
 ing upon believing husbands. And of that love, 
 his ffivinof himself for the Church is no evidence 
 or instance at all, unless his doing so is peculiar to 
 the Church, and to the Church alone. 
 
 2. The other passage is, if possible, still more 
 conclusive. In it the limitation or restriction of 
 the atonement is brought out, not in connection 
 with a relation and obligation of ordinary civil 
 
THE CHURCH PURCHASED WITH BLOOD. 
 
 115 
 
 life and fellowship, but in connection with a tie 
 more directly sacred, and a duty stiictly spiritual 
 and ecclesiastical. In Paul’s affectionate farewell 
 address to the elders or presbyters of the Ephesian 
 Churcli, whom he had invited to meet him at 
 Miletus (Acts xx, 17-38), he reminds them, in 
 the most touching and emphatic terms, of what 
 was incumbent upon them as being pastors as well 
 as rulers in the congregation. After a very solemn 
 assertion of his own faithfulness as a preacher and 
 minister among the Ephesians, in witness of which 
 he appeals not only to God and his own conscience, 
 but to the elders themselves to whom he is speak¬ 
 ing,—“ I take you to record this day, that I am 
 pure from the blood of all men ; for I have not 
 shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of 
 God” (ver. 26, 27),—he exhorts them by his own 
 example to the like faithfulness : ” Take heed 
 therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock over 
 the which the Holy Ghost hath made you over¬ 
 seers, to feed the Church of God, which he hath 
 purcha.sed with his own blood” (ver. 28). It is 
 immaterial, for my present purpose, whether the 
 Church is called here the Church of God or the 
 Church of Christ. The reading which would 
 substitute “ Christ,” or “ the Lord,” for God,” 
 wants manuscript authority, and has too much of 
 the appearance of an alteration introduced to evade 
 the argument for our Lord’s supreme divinity, 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 Acts XX. 
 17 - 38 . 
 
 The 
 Cliurch 
 pui'chascrl 
 with blood. 
 
116 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUEAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 which the verse, as it stands in the received text, 
 suggests. As regards the point now at issue, liow- 
 ever, the meaning is, according to either reading, 
 plain enough. Tlie apostle enforces his exhorta¬ 
 tion to the Ephesian elders to “ take heed to all 
 the flock,” and to “ feed the Church of God,” by 
 two considerations ; the one taken from their 
 peculiar relation to the flock, as having been made 
 its overseers, or bishops, by the Holy Gliost ; and 
 the other founded on God’s own relation to the 
 Church, as having bought it, or purchased it, with 
 blood—the blood of atonement—the bloody and 
 atoning death of the cross. Surely the elders are 
 here taught to ascribe a very peculiar sacredness, 
 involving a very peculiar responsibility on their 
 part, to the flock over which the Holy Ghost has 
 made them overseers, for this very peculiar and spe¬ 
 cial reason,—because, in taking heed to it, they 
 are called to feed those to whom the Lord himself 
 attaches a very peculiar importance and precious¬ 
 ness, as being his own dearly bought Church. If 
 the atonement is of universal extent,—if the blood 
 of Christ was shed for all mankind,—if in conse¬ 
 quence all mankind, being included within the 
 atonement, are purchased by God with that blood,— 
 if, in short, the t*’ansaction indicated by the pur¬ 
 chase is a transaction common to all the race, and 
 not peculiar to a peculiar seed, on whose behalf the 
 Lord has a pecuflar purpose of saving grace ;—I 
 
THE BODY FOR WHICH CHRIST DIED, 
 
 117 
 
 cannot see how the apostle could refer to it as in¬ 
 vesting with any peculiar sacredness and value the 
 Church which pastors have to feed, or as imparting 
 any peculiar delicacy to the office which they have 
 to execute, as if it implied the handling, or deal¬ 
 ing with, the Lord’s peculiar treasure. 
 
 IV. Apart from particular passages in which 
 the limitation of Christ’s death is either explicitly 
 asserted or necessarily implied, according to the 
 fair construction of the Spirit’s meaning, I may 
 refer, in closing this section, to a large family of 
 texts, in which the position assigned to believers, 
 with reference alike to their present attainments 
 and their future prospects, is so described as to 
 require that they—and they exclusively—shall 
 be held to be the body for ■whom Christ died. I 
 need not speak again of their being “ his friends 
 for whom he laid down his life” (John xv. 13) 
 
 •—“ his sheep for whom he laid down his life” 
 (John X. 15). Nor need I dwell on the ground 
 for an irresistible argument a fortiori which the 
 apostle finds in the bare fact of Christ having died 
 for us while we were yet sinners ; that fact being 
 of itself considered as warranting the largest ex- 
 jiectations of good: “ For when "we were yet with¬ 
 out streimth, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 
 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die ; 
 yet peradventure for a good man some -would 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 Believers 
 the body 
 for which 
 Christ 
 died. 
 
118 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Duties of 
 Chi'ist’s 
 people as 
 purchased. 
 
 even dare to die. But God commendetli his 
 love toward us, in that, while we were yet sin¬ 
 ners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being 
 now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from 
 wrath through him” (Rom. v. 6-9). Paul is evi¬ 
 dently speaking of himself and of those to whom 
 he writes as believers. We were once “ without 
 strength,” “ ungodly,” “ sinners,”—chargeable with 
 the guilt, and lying under the doom, of sin. We 
 are now “justified.” We are encouraged to look 
 for more than present justification as sure to come 
 to us through the same channel through which 
 our justification itself comes to us. And it is 
 Christ’s dying for us, and that alone, which is 
 held out to us as the ground or warrant of our 
 hope. It could scarcely be so, in an}’ fair, or valid, 
 or satisfactory sense, if his dying for us was not 
 something peculiar to us, as his people,-—if it was 
 a dying, or death, for all mankind in common. 
 
 How often are the believing people of Christ 
 described and adcRessed by such terms as the fol¬ 
 lowing: “Bought with a price” (1 Cor. vi. 20),— 
 “ Redeemed with his precious blood,” (1 Peter i. 18, 
 19),—“ His purchased possession” (Eph. i. 14),— 
 “His peculiar” or purchased “people” (Titus ii. 
 14). Expressions like these connect the death of 
 Christ with tliem;—and not with them viewed as 
 a part of the human family, sharing a benefit com¬ 
 mon to the whole ; but with them as distinguished 
 
Christ’s people purchased. 
 
 119 
 
 from the Iminan family as a whole,—with them 
 considered separately and by themselves,—with 
 them, and those of like faith with them, specially 
 and strictly,—with them alone. 
 
 This way of speaking of them, and appealing 
 to them, seems to me, I own, to be altogether in¬ 
 explicable on the supposition of Christ’s death 
 being an atonement for the sins of men generally 
 and universally^ Upon that supposition, it is not 
 simply on account of his dying for them that they 
 can be said to be “ bought,” or “ purchased,” or 
 “ redeemed,” in any sense that can distinguish 
 them from others,—from mankind at large. It 
 must be on account of something else,—something 
 additional, at least, if not something quite differ¬ 
 ent—that they are thus distinctively spoken of 
 and appealed, to. It is not simply^ Christ’s death 
 that can furnish the ground and substance of these 
 representations concerning them. His dying for 
 them is not the real explanation and reason of the 
 very peculiar character and standing assigned to 
 them ;—it cannof be so, if it is regarded as in¬ 
 cluding all mankind as well as them. It must 
 be some cause, or consideration, over and above 
 Christ’s dying for them, that accounts for their 
 relation to him being such as to constitute them 
 his “bought,” or “purchased,” or “redeemed” 
 people. But nothing of that sort is in the re¬ 
 motest way hinted at in the numerous passages 
 
120 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 Mark x. 
 45 . 
 
 Privileges 
 and liopcs 
 of Christ's 
 purchased 
 people. 
 
 ill which that relation is asserted or assumed; no¬ 
 thing of that sort is admissible in any of them. 
 The relation, with all its sacred solemnity of obli¬ 
 gation and responsibility, rests wholly and entirely 
 on the fact of Christ’s dying for them. It is that 
 fact which of itself alone constitutes the relation. 
 They are his bought, purchased, redeemed people, 
 for this, and for no other reason whatever,—because 
 he has died for them. They, and their fellow- 
 believers, from the beginning to the end of time, 
 are the “ many,^’ for whom, as he himself says, 
 and not for all, he came “ to give his life a ran¬ 
 som” (Mark x. 45). They belong to him because, 
 dying for them, he has bought them. 
 
 The privileges and hopes, as well as the duties, 
 of which the relation of ownership, or ownedness, 
 thus constituted, is represented as the source and 
 foundation, are of such a kind and character as to 
 confirm the view now given. The preciousness of 
 his people to him, and his preciousness to them, 
 are alike bound up with his dying for them, and, 
 by his dying for them, purchasing them to be his 
 own. As purchased by him, and by right of his 
 dying for them belonging to him,—being his pro¬ 
 perty, bought Avith a price,—he receives for them 
 and bestows upon them the Holy Spirit, for their 
 conversion and sanctification, and for his sealing 
 of them, as his purchased possession, until their 
 redemption is complete (Eph. i. 3-1 3). As thus 
 
chkist’s people purchased. 
 
 121 
 
 purchased by him, he claims for them exemption chapter 
 from all other lordship or dominion, that he alone _ 
 may be their Lord: “ Ye are bought with a price; 
 be not ye the servants of men” (1 Cor. vii. 23). icor. vii. 
 
 23 
 
 Many of the most pathetic representations in the 
 Old Testament, respecting Jehovah’s interest in 
 Israel, and Israel’s interest in Jehovah, derive their 
 full significance from the unfolding, in the New 
 Testament, of the relation of property, founded 
 u]‘)on his dying for them, in which not all Israel 
 after the flesh, but the true Israel according to 
 the Spirit, stand to Jehovah-Jesus. The language Present 
 of penitential grief put, by prophetic anticipation, 
 into the mouth of the Church, implies that, as re¬ 
 deemed and bought by him, she claims him, in his 
 death, as her own : “ He was wounded for our 
 transgressions, he Avas bruised for our iniquities: 
 the chastisement of our peace Avas upon him; and 
 Avith his stripes Ave are healed” (Isa. liii. 5). And 
 if Ave pass from the present scene of trial to the 
 future Avorld of blessedness and glory, hoAv un¬ 
 meaning, upon any theory of a universal atone¬ 
 ment, does the song of the countless multitude 
 before the throne become ! For the burden of 
 that song is the Lamb’s right of property in them, 
 as bought by himself, and for himself, with a price: 
 
 “ Thou hast redeemed us,”—thou hast purchased 
 us, “ with thy blood” (Rev. al 9). Is it their 
 being redeemed or purchased by his blood in 
 
122 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCEIPTUEAL PEOOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Future 
 
 glory. 
 
 common with all mankind everywhere that they 
 thus gratefully acknowledge ? Let them give the 
 reply themselves: Thou hast purchased us to God 
 —“ Thou hast redeemed us to God, by thj^ blood, 
 out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and 
 nation.” The consummation of their joy and tri¬ 
 umph, as made “ unto their God kings and 
 priests,” equally with the commencement of their 
 holiness and peace, they ascribe to the atoning 
 death of the Lamb. And most certainly it is 
 not as a manifestation of Heaven’s righteousness 
 and Heaven’s love common to them and to all that 
 have ever dwelt on the earth,—but as a real and 
 thoroughly effectual sacrifice of atonement for them, 
 and for them alone, whose full salvation it has 
 secured,—that they cease not day nor night grate¬ 
 fully to celebrate that death, as they join in the 
 universal heavenly strain : “ Blessing, and honour, 
 and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth 
 upon the throne, and unto the Lamb, for ever and 
 ever” (Rev. v. 13). 
 
 
QUESTION OF EXTENT OF ATONEMENT, HOW VIEWED. 123 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF—EXAMINATION OF HER. ix. 13, 14 
 —REALITY AND EFFICACY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES OF 
 ATONEMENT. 
 
 “ For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling tlie 
 unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of tlie flesh; how much more shall 
 the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without 
 spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living 
 God?”-—H eb. ix. 13, 14. 
 
 I HOPE it is by this time apparent that I regard 
 the inquiry into the extent of the atonement as 
 important, chiefly in the view of its bearing on 
 the value, virtue, and efficacy of the atonement. 
 Apart from that consideration, the controversy 
 might be left to the schoolmen. What makes the 
 question. For whom did Christ die ? an urgent, 
 vital, and practical question, for the spiritual man 
 as well as the theologian, is, that it involves the 
 question. What did his death actuall}’ effect ? 
 There is a well-known logical maxim. Quo major 
 extensio, minor comprehensio ,—the wider the 
 range of any term, objectively —in its application 
 to persons or things that may be the objects of it— 
 the narrower must be its import subjectively —the 
 less can it include in itself of meaning or of matter. 
 Enlarge the sphere to be embraced within its outer 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
124 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 P.VRT 
 
 I. 
 
 domain, as it were, and you must proportionally 
 limit the amount of its own inherent contents. 
 It must mean less, in proportion as it takes in 
 more ; the greater the number with reference to 
 whom it is to be defined, the less must you put 
 into the definition of it. The maxim is to the 
 point here. It is because the extension of the 
 atonement to all mankind limits its comprehen¬ 
 siveness, as regards what it is to be held as 
 actually effecting and securing for any, that, in 
 common with a great body of evangelical 
 divines, I am apt to shrink from such an exten¬ 
 sion of it. 
 
 The manner in which I have attempted to state 
 the general principles of the Scriptural argument 
 upon the subject must have made this plain enough. 
 To make it still plainer, as well as to prepare the 
 way for that more experimental examination of 
 the same subject which I have in view, I think it 
 expedient to introduce at this stage some remarks 
 on the actual efficacy of an atoning sacrifice, con¬ 
 sidered simply in itself, and with reference to its 
 own essential nature. As the ground of my re¬ 
 marks, I select a pa.ssage in which the inherent 
 virtue, first of the Old Testament sacrifices, and. 
 secondly, of the New Testament sacrifice, is ex¬ 
 pressly asserted, and in a sense defined. The true 
 Scriptural idea of atonement may thus be in some 
 measure ascertained. And the ascertaininc; of 
 
ICXAMINATION OF IIEB. IX. 13, II. 
 
 12.') 
 
 that may help us in the practical questions relative 
 to faith in the atonement of Christ which are 
 afterwards to occupy our attention. 
 
 The text selected (Heb. ix. 13, 14) consists of 
 two parts. It asserts the efficacy of the Old Testa¬ 
 ment sacrifices : “ The blood of bulls and of goats, 
 and the ashes of an heifer sprinkled on the un¬ 
 clean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh.” 
 It infers, a foHiori, the greater efficacy of the New 
 Testament sacrifice: “ How much more shall the 
 blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit 
 offered himself without spot to God, purge your 
 conscience from dead works, to serve the living 
 God?” To the consideration of it, in both of these 
 views, I devote the remainder of this first part of 
 my treatise. In the present chapter, I shall en¬ 
 deavour to fix the exact import of the assertion, 
 that “ the blood of bulls and of goats, and the 
 ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sancti¬ 
 fieth to the purifying of the flesh.” 
 
 The first question, of course, is,—What are the 
 sacrifices, or saci’ificial rites, here indicated ? They 
 are twofold, being connected with two distinct or¬ 
 dinances. 
 
 The first,—“ the blood of bulls and of goats,”— 
 manifestly points to the solemnities of the great 
 day of atonement, as these are described in the six¬ 
 teenth chapter of Leviticus, and referred to in the 
 preceding part of the chapter in the Epistle to the 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
 The pre¬ 
 cise effi¬ 
 cacy of 
 Old Testa¬ 
 ment sa¬ 
 crifices to 
 be ascer¬ 
 tained. 
 
 Tiioseiiero 
 mentioned 
 t wofold. 
 
 The groat 
 annual 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
126 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCErPTURAL PEOOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 The water 
 of separa¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Hebrews now under consideration. It was on 
 that day that the high priest entered into the holy 
 of holies, within the veil, “not without blood, 
 which he offered for himself, and for the errors of 
 the people” (ver. 7). The other ceremonies then 
 observed, and in particular that of the scape-goat, 
 are familiar to every reader of the Bible. They 
 were all, as adjuncts, intimately related to the one 
 august transaction which signalized the day. The 
 high priest, stript of his gorgeous canonicals, attired 
 simply from head to foot in the holy, priestly, 
 linen, passes alone, through the mysterious hang¬ 
 ing that parts the tabernacle in two, carrying with 
 him, into the inner sanctuary, the blood of the 
 sacrifices previously slain on the common altar of 
 atonement; the blood of bulls and of goats, which 
 he “ offers for himself, and for the errors of the 
 people” (ver. 7). Once every year was this done, 
 and once only. 
 
 The second ordinance indicated,—“ the ashes of 
 an lieifer sprinkling the unclean,”—denotes what 
 was called the water of separation. It is described 
 in the nineteenth chapter of Numbers. A red heifei*, 
 spotless, unblemished, unsubdued to the yoke, was 
 led forth by the high priest without the camp, and 
 slain in his presence. The blood was sprinkled or 
 scattered by him, seven times, right in front of tlie 
 tabernacle of the congregation. The carcass was 
 burnt whole, with cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT SACPJFICES “ SANCTIFY.” 127 
 
 Tlie ashes were carefully gathered and laid up in 
 a clean place. When any one contracted defile¬ 
 ment by the touch of a dead body, some small 
 portion of the ashes was put in a vessel, with 
 water from a fresh or running stream; and a clean 
 person, taking a bunch of hyssop and dipping it 
 in the water, thus impregnated with the ashes of 
 the heifer, sprinkled it, on three separate days,— 
 the first, the third, and the seventh,—on the tent 
 and furniture, on the family and household, as well 
 as on the person, of the brother who had become 
 defiled. 
 
 These were the rites. Now what did they do? 
 What were they understood to efiect? 
 
 They are declared to have ‘‘ sanctified to the 
 purifying of the flesh.” 
 
 In the first place, they sanctified. There are two 
 words, in both of the original languages of the Bible, 
 rendered in our translation “holy;” the one meaning 
 a certain moral frame of mind, or a certain moral 
 and spiritual disposition, such as piety, godliness, 
 goodness, graciousness ; the other marking rather 
 the position, or .standing, or destination of any 
 person or thing,—considered especially as recognised 
 consecrated, set apart, to sustain some sacred char¬ 
 acter and fulfil some .sacred function or use. It 
 is with the last of these two words that the sancti¬ 
 fication here spoken of is connected. It implie.s, 
 not a change of moral nature, but a change in 
 
 CHAPTICn 
 
 T. 
 
 VHiat 
 these or¬ 
 dinances 
 effected. 
 They sanc¬ 
 tified. 
 
128 
 
 THE METHOD OP SCRIPT HEAL PROOF. 
 
 r.\RT one’s standing before God ; not a change in the 
 man, but rather a change upon the man; not a 
 change of his affectioas towards God, but a change 
 with respect to his relation to God,—the place 
 which he occupies before God,—the light in Avhiclt 
 God is pleased to regard him. Such a change 
 these sacrificial observances were held to effect, and 
 really did effect. They sanctified. 
 
 To the Secondly, they sanctified, however, only “to the 
 purifying of the flesh.” They conveyed or im- 
 parted purity ;—they made the man pure. Not 
 certainly in a moral sense. There is no question 
 here as to moral purity. The uncleanness for 
 which the water of separation was provided, was 
 not moral. Nay, for that matter, it was not even 
 physical. A man might have to render the usual 
 offices to the dead. Professionally he might 
 handle the lifeless corpse. Affectionately he might 
 imprint a last kiss on the cold lips of his beloved. 
 And all this not only without sin, but even com- 
 mendably. He might accidentally come in con¬ 
 tact with a dry bone, without offence to the nicest 
 and most fastidious sense of cleanliness. The 
 errors, also, for which blood was offered on the 
 annual day of atonement, were what were called 
 sins of ignorance,—breaches of legal order and 
 ceremonial etiquette;—which priests and people 
 might have unwittingly committed during the past 
 year—involvingneither moral guilt nor even bodily 
 
THE PURIFYING OF THE FLESH, 
 
 129 
 
 soil or stain. The purity, therefore, conferred by chapter 
 the observances in question is purity of the flesh in 
 a special sense. It is not inward purity of heart. 
 
 It is not even literal outward purity of body, 
 
 “The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes 
 of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,” cannot cleanse 
 the person, any more than they can take away sin. 
 
 It is purity of the flesh in a sense corresponding to 
 the sense in which these rites are said to sanctify. 
 
 The sanctification which they effect is limited. 
 
 They do sanctify. They do make a real change a real 
 in the man’s position before God. They do actu- elation To 
 ally alter the relation in which the man stands to 
 God. But the change, the alteration, is restricted 
 to the flesh. It has respect to the righting of his 
 position before God, the rectifying of the relation 
 in which he stands to God;—not in a high spiritual Butre- 
 point ot View, as when one passes from a state ot tiie flesh- 
 guilt and condemnation to a state of acceptance 
 and favour with God ; but in a point of view far 
 lower than that, more according to the flesh, or 
 the bodily state of man. 
 
 For, in a word, what is the precise change effected? 
 
 A Jewish worshipper has fallen into an error what the 
 or sin of ignorance, or into more than one. He for the 
 has violated, unawares, some of the rules of the oTthe 
 worship which he is bound to observe, and some 
 of the ordinances which, as a Jewish worshipper, 
 he is bound to keep. He knows that he must 
 
 9 
 
130 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PARI 
 
 I. 
 
 Lave aone so often, during the year, in instances 
 which he cannot specify or recollect. He knows 
 that, in consequence of this, he has forfeited his stand¬ 
 ing as a Jewish worshipper, and has incurred a 
 severe penalty. The penalty which he has in¬ 
 curred corresponds to the standing which he has 
 forfeited. That standing is the standing of one 
 accounted holy, as all the Jewish people were 
 accounted holy unto the Lord. It is the standing, 
 that is, of one whom God looks upon as sacred to 
 himself, and set apart for himself. The penalty, 
 therefore, is, that he is liable to be cut off and cast 
 away. He can no longer claim his place in the 
 camp of God’s people, or in the courts of God’s 
 house. The punishment of expulsion is his due. 
 But the punishment of expulsion, if inflicted, would 
 have been physical and carnal. It would have 
 been his actual bodily removal out of the camp of 
 Israel, and away from the tabernacle of the Lord. 
 What the blood of bulls and of goats did, on the 
 day of atonement, was to prevent the execution of 
 that sentence; to secure to the man, for another year, 
 his right of bodily presence in the places, and his 
 right of bodily participation in the services, from 
 whicli otherwise he must have been excluded as a 
 condemned offender. It did that, and it did nothing 
 more. It “ sanctified to the purifying of the flesh.” 
 
 Or, take the other case. The man happens to 
 touch a body or a bone. He has just been closing 
 
THE PRECISE CHANGE EFFECTED. 
 
 131 
 
 a brother’s eyes, or wrapping in a linen shroud 
 his loved remains. It is an offence, in the eye 
 of the statutory ritual, the law of ceremonies, 
 —an offence entailing punishment. The punish¬ 
 ment which it entails is a loss of standing; 
 the loss of the standing which he has, as a Jewish 
 worshipper, before God, in virtue of his due observ¬ 
 ance of God’s ordinances. If the punishment is 
 executed, he is removed bodily and shut out from 
 whatever privileges that standing infers—in so far 
 as these are privileges from which his bodily ex¬ 
 clusion can debar him. But the water of separa¬ 
 tion is at hand, and the bunch of hyssop to 
 sprinkle it. A dean person applies it thrice. And 
 the sentence of bodily exclusion is reversed. His 
 right of bodily presence is restored. “ The ashes 
 of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,” effects that, 
 and it effects nothing more. It “ sanctifies to the 
 purifying of the flesh.” 
 
 Two conclusions concerning the Old Testament 
 sacrifices may be drawn from these views : They 
 had a real, though limited efficacy. And their 
 efficacy was of the nature of satisfaction, in the 
 strict and proper sense of the term, 
 
 I. They had a real, though limited efficacy. 
 They were typical, no doubt; but they were 
 not merely typical. In fact, they could not have 
 been typical unless they had been real. They 
 were shadows of the better sacrifice of Christ, 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
 Wliat tlie 
 water of 
 separation 
 did at any 
 time. 
 
 Two con¬ 
 clusions 
 respecting 
 the Old 
 Testament 
 sacrifices. 
 
 They had 
 a real effi¬ 
 cacy. 
 
132 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURA.L PROOF, 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Tliey were 
 typical. 
 
 They pointed to it, as signs and symbolical repre¬ 
 sentations of it. In them, Abraham, and the 
 spiritual among the family of Abraham, saw the 
 day of Christ afar off, and were glad.” But they 
 could scarcely have prefigured real efficacy in 
 Clirist’s sacrifice, if they had not themselves pos¬ 
 sessed some real efficacy of their own. I say, some 
 efficacy of their own. For it is not correct to 
 conceive of them as deriving all their efficacy 
 from the better sacrifice which they foreshadowed. 
 It is true that, in so fiir as they were means 
 and instruments of spiritual life, speaking peace 
 to tlie conscience, restoring the soul to the love, 
 and favour, and moi'al image and likeness of God, 
 they did indeed derive all their efficacy from the 
 sacrifice of Christ. For these high ends, they had 
 no sort of efficacy in themselves. They held up, 
 as in a mirror or through a glass, to the eye of 
 faith, “ the seed of the woman bruising the head 
 of the serpent ” (Gen. iii, 15); “ through death 
 destroying him that had the powxr of death, that 
 is, the devil, and delivering those who through 
 fear of death were all their lifetime subject to 
 bondage” (Heb. ii. 14, 15). In the slain bull, or 
 goat, or heifer, faith grasped the idea and the as¬ 
 surance of a higher victim, a worthier ransom, yet 
 to be found. But that did not hinder the appre¬ 
 hension of a real present benefit coming through 
 these sacrifices, and a real present virtue residing 
 
EEAL EFFICACY OF JEWISH SACEIFICES. 
 
 133 
 
 in them. In complying witli them, the intelligent 
 worshipper knew that he Avas not going through 
 an empty form or an idle ceremony;—precious, 
 perhaps, as significant of some transaction to take 
 place ages afterwards, but in the meantime, and 
 for any present purpose, unprofitable and unmean¬ 
 ing. He believed and was sure that by them and 
 through them his condition was actually changed 
 for the better; that they secured to him a stand¬ 
 ing before God which he could not otherwise have 
 claimed or retained; and turned away from him a 
 very serious penalty, to which otherwise he must 
 have been inevitably exposed. Na.y, more. He 
 might understand, and, if well informed, he did 
 understand, how it was that by these sacrifices, 
 and through them, this good came to him. And 
 it was because he understood that—because he 
 could perceive, not only the fact of their efficacy, 
 but the principle and rationale of their efficacy— 
 that he Avas enabled, if he Avas spiritually enlight¬ 
 ened, to discern in them,—Avhat he never otherAvise 
 could haAm guessed,—how there might be blood 
 shed that could do more for him than the blood of 
 bulls and of goats, and a fountain of atonement 
 opened in Jerusalem that Avould suffice for all sin 
 and for all uncleanness. 
 
 II. The efficacy of these Old Testament sacri¬ 
 fices was of the nature of satisfaction, in the strict 
 and proper sense of that term. This was the 
 
 CUAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
 But they 
 were also 
 really effl 
 cacious. 
 
134 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 The prin¬ 
 ciple or 
 cause of 
 their effi¬ 
 cacy— 
 satisfac¬ 
 tion to 
 law. 
 
 Necessity 
 of satisfac¬ 
 tion. 
 
 Nature of 
 law re- 
 (juiring 
 satisfac¬ 
 tion. 
 
 principle or rationale of their efficacy. It was 
 understood to be so by the Old Testament wor¬ 
 shippers. It is of the utmost consequence that 
 it should be seen clearly to be so by us also, if we 
 would rightly estimate the sacrifice of Christ. 
 
 Y Satisfaction is the offering of a compensation, or 
 -an equivalent, for some wrong that has been done. 
 The idea of it is founded on that sense of justice 
 which is inherent and ineradicable in every human 
 bosom. When we see an injury inflicted, resent¬ 
 ment rises within us, and it is not appeased until 
 redress is given to the injured party, and an 
 adequate'retribution inflicted on the wrong-doer. 
 This is an original conviction or instinct of our 
 moral nature. It recognises the necessity of satis¬ 
 faction when a man breaks the law of equity or 
 honour to his fellow-man. It recognises the 
 necessity of satisfaction, also, when a man breaks 
 the law of duty to his God. Its appeal is to law. 
 It is not, however, to law as the generalized ex¬ 
 pression, merely, of what we observe in the se¬ 
 quence of events and the succession of cause and 
 effect, that it appeals; but to law as implying 
 authority and right on the one hand,—obligation 
 and responsibility on the other. 
 
 It would be absurd to speak of satisfaction being 
 given for a breach of the so-called law of gravity, 
 by which a heavy bodj^ when unsupported falls to 
 the ground ; or the law of heat, by which a finger 
 
SATISFACTION FOK BREACH OF LAW, 
 
 135 
 
 thrust into the fire is burned; or any of the laws 
 of health, by which excess breeds disease, and a 
 disordered body makes a disordered mind. Such 
 laws admit of no compensation or equivalent in 
 any case coming instead of the result naturally 
 and necessarily wrought out under them. If I 
 fall, I break the law of gravity in one view, for I 
 have not observed with sufficient care the conditions 
 of my safety under it. But, in another view, it is 
 not broken. It tells upon me, and I take the 
 consequences. There is no wrong here ; no injury 
 for which compensation may be made; no breach 
 demanding satisfaction. If all laws were of that 
 nature—if that were the character of the whole 
 government of God—the idea of satisfaction would 
 be impossible. 
 
 But once let in the thought of moral obligation. 
 Let law be the expression of the freewill of 
 a ruler, binding authoritatively the freewill of 
 the subject. Let it be the assertion of right, and 
 the imposing of duty. Then, when a breach of 
 that law occurs, we instinctively feel that satisfac¬ 
 tion is due. And, to meet the case, it must be 
 satisfaction bearing some analogy and proportion, 
 in its natm-e and amount, to the law that has 
 been broken. 
 
 All this is irrespective of consequences. Apart 
 altogether from a calculation of chances or proba¬ 
 bilities, as to what evil may result from the 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
 Satisfac¬ 
 tion must 
 corre¬ 
 spond to 
 the nature 
 of the law 
 broken. 
 
136 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCEIPTUEAL PEOOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 wrong, and liow that evil may be obviated, the 
 wrong itself is felt to require redress. If the 
 wrong-doer were alone in the universe, we hav e 
 an instinct which teaches us that there ought to 
 be redress; a righteous instinct which craves for 
 redress, and will not rest content without it. And 
 the redress must be either adequate retribution in¬ 
 flicted on the offender, or some fair equivalent or 
 compensation instead. 
 
 Now, this is the principle of the Old Testament 
 sacrifices. They appeal to that instinct, that sense 
 of wrong and craving for redress, of which I 
 have been speaking. The offences committed are 
 breadles of law. They are violations of statutes 
 and ordinances enacted by undoubted authority—■ 
 the authority of the most high God, whose will is 
 law. No doubt they relate to matters of subordi¬ 
 nate importance, such as “ meats and drinks, and 
 divers washings and carnal ordinances.” Even a 
 deliberate and wilful disregard of such ordinances 
 may seem to be no very grave crime. To act 
 against them accidentally, or unknowingly, or 
 from necessity, may be excusable, if not justifiable. 
 Still, God would teach that no law authoritatively 
 given forth by him can be broken, Avithout redress 
 and reparation for the wrong. And the moral in¬ 
 stinct of man approves the lesson. There must be 
 satisfaction for the offence,—the punishment of the 
 offender, or an adequate compensation and equi- 
 
SATISFACTION BY SUBSTITUTION. 
 
 137 
 
 valent, through the substitution of another, as a 
 victim, in his place. 
 
 Surely, however, in such a case, “ the blood 
 of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a hcifei’,” 
 slain in sacrifice, may furnish compensation and 
 equivalent enough. So the moral instinct pleads. 
 And inspired Scripture sanctions the plead¬ 
 ing. These sacrifices are sufficient as a satisfac¬ 
 tion for the breach of that law of carnal or¬ 
 dinances. They “ sanctify to the purifying of the 
 flesh.” 
 
 But, on the very same ground and for the 
 very same reason that warrant as reasonable this 
 conclusion, as to the real efficacy of these sacrifices, 
 within the limits of the law of ceremonies, both 
 the moral instinct and the inspired Scripture de¬ 
 clare their utter insufficiency when transgressions 
 of a higher law are to be dealt with. “ It is not 
 possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should 
 take away sin ” (Heb. x. 4). And both the moral 
 instinct and the inspired Scripture gratefully meet 
 in the argument a fortiori —“ If the blood of 
 bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer 
 sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying 
 of the flesh ; how much more shall the blood of 
 Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 
 himself without spot to God, purge your con¬ 
 science from dead works, to serve the living 
 God?” 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 T. 
 
 Breach of 
 a cere- 
 monialhw 
 compen¬ 
 sated by 
 satisfac¬ 
 tion which 
 will not 
 suffice for 
 violation 
 of the 
 moral law. 
 
138 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCEIPTUKAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Conclu¬ 
 sion as to 
 Old Testa¬ 
 ment sa¬ 
 crifices. 
 
 In what 
 sense they 
 made tlic 
 worsliip- 
 per “per¬ 
 fect.” 
 
 Before proceeding to the examination of that 
 argument, let the sum of what has been ascer¬ 
 tained be stated clearly. 
 
 It may be seen now, not only that there is a 
 point up to which the Old Testament service of 
 sacrifice was really effectual, but, also, that there 
 is a point at which, considered in itself, and apart 
 from its typical reference to Christ, it entirely 
 failed. It made “him that did the service per¬ 
 fect;”—not, indeed, “as pertaining to the con¬ 
 science ” (Heb. ix. 9), but as pertaining to the 
 flesh. It perfectly righted his position with re¬ 
 ference to the law of “ carnal ordinances.” It 
 IDcrfectly absolved him from the guilt, end per¬ 
 fectly delivered him from the penal consequences, 
 of his violation of that law. In that sense, 
 and to that extent, it did actually make 
 him perfect. It made him as whole and en¬ 
 tire,—as unassailable, in respect of his personal 
 standing among the people who were the “ Israel 
 after the flesh” (1 Cor. x. 18), as if he had never 
 forfeited that standing at all. The offence by 
 which he had forfeited it was sufficiently purged,— 
 the law of ceremonies, in terms of which he had 
 forfeited it, was sufficiently vindicated,—by a 
 merely animal victim being substituted for him, 
 and put to death in his stead. 
 
 But there is another law, in terms of which he 
 has forfeited a higher standing. It is the law, 
 
LAW MORAL AND CEREMONIAL. 
 
 139 
 
 not of ceremonies, but of conscience—the moral 
 law of God—the law of holiness, the law of love. 
 His position, as regards that law, is not so easily 
 rectified. For meeting his case under it, some¬ 
 thing more is needed than the slaying of a bull, 
 or goat, or heifer, or lamb, as the substitute of the 
 breakers of it. 
 
 A Jewish worshipper, fresh from participation 
 in the great transaction of the annual day of atone¬ 
 ment, or freshly sprinkled with the atoning water 
 of separation, might warrantably consider and feel 
 himself to be “ perfect.” He might assert or re¬ 
 sume his place among the “ Israel after the flesh,” 
 challenging all and sundry to gainsay his perfect 
 title to be there, to find any flaw or fault in him, 
 “ as pertaining to” the fle.sh. But he must still hang 
 his head and smite upon his breast,- as his con¬ 
 science charges him wuth the breaking of that law 
 which says, “ Thou shalt love;” and which says 
 also, “ Thou shalt not lust.” 
 
 Ah ! he may exclaim, what can such a sacri¬ 
 ficial service as thi.s, that has made me perfect,— 
 sound enough and safe enough as pertaining to 
 the flesh,—what can it avail to make me “ perfect 
 as pertaining to the conscience?” Would that I 
 had one who might an.swer and make satisfaction 
 for my violation of God’s eternal and unchange¬ 
 able law of holiness and love, as thoroughly as 
 that slaughtered animal is held to answer and 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
 In what 
 sense tliey 
 couH not 
 make the 
 worship¬ 
 per “per¬ 
 fect.” 
 
140 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 rAPvT 
 
 I. 
 
 Behold the 
 Lamb of 
 God! 
 
 make satisfaction for my breach of the law of 
 ceremonies ! 
 
 And so thou hast, if thou art “ an Israelite in¬ 
 deed, in whom there is no guile” (John i. 47). 
 “ Behold the Lamb of God, wliich taketh away the 
 sin of the world” (John i. 2.9). See in that 
 divine victim, bleeding on the tree of shame and 
 condemnation, one who may indeed be a worthy 
 substitute for thee—for all, for any, of the lost 
 children of men. This infinitely precious ransom 
 thine offended God provides for thee, and gra¬ 
 ciously accepts on thy behalf. He takes upon 
 himself all the guilt that wounds thy soul, bears 
 its doom for thee, and opens up ihe way into the 
 holiest for thee to enter in with him ! And, lo ! 
 
 •,4 
 
 when thy sin finds thee out at any^ time, a divine 
 agent is ever ready to dip the bunch of hyssop in 
 the stream that is ever flowing fresh from that 
 pierced side, and to sprinkle thee—again and 
 again, as thou needest it, to sprinkle thee—that 
 thou mayest be clean indeed ! 
 
 “ Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean ; 
 wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow.” So, 
 beholding the day of Christ afar off, a spiritual 
 Israelite intelligently and believingly prays. And 
 on the faith of that great atonement, accomplished 
 by the Son, and applied by the Spirit, of God 
 himself Most High, he presents himself within the 
 veil, with this gi’ateful acknowledgment of sin 
 
SIN AND GRACE. 
 
 141 
 
 and of grace,—of sin otherwise expiated than 
 by any substitute he can himself present, and of 
 grace so abounding, through a ransom of the Lord’s 
 own finding, as to melt the whole inner man in 
 tears of godly sorrow,—“ Thou desirest not sacri¬ 
 fice, else would I give it; thou delightest not in 
 burnt-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken 
 spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, 0 God, 
 thou wilt not despise” (Ps. li. 7, 16, 17). 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
142 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Christ’s 
 
 death 
 
 compared 
 
 witli the 
 
 Levitical 
 
 Bacriflces. 
 
 Tills im¬ 
 plies iden¬ 
 tity of 
 virtue. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF—EXAMINATION OP HER. ix. 
 13,14—THE ARGUMENT “A FORTIORI” FOR THE ATONING 
 EFFICACY OF THE SACRIFICE OP CHRIST. 
 
 “ For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the 
 unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the 
 blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without 
 spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works, to serve the living 
 God?”— Heb. ix. 13, 14. 
 
 The fact that the blood of Christ is compared 
 with the blood of bolls and of goats, and of the 
 heifer whose ashes formed the basis of the water 
 of separation, is a proof that it is to be regarded as 
 of the same nature—as possessing a virtue of the 
 same kind. The contrast between the two has 
 reference to the amount or measure of that virtue. 
 The comparison upon which the contrast proceeds 
 assumes the identity of the virtue in both. The 
 death of Christ stands in the same category with 
 the slaying of the animals appointed by the Levi¬ 
 tical law to be sacrifices. It is an event or trans- 
 action of exactly the same sort, of the same import 
 and significancy. Whatever, therefore, has been 
 established as to the meaning and efficacy of the 
 Old Testament sacrificial service must in fairness 
 be held to apply to “ the decease accomplished at 
 
chkist’s death a real sacrifice. 143 
 
 Jerusalem.” That procedure, viewed in the light of chapter 
 the divine purpose and ordination, is as truly and 
 literally the substitution of a chosen victim, in the 
 room and stead of parties who themselves deserve 
 to die, as was the bringing in and bringing forward 
 of the choice of the herd or flock, to have the 
 offence committed by any of the people visited 
 upon its innocent and uncomplaining head. 
 
 Here, therefore, we are entitled to take theAiioitiio 
 benefit of whatever force there is in the considera- stwctiy 
 tions already urged to prove the strictly piacular character, 
 character of the Old Testament sacrifices, as well 
 as their actual virtue and power to make satis¬ 
 faction for the violation of law. By being placed 
 on precisely the same footing, the New Testament 
 sacrifice is clearly represented as having the same 
 character, as being endowed with the same virtue 
 and power. It is strictly piacular,— it is a proper 
 satisfaction for the violation of law. Upon this 
 sure foundation of acknowledged identity of nature, 
 the argument by way of contrast, and a fortiori, 
 firmly rests. Otherwise there would be no sense 
 or relevancy in the question which is so confidently 
 and triumphantly put by the apostle ; “ If the 
 blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an 
 heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
 purifying of the flesh ; how much more shall the 
 blood of Christ, who througli the eternal Spirit 
 offered himself without spot to God, purge your 
 
144 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 The con¬ 
 trast 
 founded 
 upon the 
 compari¬ 
 son. 
 
 Tlie sacri¬ 
 fices con¬ 
 trasted in 
 respect of 
 intrinsic 
 value. 
 
 conscience from dead works, to serve the living 
 God?” (Heb. ix. 18, 14.) 
 
 The contrast is exhibited in two views. On 
 the one hand, the superior intrinsic worth and 
 value of the New Testament sacrifice is mao-nified 
 
 o 
 
 in comparison with that of the Old Testament 
 sacrifices. Over against “ the blood of bulls and 
 of goats, and the ashes of an heifer,” is set “ the 
 blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit 
 offered himself without spot to God.” On the 
 other hand, the actual result got by the sacrifice 
 of Christ is celebrated, to the loss and damage of 
 these other sacrifices. They “ sanctified to the puri¬ 
 fying of the fiesh this sacrifice “purges the con¬ 
 science from dead works, to serve the living God.” 
 
 PART FIlfST. 
 
 The sacrifices in question are contrasted in respect 
 of their inherent or intrinsic worth and value. In 
 that view, the superiority of the New Testament 
 sacrifice will sufficiently appear upon a considera¬ 
 tion of these two particulars : I. What is the offer- 
 ing; ? II. How is it made ? The victim substituted 
 in place of the breakers of law is first to be con¬ 
 templated. Then, secondly, tire manner of the 
 substitution. 
 
 I. Instead of a bull, a goat, a heifer, or any 
 
WHAT IS THE OFFERING 1 
 
 145 
 
 other sacrificial animal, what victim is presented 
 , to our notice ? What have we here set up in 
 opposition to these sacrifices of the olden time, 
 as having power to purchase or procure right of 
 access into the Holiest, and also to cleanse those 
 whom at any time the touch of death, or of dead 
 works, has defiled and slain? The blood of Christ; 
 the “ obedience unto death ” of Christ; the suffer¬ 
 ings of Christ; the cross of Christ;—“ Christ and 
 him crucified.” 
 
 “ Behold the Lamb of God! ” Contemplate him 
 who is thus introduced. There is none like him 
 in all the universe !—the blessed Immanuel!—the 
 glorious, gracious, Jehovah-Jesus ! There is a 
 worth in him which neither men nor angels shall 
 be able throughout aU eternity to estimate. In 
 him alone are united the unchanged essence of the 
 uncreated Godhead and the highest perfection of 
 created manhood. One with God, one also with 
 man, he has a standing before God as the repre¬ 
 sentative man, the second Adam, the Lord from 
 heaven ; he has a position in the presence of God, 
 a place in the favour of God, which none can chal¬ 
 lenge,—the full joy of which none can imagine. 
 He is in the Father’s bosom, his beloved Son, in 
 whom he is well pleased. 
 
 If in any way this illustrious person may be¬ 
 come to us what the sacrificial animals were to 
 the worshippers of old,—if he comes in place of 
 
 10 
 
 CHAPTJ.P. 
 
 VX. 
 
 Thu vic¬ 
 tim 
 
 offered. 
 
 / 
 
146 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PAST 
 
 I. 
 
 The man¬ 
 ner of the 
 offering. 
 
 them, to serve the very same purpose which they 
 served, and be a sacrifice of the very same nature 
 with them,—this surely is far more, infinitely 
 more, than adequate satisfaction for those breaches 
 of the law of ordinances for which they were pro¬ 
 vided. It may well be available for something 
 more than they could effect. It will do more 
 than “ sanctify to the purifying of the flesh."' 
 
 And is it so ? Does he, does this Son of God 
 and Son of man, become precisely what these 
 animals were held to be, and really were, when 
 they were slain ? Does he stand in the very same 
 relation to a broken law that they did, to com¬ 
 pensate for the breach of it, to relieve the breakers 
 of it, by suffering in his own person what is equi¬ 
 valent to their being punished themselves ? Does 
 he thus actually make satisfaction, as these sacri¬ 
 fices did ? That is the teaching of the apostle, 
 when he reasons concerning the death of Christ as 
 being identically of the same character with the 
 death of the bull, the goat, the heifer, slain of old 
 in sacrifice. Beyond all fair question this identity 
 is assumed in the argument. They are the same 
 in kind. The difference is one of degree. But 
 that difference, how immense ! On the one side 
 the blood of bulls and of goats, the ashes of a 
 heifer. On the other side, the blood of Christ! 
 
 II. Besides the infinite worth of the victim 
 offered, there are circumstances in the manner of 
 
HOW IS THE OFFERING MADE ? 
 
 147 
 
 Ills being offered that* enhance the intrinsic value chapter 
 ° . 'Vi¬ 
 and efficacy of the sacrifice. ■—• 
 
 In the first place, he offered himself. His Christ 
 
 offered 
 
 offering of himself was voluntary and spontaneous, himseif. 
 It was necessary that it should be so. It was not 
 so, it was not necessary that it should be so, in 
 the case of the Old Testament sacrifices. When 
 the law that is broken, the offence that breaks it, 
 and the penalty which the breach of it infers, are 
 all of such a nature as to admit of adequate satis¬ 
 faction being made by the substitution and the 
 slaying of a bull, a goat, a heifer, consent is out 
 of the question. But when it is one capable of 
 choice that is to be offered, consent is indispensable. 
 
 To drag an unwilling victim to the altar,—to 
 force an innocent person into the place of many 
 guilty, and compel him, in his own person, and by 
 his own personal obedience and sufferings, to render 
 what may be a just equivalent for the punishment 
 which they have deserved,—this, so far from being 
 a satisfying of law, is a new and aggravated viola¬ 
 tion of it. If the office is to be undertaken and 
 the service rendered at all, it must be by a volun¬ 
 teer. Only one who is in a position to offer 
 himself can meet the case. This is not, of course, 
 the only condition. One might be willing to be¬ 
 come the sacrifice, who might not be competent 
 or adequate. An angel might be willing, but an 
 angel would not suffice. There can be no objec- 
 
148 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUEAL PROOF. 
 
 PAK? 
 
 I. 
 
 Through 
 the eter¬ 
 nal Spirit. 
 
 Without 
 
 spot. 
 
 tion, however, on that score here. Worthy is the 
 Lamb that is slain. And with his own full con¬ 
 currence and consent is he slain. He does not 
 shrink at the last from what must have appalled 
 any other, however willing at the first. Knowing 
 all its bitterness, he drinks the cup. 
 
 Secondly, through the eternal Spirit he offered 
 himself. This is an expression which has been 
 variously understood. It is confessedly of very 
 difficult interpretation. On the whole, however, 
 there does not seem to be any sufficient reason 
 for not applying it, as it may most naturally be 
 applied, to the third person of the Godhead, the 
 Holy Ghost. That divine agent was deeply and 
 actively concerned in this great transaction. 
 Christ was anointed with the Holy Ghost. He 
 received not the Spirit by measure. He was led 
 by the Spirit when he was led as a lamb to the 
 slaughter. The Holy Ghost was with him, upon 
 him, in him, all throughout. This, indeed, is one 
 chief i')roof and token of the concurrence of the 
 undivided Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost 
 —in the sacrifice. It is when the Sj^irit descends 
 upon Christ like a dove that the Father’s com¬ 
 placency is declared, and a voice from heaven pro¬ 
 claims : “ This is my beloved Son, in whom I am 
 well pleased.” 
 
 • In particular, thirdly, it was through the eternal 
 Spirit that he offered himself without spot to God. 
 
THE OFFERING VOLUNTARY AND SPOTLESS. 
 
 149 
 
 It was necessary tliat he should do so. And it 
 was through the eternal Spirit that he was able 
 to do so. He must be “without spot,” or without 
 fault; himself unstained by the uncleanness which 
 he has to purge; not himself involved in that 
 breach of law for which he has to make compen¬ 
 sation. For one who is in his own person and on 
 his own account liable to be dealt with as an 
 offender, to offer himself as a substitute in the 
 room of other offenders, would evidently be a new 
 offence to the majesty of law; adding, as it were, 
 insult to injury. That this fatal objection may 
 not lie against Christ when he offers himself, he 
 offers himself through the eternal Spirit. The 
 Holy Ghost prepares for him a body, a holy human 
 nature, in the Virgin’s womb. Conceived and 
 born by the power of the Holy Ghost, he is with¬ 
 out spot of sin, either hereditary or personal. He 
 is, therefore, competent to offer himself to make 
 satisfaction for the sins of others. 
 
 Thus, in every view and on every ground, 
 Christ our sacrifice is exalted above the sacrifices 
 of old. Tlie transcendent excellency of his person ; 
 his own free clioice and consent; the gracious con¬ 
 currence of God his Father, signified by the pres¬ 
 ence and co-operation of the eternal Spirit; and 
 the spotless, faultless innocence, righteousness, 
 holiness, which the eternal Spirit secured to him, in 
 his birth as well as in his life,—all combine to 
 
150 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCEirTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PAM 
 
 r. 
 
 Piactical 
 conclu¬ 
 sions from 
 the supe- 
 I'ior intrin¬ 
 sic value 
 of the New 
 Testament 
 sacrifice. 
 
 1. It meets 
 a worse 
 case than 
 was pro¬ 
 vided for 
 by the Old 
 Testament 
 sacrifices. 
 
 2. It 
 teaches 
 the holi¬ 
 ness of 
 law, and 
 the ex¬ 
 ceeding 
 sinfulness 
 of sin. 
 
 stamp a character of infinite worth, value, and 
 efficacy on this Christ, if he is indeed to be, as 
 in fact he is, “ Christ our passover, sacrificed for 
 us” (1 Cor. V. 7). 
 
 Even apart, therefore, from what the text 
 teaches concerning the actual benefits conferred by 
 this sacrifice, from the comparison of it with the 
 Old Testament sacrifices, in respect of its inherent 
 worth and value, several important practical con¬ 
 clusions may be drawn. 
 
 1. The case to be met must be inconceivably 
 worse than the case for which the^e other sacri¬ 
 fices were provided. But for the blood of atone¬ 
 ment and the water of separation, the worshipper 
 in the camp of Israel must often have been in a 
 poor and miserable plight. He was liable at any 
 moment to be an outcast. And if* his condition 
 was so sad, since such sacrifices were deemed need¬ 
 ful to amend it, what must ours be, since to amend 
 it a sacrifice so incalculably more valuable must be 
 found ? But for that sacrifice, what must be my 
 state? What is it if, with all its efficacy for any 
 sinner, that sacrifice is not effectual for me ? 
 
 2. The law requiring cleanliness of the person 
 •—physical or ceremonial purity,—holiness of the 
 body, as it were—among these old worshippers, 
 was so strict, that the very touch of a bone in¬ 
 ferred defilement, and was an offence. And the 
 offence was so grave and serious, that nothing but 
 
WHAT EVERY SIN DESERVES. 
 
 151 
 
 either the signal punishment of the offender, or, 
 instead of that, satisfaction given by the shedding 
 of vicarious blood, could repair the wrong done, 
 and meet the law’s demand of redress. What 
 shall we say of the law to which the sacrifice of 
 Christ has reference, and of sin as the transgres¬ 
 sion of that law ? It is the law of perfect purity 
 and perfect love. It is the law also of supreme 
 authority, which says. Thou shalt, and Thou shalt 
 not. What shall we say as to the strictness of 
 that law,—what shall we say as to the breaking 
 of that law, —when we contemplate the amazing 
 satisfaction re'quired ? 
 
 I point you to the blood of Christ,—to Christ, 
 through the eternal Spirit, offering himself without 
 spot to God,—that you may see, and know, and 
 feel what every sin deserves. I ask you, for the 
 present, to discard from your mind any view of 
 that event which would encourage speculation as 
 to its bearing either on your own reformation and 
 renewal, or on the prevention, in regard to 
 others, of the evil issues of your conduct. I bid 
 you look to that cross as a r^l transaction. Un¬ 
 derstand and be thoroughly assured that you have 
 there presented to you the only possible alterna¬ 
 tive. Either Christ offers himself for you, or you 
 inevitably perish. 
 
 Dismiss, meanwhile, I say, all reasoning as to 
 the tendency which that scene on Calvary has to 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
152 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 3 . It mag¬ 
 nifies tlie 
 love of 
 God. 
 
 mould your own heart into conformity with its 
 love, and to warn or win those whom your unlov¬ 
 ing behaviour may have estranged. Come and 
 deal with this great fact. 
 
 You have sinned once, and but once. It is a 
 solitary offence. You are penitent. There are 
 none to be influenced or affected by the treatment 
 which you receive. It is a secret sin. And God 
 may keep it secret for ever. But yet know that 
 the alternative is, as to that one solitary, secret sin, 
 —Christ suffers, or you perish. Yes; though you 
 were the only one in the universe that had ever 
 sinned, and though that were your only sin. 
 Such is God’s estimate of law, and of sin as the 
 transgression of law. 
 
 8. And what, in this view, shall be said of 
 love,—the love of God,—of God the Father, the 
 Son, and the Holy Ghost ? Bring the matter to 
 this issue, and there is love. Otherwise there is 
 but policy. Take any one, even the best, of those 
 modified representations of the sacrifice of Christ 
 which make it hinge, not on the question. What 
 does every sin in itself deserve ? but on the ques¬ 
 tion, What are likely to be the consequences of its 
 being punished or forgiven ? They all carry you 
 out of the region of consciousness and of con¬ 
 science. They presume almost that you may sit 
 beside God and consult with God as to what may 
 be best, on the whole, and in the long-run, for the 
 
THE LOVE OF GOD IN CHRIST PERSONAL. 
 
 153 
 
 universe at large. They give a painful impres¬ 
 sion of a sort of divine diplomacy, to which you 
 are asked to be parties. And instead of exercis- 
 ing your own conscience upon your own sin, and 
 every sin of yours, known or unknown, secret or 
 open, they carry you off into some general idea of 
 the way in which the world may best be governed, 
 and the greatest amount of good made to consist 
 with the smallest quantity of evil. 
 
 All the while, real, personal love on the part of 
 God is unfelt. It must be so. God is a schemer, 
 not a lover; a schemer for the whole, not a lover 
 of individuals. There may be love in his scheme. 
 The arrangement which he adopts for reducing 
 evil to a minimum, and extracting the maximum 
 of good, may indicate even infinite benevolence. 
 It is the benevolence of cold, impersonal, general¬ 
 izing system, however; as if one should contrive a 
 machine which, with more or less of inevitable 
 suffering, is yet, in the main, to work well for the 
 general good. I admire ; I adore; in a sense I 
 believe. But it is a cold abstraction at the best. 
 
 Take me now away from all these generaliza¬ 
 tions ; take me to the cross of Christ. Let me there 
 see, in the unknown sufferings of that august and 
 altogether lovely substitute, what every sin of mine 
 deserves. Let me be made to apprehend how for 
 every sin of mine I must have perished, or Christ 
 must have made satisfaction in my stead. Then 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
 General 
 
 benevo¬ 
 
 lence. 
 
 Personal 
 
 affection. 
 
154 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Wliat the 
 Bacritice of 
 Christ 
 effects. 
 
 1. It 
 
 purges the 
 conscience 
 from (lead 
 works. 
 
 “ herein is love; not that I have loved God, but that 
 he hath loved me, and hath given his Son to be 
 the propitiation for my sins.’' It is not a coup 
 d’etat —a stroke of government. It is love, redeem¬ 
 ing love, to me,—to me personally—to me, the 
 chief of sinners. 
 
 PART SECOND. 
 
 The sacrifice of Christ is compared and con¬ 
 trasted with the Old Testament sacrifices, not only 
 in respect of what it is—its intrinsic worth, value, 
 and efficacy,—but also in respect of what it does 
 —its real and actual effects. It “purges the 
 conscience from dead works." And it so purges 
 it, for “ the service of the living God.” 
 
 The first effect of this sacrifice is, that it purges 
 the conscience from dead works. It can scarcely 
 do otherwise, it cannot well do less, if it is of the 
 same nature with these Old Testament sacrifices, 
 and if it is yet, at the same time, in itself so in¬ 
 comparably more valuable and efficacious. 
 
 What, let me ask again, did these sacrifices 
 effect for the worshipper ? They procured for him 
 exemption from his liability to be cut off; they 
 secured his right standing as an Israelite before the 
 Lord. Without the blood of bulls and of goats— 
 without the ashes of the heifer to sprinkle him—• 
 the unclean man was no better than one dead. 
 As to the position, and as to all the privileges, of 
 
“ DEAD works”—“ THE BODY OF THIS DEATH.” 155 
 
 an acceptable worshipper, he was virtually dead, 
 or rather really doomed to die. His work about 
 that dead body which he has touched, or whicli 
 has touched him, has brought him into the same 
 state of death in wdiich it is. And all that he 
 does while in that state partakes of this death. 
 It is a dead work he has been concerned in ; and 
 only dead works can come of it, until the blood is 
 shed, the ashes are sprinkled ; when, lo ! the man 
 is a worker with death, a dead worker, no longer. 
 The taint of that dead work he was about when 
 the dead body was in contact with him, as well as 
 the taint of the dead works he has been about 
 ever since, is all gone. He lives as if no shadow 
 of that death had ever fallen on him. He lives 
 as being “ sanctified to the purifying of the flesh.” 
 
 Put now for the flesh, the conscience ; for the 
 carcass which defiles and slays, put sin. 
 
 I have to do with sin ; I touch it; it touches 
 me. My trafficking with sin, dallying with sin, 
 negotiating with sin, is a work of death. And 
 all my works thereafter, while I am on that tack, 
 as it were, or in that line, are works of death. 
 Defilement is in them all, and death. The defile¬ 
 ment and the death affect my conscience. My 
 conscience is the seat of them. It is not my body, 
 but my conscience, that is defiled and dead. 
 Guilt and condemnation are in and upon my con¬ 
 science. Woe is me ! what shall I do ? Who 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
PART 
 
 1 . 
 
 156 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 shall deliver me from tne body of this death ? 
 How shall I ever get rid of these dead works ? 
 My offence—the offence of my original contact 
 with sin, the growing and accumulating offence of 
 my subsequent continuance in sin—is as a sort of 
 mortal nightmare, a dead weight and load on my 
 conscience. I feel that I must suffer the punish¬ 
 ment, that I must bear the doom. I cannot satisfy 
 the law which I have broken otherwise than by 
 suffering the punishment and bearing the doom. 
 That is what the law demands. It is fair ; it is 
 equitable ; it is reasonable ; it is just. I see and 
 own it to be so. The offence must be purged ; 
 the wrong must be redressed; and I most right¬ 
 eously must be lost for ever. 
 
 Lost! Yes, unless one can be found able and 
 willing to stand for me and answer for me,—to 
 offer and consent in his own person to undergo 
 what may be accepted as a full equivalent for all 
 that I have deserved to suffer. 
 
 And, lo! here is one, near me, beside me— 
 Jesus, still, as it were, bleeding for my deadly 
 sins ; Jesus, really and actually travailing in soul 
 for me; Jesus, making full satisfaction, by his own 
 endurance of the curse of the law in my stead, for 
 all the guilt of all my violation of it. 
 
 I look, and looking, I believe ;—the same eter¬ 
 nal Spirit through whom Christ offered himself 
 without spot to God, giving me an insight into what 
 
CHANGE WEOUGIIT BY CHRIST’S BLOOD. 
 
 157 
 
 that offering of himself really means, and making 
 me willing to acquiesce in it. Then the dead 
 body I have touched falls away from me; the 
 death which it has communicated to me—the 
 death with which it has infected me—is srone 
 
 O 
 
 from me. The guilt and condemnation of my 
 deadly sins—of that first deadly sin of my sur¬ 
 render to evil, and of all the deadly sins that have 
 followed upon that surrender—I now consciously, 
 believingly, rejoicingly put off; as thoroughly and 
 as gladly as ever worshipper of old put off his 
 liability to the punishment of uncleanness, when, 
 by the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes 
 of an heifer sprinkling his uncleanness, he was 
 “ sanctified to the purifying of the flesh.” The 
 blood of Christ, who through the eternal Sjiirit 
 offered himself without spot to God, purges my 
 conscience from all these dead works. Their 
 guilt, theii* condemnation, cleaves to me no more. 
 
 The second effect of the sacrifice of Christ is, 
 that it enables us to serve the living God. This 
 is the consequence and result of that first effect of 
 it, its purging the conscience from dead works. 
 It is the end to which that is the means. The 
 conscience being purged from dead works—our 
 being acquitted of guilt and delivered from con¬ 
 demnation—is not the ultimate design; it is not 
 the principal object, with a view to which Christ 
 through the eternal Spirit offei’ed himself without 
 
 CHAPTEB 
 
 VI. 
 
 2. It fits 
 for serving 
 the living 
 God. 
 
158 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 spot to God. He did so that we, whose con¬ 
 science is thus purged, might serve God—that we 
 might serve him as the living God. 
 
 Our “ dead works” are in marked antithesis here 
 —in strong antagonism—to “the living God.” Our 
 works are dead ; our God is living. Our works, 
 if we continue and go on in them, condemn us 
 more and more. Every one of them has sin in 
 it. Every one of them is deadly. Every one of 
 them—our best and brightest virtue, as well as 
 our worst vice—is a dead work. The corrupting 
 element of guilt and condemnation is in it; for we 
 who do it are guilty and condemned. That is 
 death. And that death belongs to all our works, 
 and vitiates and deadens them all. 
 
 But now, believing, let us get rid of this death. 
 Let us get rid of it, first, as it adheres to our¬ 
 selves personally. Let us leave our works alone. 
 We cannot put life into them, nor can they put 
 life in us. They are dead, the best of them as 
 well as the worst of them ;—all of them are dead. 
 
 But our God, the God to whom Christ through 
 the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot, 
 liveth,—he is the living God. 
 
 Come, therefore, hampered, hindered, embar¬ 
 rassed, and encumbered no more with any of these 
 works;—not with the worst of them, for their 
 deadliest guilt is cancelled;—not with the best of 
 them, for the best of them has guilt that can be 
 
CONSCIENCE PUEGED. 
 
 159 
 
 cancelled only by the blood of Christ. Come, all chapter 
 
 VI. 
 
 these dead works apart—away with them all!— - 
 
 Come, let us serve the living God ! 
 
 We serve him now on a new footing. There 
 is no more death ; no more guilt and condemna¬ 
 tion. No more is there any sentence of death 
 hanging round our necks, and giving a deadly 
 character to all our doings. We serve him as 
 the living God; who lives himself; who would have 
 us to live in serving him ; who would have us to 
 render to him, the living God, a living service. 
 
 A guilty criminal is dead, and his works are 
 dead. The burdened conscience is dead, and its 
 works are dead. A guilty criminal, therefore, 
 with a burdened conscience, cannot serve the 
 living God. But if the blood of Christ purge our 
 conscience from dead works, we are not now guilty 
 criminals; our conscience is not now burdened. 
 
 Living now ourselves, we are in a position to serve, 
 
 “ in newness of life,'’ the living God. 
 
 Thus there is a double change wrought by the change 
 blood of Christ; or, rather, there is a double wrought 
 aspect in which the change wrought by it may of Christ, 
 be viewed. It destroys death, and imparts life . Instead of 
 It puts an end to a state of death, and originates in the 
 a state of life. And both the death and the life—^ 
 the death ended and the life begun—belong to the 
 sphere of our inner spiritual experience. This is 
 
160 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 Identifica¬ 
 tion of 
 victim and 
 ■worsliip- 
 per. 
 
 the mam distinction between the change which 
 the New Testament sacrifice has efficacy to accom¬ 
 plish, and the change wliich the Old Testament 
 sacrifices could effect. Both are changes affecting 
 my relation to God—my title and fitness for serv¬ 
 ing God. The one, however, at the utmost, only 
 puts me right with God in respect of my outward 
 standing, and qualifies me for a service which is 
 in itself dead, having nothing in it of the real life 
 of the living God. The other, again, puts me 
 light with God in respect of my whole moral and 
 spiritual being ; myself, my whole self, my very 
 self, as a conscious, free, and willing agent, it puts 
 right with God. And it qualifies me for a service 
 of the same nature with him whom I serve,^—for 
 “ serving the living God,”—“ worshipping him who 
 is a spirit in spirit and in truth.” 
 
 This difference of result necessarily flows from 
 the difference between the victims in the two 
 cases respectively. The principle is the same in 
 both—the principle, I mean, of my personal inter¬ 
 est in the power or virtue of the sacrifice. It is 
 this : I become one with the victim—with what¬ 
 ever it may be that is offered in sacrifice. I am 
 identified with the victim. Voluntarily I identify 
 myself, and the law identifies me, with the victim. 
 I die in the victim’s death. The death of the vic¬ 
 tim is my death. 
 
 The victim is a bull, or goat, or heifer. Well; 
 
IDENTITY OF WORSHIPPER AND VICTIM. IGl 
 
 it dies by the sentence of the law of ceremonies. 
 In its death I die. The sentence, therefore, so far 
 as I am concerned, is passed and over. It has 
 been executed, and there is an end of it. I am 
 as I was previous to the sentence being incurred. 
 There is here an identification between tlie victim 
 and me. But it is very imperfect in itself and in 
 its issue. It is little or nothing more than an ex¬ 
 ternal, formal, and bodily union—the sprinkling 
 of blood or of ashes on my body—and it gives me 
 no other, no better life than I had before. 
 
 But the victim now is Christ. The identifica¬ 
 tion is of Christ with me, and of me with Christ. 
 The eternal Spirit, by whom he offered himself, 
 makes me a part of him in bis doing so. By the 
 eternal Spirit preparing for him, not only a body 
 in the Virgin's womb, but a body in the womb of 
 “ the Church of the first-born,” Christ offered him¬ 
 self—himself in his body natural, himself in his 
 body mystical—without spot unto God. Into that 
 body of Christ—into Christ himself—the eternal 
 Spirit shuts up me, believing. The victim and 
 the worshipiier—Clirist and I—are now iden¬ 
 tified ; identified by the eternal Spirit. I am one, 
 not Avith a senseless animal, who can but fall un¬ 
 conscious under the sacrificial knife. I am one 
 with him who says, “ I am he that liveth, and was 
 dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore ” (Rev. 
 i. 18). I am one with him in his death, in its 
 
 11 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
162 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 I. 
 
 I am cru¬ 
 cified with 
 Christ, 
 and he 
 liveth in 
 me. 
 
 terrible reality, in its blessed efficacy. By the 
 power of the eternal Spirit, and by my own con¬ 
 sent, I am one with him;—“ crucified with Christ.” 
 And the life in which, for himself, that death was 
 swallowed up, is as really mine as the death. For 
 me, as for him, death under the sentence of the 
 law’—the death of guilt and condemnation, the 
 death of being without God, forsaken by God, 
 under the curse—is over for ever. He has en¬ 
 dured it for me. I endure it in him. And the 
 life—for he liveth still—is mine. With no dead 
 victim, continuing dead, am I united and identi¬ 
 fied; but with Christ, the living Lord. And not 
 outwardly, in a bodily fashion, but inwardly, with 
 heart and soul, I am united and identified with 
 him. “ I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless 
 I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me : and 
 the life wdiich I now live in the flesh I live by 
 the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and 
 gave himself for me” (Gal. ii. 20). 
 
 Such is the efficacy of the atoning sacrifice of 
 Christ, on which, as its basis, the gospel of the 
 grace of God proceeds, in the wide and unrestricted 
 call which it addresses to all men ; inviting all men 
 to come and consent to be saved in terms of it. 
 It is indeed a sufficient basis for such a call. And 
 it may be seen to be so if it is viewed in the 
 light of the two Old Testament sacrificial services 
 
WAY INTO THE HOLIEST OPEN. 
 
 163 
 
 or ordinances, to both of which it answers, as it 
 fulfils the functions of both. 
 
 I. It opens the way into the holy of holies,— 
 the holiest of all; not for the High Priest alone, 
 but for all the people ; not once a year, but once 
 for all. Come, enter in, all of you ; at once, and 
 once for all; never to be cast out again. 
 
 See ! The veil is rent in twain. The inner 
 glory of the house of God is disclosed. There is 
 the Holy One, shining forth from between the 
 cherubim, over the mercy-seat, pacified toward 
 you ; for the High Priest has entered in, not with 
 the blood of others, but with his own. See 
 the heavens opened, and Jesus at the right hand 
 of God. Look ! He beckons to you. He invites 
 you to draw near. Hark ! He calls,—“ Come unto 
 me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I 
 will give you rest” (Matt. xi. 28). 
 
 Nay, look again; open your eyes and see. 
 That gracious, glorious High Priest comes forth 
 himself,—he is ever coming forth,-^to take you 
 by the hand and lead you in. He is near you 
 now, that divine and human priest and victim in 
 one, -who through the eternal Spirit offered him¬ 
 self Avithout s[)ot to God. Is not that eternal 
 Spirit even now, through the word, showing you 
 this Christ as thus near to you ? Not arrayed in 
 awful pomp and state ; not thus is he near you ;— 
 but meek and lowly in heart, as in the daj’ when 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
 The sacri¬ 
 fice of 
 Christ 
 opens the 
 way, once 
 for all, into 
 the holiest. 
 
164 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTURAL PROOF. 
 
 I’AKT 
 
 I. 
 
 lie took a little child into his arms ; clothed simply 
 in the pure white robe of his own righteousness, 
 with which he is ready to clothe you. 
 
 Sinner, whosoever thou art, I tell thee that this 
 Christ is come out from that holy place, for thee, 
 this day. It is I, he says; be not afraid. Behold 
 my hands, my feet, my side. He would carry 
 thee, this very day, even now, in with him into 
 that rest of his. No guilt of thine need hinder 
 thee, for his blood cleanses from it all. No law 
 can challenge thee, for he answers for all. Wilt 
 thou not suffer him ? Arise! awake! “ The Master 
 is come, and calleth for thee.” The way into the 
 holiest is open. Every claim is met ; every just 
 demand is satisfied, God is waiting to be gracious; 
 his reconciled countenance is lifted up upon thee. 
 Ah ! why hesitate, poor sinner ? In with thee at 
 once, and once for all. In, I say. In, with thy 
 living, loving Saviour. He wills that thou shouldest 
 be with him where he is. 
 
 Hien what bliss is thine evermore, henceforth ! 
 To be with Christ within the veil, in the true 
 holy place !—in the bosom of Ins Father and 
 thy Father, his God and thy God ! For now in 
 Christ we have access into that grace wherein we 
 stand. We go no more out. Our right of con¬ 
 tinual access none henceforth can question. “We 
 draw near,” we are continually drawing near, “ with 
 true hearts, in full assurance of faith, having our 
 
FOUNTAIN OPENED FOP SIN, 
 
 1G5 
 
 hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our 
 bodies washed with pure water” (Heb. x. 22.) 
 
 II. For this again is another good office which 
 the sacrifice of Christ does for us. It supplies the 
 water of separation, the fresh running stream, 
 impregnated with atoning virtue, that may be 
 ever, from time to time, sprinkled on us anew, as, 
 in the commerce of an evil world, and in the 
 communings of a deceitful and desperately wicked 
 heart, we are ever apt to come in contact with 
 dead bones, and dead men, and dead works, again. 
 This is the “ fountain opened in the house of David, 
 and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for 
 uncleanness” (Zech. xiii. 1). It is ever flowing, 
 to wash the soiled body ; to create in us a clean 
 heart again ; to refresh us when we are weary; 
 to heal us when we are sick ; to revive us when 
 we are like to faint and die. 
 
 “ My little children,” says the beloved apostle, 
 “ these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. 
 And if any man sin, we have an advocate with 
 the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And he 
 is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours 
 only, but also for the sins of the whole world” 
 (1 John ii. 1, 2). 
 
 How is it with thee, brother, even now ? Art 
 thou drawing near? Art thou where Isaiah was? 
 (ch. vi.) Seest thou what Isaiah saw? Feelest 
 thou as Isaiah felt ? Art thou in the holiest, 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
 TI\e sacri¬ 
 fice of 
 Christ pro¬ 
 vides for 
 the con¬ 
 tinual 
 cleaiisinfc 
 of the soul 
 from sin. 
 
166 
 
 THE METHOD OF SCRIPTUEAL PROOF. 
 
 PART 
 
 1 . 
 
 in the very presence of thy God ? Seest thou the 
 Lord high and lifted up ? Hearest thou that 
 voice resounding through all heaven ? Holy ! 
 holy ! holy ! Woe is me ! for I am undone. I 
 see as I never saw before the uncleanness of my 
 lips. I feel as I never felt before the uncleanness 
 of my own lips, and the uncleanness of the lips of 
 the people among whom I dwell;—and the deep 
 guilt, moreover, of my insensibility to the unclean- 
 ness of both. Long forgotten sin rushes on my 
 memory. Conviction of recent backsliding flashes 
 on my conscience. Nathan has startled me from 
 my soft sleep in the lap of sense by the abrupt 
 appeal: “ Thou art the man ! ” I am undone. 
 Within the very courts of the house of my God—in 
 the very arms of his mercy—in the light of his re¬ 
 conciled countenance, I am undone. I am so very 
 Aule; so miserably weak ; always resolving, and yet 
 always sinning;—it is vain to strive any more —I 
 cannot stand—I am a lost man. 
 
 Nay, my brother: the altar is there still, as firm 
 as ever ; the sacrifice is on it still, as fresh as ever ; 
 the eternal Spirit is in it still, as ready as ever to 
 make a new and fresli application of all its efficacy 
 to thy case. Even now he flies, as in haste, lest 
 thou shouldst despair and die. Taking a live 
 coal from off the altar, he flies ; he lays it on thy 
 mouth, and says, “ Lo, this hath touclied thy lips; 
 and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin 
 
NO MORE SACRIFICE FOE SIN. 
 
 167 
 
 purged.” He sprinkles clean water upon thee, and 
 thou art clean. 
 
 Rise then, brother, with conscience purged 
 again from dead works, to serve the living God. 
 To serve him—how ? Hay, hearest thou not 
 “ the voice of the Lord saying, Whom shall I send, 
 and who will go for us Wilt thou not, with 
 purged conscience and quickened soul, gladly and 
 gratefully reply, “ Here am I, Lord; send me ? ” 
 “ Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do ? 
 
 And what, 0 what shall I say to any who will 
 still continue far from God ? What but this ?— 
 “ How shall we escape if we neglect so great salva¬ 
 tion ? ” “ It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands 
 of the living God I” “ There remaineth no more 
 sacrifice for sin ! ” 
 

 f 
 
 
 
 
 
 I • 
 
 I 
 
 . ♦ 
 
 > 
 
 I I /. > 
 
 1> ‘'A O . ; ^ < 
 
 *-'•-. -v,*-: ‘ 
 
 
 * 
 
 •;. *.V 
 
 I- • X . 
 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE QUESTION VIEWED IN ITS PRACTICAL RELATION TO THE 
 GOSPEL CALL AND THE ACCEPTANCE OF IT BY FAITH. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 THE UNIVERSAL DISPENSATION OP GRACIOUS FORBEARANCE—ITS 
 CONNECTION WITH THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 The objection felt to the Calvinistic view of the 
 Atonement, as apparentl}^ limiting the love of God, 
 may be put in two ways. It may be,put, if we 
 may so speak, in the interest of mankind at large, 
 simply as such. Or it may be put in the interest 
 and on behalf of earnest and inquiring souls. In 
 the former point of view, it is chiefly a theoretical 
 or doctrinal difficulty that demands solution; tlie 
 difficulty of harmonizing the universal and im¬ 
 partial benevolence of God with a provision of 
 mercy that is restilcted, special, and discriminat¬ 
 ing. In the other point of view, the difficulty 
 assumes more of a practical character. It touches 
 the experience of the individual sinner, when his 
 sin is finding him out ; when it becomes a matter 
 of life and death with him to get firm hold of 
 Christ as his Saviour ; and when, as it is alleged. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. 
 
 Objection 
 to the Cal¬ 
 vinistic 
 view may¬ 
 be put in 
 two ways. 
 
170 
 
 DISPENSATION OE FOKBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 n. 
 
 Tlmoreti- 
 cal and 
 practical 
 
 The first 
 considered 
 in tliis and 
 the follow¬ 
 ing chap¬ 
 ter. 
 
 this restriction of the efficacy of Christ’s death 
 interposes a formidable barrier, I frankly own 
 that it is in this last point of view that the diffi¬ 
 culty or objection seems to me to be most entitled 
 to respect and sympathy ; and, accordingly, I in¬ 
 tend to deal with it, in that aspect of it, somewhat 
 fully; being anxious to show how completely the 
 sinner’s case is met by the Calvinistic doctrine, and 
 by it alone. I consider it enough to devote the two 
 opening chapters of this second part of the treatise 
 to the explanation and vindication of the Divine 
 consistency in tlie bearing of the atonement upon 
 mankind at large; especially as regards the uni¬ 
 versality of the dispensation of forbearance which 
 it procures,, and the warrant and encouragement to 
 believe which it holds out. 
 
 A limited That the death of Christ, or his work of obedi- 
 
 atoiiemeiit . 
 
 lias a ence unto death, considered in the light oi a 
 adverse ^ satisfaction rendered to divine justice, and an 
 wards^the atonement made for human guilt, was undertaken 
 and accomplished for the elect alone,—or, in other 
 words, that they for whom Christ died are those 
 only who shall infallibly be saved,—is a doctrine 
 which seems to have an adverse look towards the 
 world at large, and to embarrass the tree procla¬ 
 mation of the gospel as a message of mercy to all. 
 Tlie feeling is apt to arise that there is something 
 like an inconsistency or incompatibility between 
 
171 
 
 ARGUMENT “ AD SILENTIUM.” 
 
 this restriction of tlie design and efficacy of the chaptes 
 great propitiation to a limited and predetermined — 
 number of the race, and those Scriptural represen¬ 
 tations Avhich suggest the idea of the widest and 
 most comprehensive range and sweep being the 
 characteristic of that love to the race, as a whole, 
 of which the great propitiation is the expression. 
 
 The question, therefore, is in the circumstances 
 not unnatural or unreasonable : Has the cross of Universal 
 Clu'i'st no relation at all, of any soib, to all man- tlie cross 
 kind universally, whether elect or not ? If it has 
 not, how is tlie aspect of universality, which in its 
 open exhibition undoubtedly belongs to it, to be 
 explained ? If it has, of what sort is the re¬ 
 lation which it bears to all, as distinguished 
 from the relation Avhich it bears to those who by 
 means of it are actually saved ? 
 
 One answer to such an inquiry is obvious ; and itnniver- 
 it is an answer which, if the inquirer is in earnest, affects 
 and is simply solicitous about what is practical am/ro-°” 
 and personal in religion, should be lield sufficient, luy. 
 if not to satisfy, yet at least to silence ; The con¬ 
 dition of all men, in respect of present duty and 
 ultimate responsibility, is materially affected by 
 the fact of such a sacrifice of atonement being- 
 provided, or, at least, by the publication of that 
 fact. It does not leave them where it finds them. 
 
 Those who have had the gospel preached to them, 
 and have rejected it, incur an immeasurably 
 
172 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEAKANCE. 
 
 PART heavier load of guilt than if they had never heard 
 . “h the joyful sound. So the Lord Jesus expressly 
 and repeatedly testifies. And even as regards the 
 heathen,—in so fiir as God, in his providence, gives 
 them any hint or any information on the subject 
 of his long-suffering patience and love, in its 
 connection with a mediatorial economy of grace, 
 —they also are on that account the more inexcus¬ 
 able. In this sense and to tliis effect the death 
 of Christ has undoubtedl}^ a universal bearing. 
 Whoever comes to the knowledge of it, in propor¬ 
 tion to the clearness of his knowledge of it^ is the 
 worse for it if he is not the better. His crimi¬ 
 nality is aggravated, if he refuses to submit to God 
 and be reconciled to God, upon the footing of those 
 proposals of peace for which the death of Christ 
 opens up the way. So far the solemn truth in 
 Its exact this matter is plain enough. As to anything 
 men uni- ' further, — as to any exact definition or description 
 not alliy , of the precise nature of the bearing which the 
 explained. Cliiust lias upon the world at large, in 
 
 cludingthe unbelieving portion of it,—an intelligent 
 advocate of the Calvinistic view will be inclined 
 to bid the inquirer consider that on a subject of 
 this sort Holy Scripture may very possibly be 
 found to furnish no adequate materials for explicit 
 statement; it being the design of revelation to 
 exercise faith rather than gratify curiosity, and to 
 leave many speculative difficulties unsolved till the 
 
FOEBEARANCE OF A GRACIOUS SORT. 
 
 17.3 
 
 light of eternity dawns on the comparative dark¬ 
 ness of time. 
 
 Still, however, while all that is true, it is at the 
 same time most important that the actual state of 
 the case should be ascertained and explained. In 
 this view, and with reference to the universal 
 aspect of the atonement, there is a great fact to 
 be asserted, and there are certain inferences from 
 it to be vindicated, according to the Scriptures. 
 
 It is, then, a great fact, that the death of Christ, 
 or his work of obedience and propitiation, has pro¬ 
 cured for the world at large, and for every indi¬ 
 vidual,—the impenitent and unbelieving as well 
 as the “ chosen, and called, and faithful,^’—certain 
 definite, tangible, and ascertainable benefits ; — 
 benefits, I mean, not nominal, but real; and not of 
 a vague, but of a w^ell defined and specific char¬ 
 acter. Of these the first and chief,—that which 
 in truth comprehends all the rest,—is the univer¬ 
 sal grant to all mankind of a season of forbearance, 
 
 ■—a respite or suspension of judgment,—a day or 
 dispensation of grace. 
 
 This measure of forbearance on the part of God 
 is uniformly represented in Scripture as having 
 reference to his plan of mercy and salvation, and 
 as designed to be subservient to the carrying out 
 of that plan. So the Apostle Paul speaks when 
 he appeals to the man who is reckoning on ultimate 
 impnnity and neglecting present grace : “Despisest 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 1 . 
 
 It pro¬ 
 cures a 
 universal 
 dispensa¬ 
 tion of for 
 bearance. 
 
 The dis¬ 
 pensation 
 of forbear¬ 
 ance gra¬ 
 cious in its 
 character. 
 
174 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART thon the riches of his goodness, and forbearance, 
 - and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness 
 of God leadeth thee to repentance?” (Rom. ii. 4). 
 To the same effect, and in the same connection, 
 the Apostle Peter also testifies,—having in his 
 mind, as he tells us, this very saying of his “beloved 
 brother Paul,”—“ The Lord is not slack concern- 
 ' ing his promise, as some men count slackness, but 
 is long-suffering to us-ward, not willing that any 
 should perish, but that all should come to repent¬ 
 ance upon which view of the motive and pur¬ 
 pose of the divine forbearance he founds the point¬ 
 ed exhortation, “ Account that the long-sufferino; of 
 
 Sets in God is salvatioii ” (2 Peter hi. 9-15). This mea- 
 
 inotion _ _ ^ 
 
 the means sure of forbearance, accordingly, is further repre- 
 
 of grace. 
 
 sented as implying that there is put in motion a 
 system of means, and agencies, and influences, 
 fitted in their own nature to lead men to God, and 
 sufficient in amount and cogency to leave them 
 without excuse if they continue ignorant of him 
 and alienated from him. Thus Paul and Barnabas, 
 addressing the people of Lystra, and speaking of 
 the forbearance of God, who “in times past suffered 
 all nations to walk in their own ways,” adds the 
 explanation which gives its proper character to that 
 forbearance : “ Nevertheless he left not himself 
 without witnes.s, in that he did good, and gave us 
 rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, fiUinff our- 
 hearts with food and gladness” (Acts xiv. 17). 
 
FORBEABANCE THROUGH CHRIST’S DEATH. 
 
 175 
 
 Ill ihe same strain Paul discourses at Athens chapter 
 
 (Acts xvii. 22-31), and reasons with the Chiu'ch -- 
 
 at Rome (Rom. i. and ii.); demonstrating at length 
 that, in his long-suffering towards the heathen, 
 
 God gave them, in his works around them, and in 
 the voice of conscience within them, light that 
 should have sufficed to keep them in the know¬ 
 ledge of himself. Thus even to them the dispen¬ 
 sation of forbearance is described as having a 
 
 character of grace. Much more must it be evident 
 that it possesses such a gracious character when it 
 is signalized by the proclamation of the Gospel 
 and the imstitution of the Church. For then it 
 must be held to include all the ordinances of 
 God’s word and worship, together with those com¬ 
 mon operations of the Spirit which are fitted to 
 render these ordinances effectual to salvation. 
 
 The connection between this universal dispen¬ 
 sation of gracious forbearance and the atonement 
 as its procuring cause, is asserted by manifest im¬ 
 plication in the whole strain, scope, and spirit of 
 the teaching of Scripture on the subject. One 
 passage, in particular, may be selected, as biinging 
 out the connection very explicitly. In his most 
 systematic exposition of the great doctrine of jus¬ 
 tification, the Apostle Paul traces back that bene¬ 
 fit to the “ free grace of God” as its source, and 
 to the “redemption that is in Christ Jesus” as the 
 channel through which it flows to the guilty; and 
 
 Dispens.T- 
 tion of foi-- 
 l)eavance 
 ascrilietl to 
 the deatli 
 of Christ. 
 
17G 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 TAET 
 
 II. 
 
 Rom. iii. 
 25, 26 
 
 The riglit- 
 eousness 
 of God de- 
 chiied or 
 vindi¬ 
 cated. 
 
 he immediately adds: “Whom God hath set forth 
 to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to 
 declare his righteousness for the remission of sins 
 that are past, through the forbearance of God ; to 
 declare, I say, at this time his righteousness : that 
 he might be just, and the justifier of him which 
 believeth in Jesus” (Rom. iii. 25, 26). 
 
 In this clear and unequivocal statement of the 
 apostle, the dispensation of long-suffering patience 
 and the dispensation of saving mercy are, as it 
 would appear, equally ascribed to the interposition 
 of Christ and his finished work of redemption. It 
 is intimated that “ God hath set forth Christ to 
 be a jiropitiation, through faith in his blood, to 
 declare his righteousness;” which expression—“his 
 righteousness”—is explained in the following verse 
 to mean his justice : “ That he might be just,” 
 or might be declared or seen to be just—that the 
 rio^hteousness of his administration mmht be vin- 
 dicated and magnified. 
 
 That is not, indeed, the usual meaning of the 
 expression in this epistle. In all other places it 
 must be taken to denote the righteousness—not 
 subjective as regards God, but objective—which 
 he has provided, and of which he has accepted, in 
 the person and work of his own beloved Son ; that 
 justifying righteousness which is “ unto all and 
 upon all them that believe” (Rom. iii. 22); which, 
 as a rimiteousness bv faith, is revealed in order to 
 
THE EIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOT) DECLARED. 
 
 177 
 
 faith (Kom. i. 17); and of which in another epistle chaptkr 
 Paul speaks as “ not his own righteousness, which —^ 
 is of the law, but that which is through the faith 
 of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by 
 faith” (Phil. iii. 9). In the passage now before 
 us, however, it seems clear that it is the attribute 
 or principle of justice, as characteristic of God’s 
 nature and administration, that we are to under¬ 
 stand by that “ righteousness ” of his, which, as 
 the apostle intimates, needs to be “ declared,” or 
 manifested and made illustrious. 
 
 And the point to be observed is, that there are In liistwo- 
 two things represented as calling for that “ declara- delung 
 tion ” of this “ righteousness;” two aspects of God’s 
 providence in dealing with men which otherwise 
 must appear anomalies and inconsistencies. The 
 first is, his “ passing over sins that are past, through 
 forbearance,” (Rom. iii. 25, marg). The second is, 
 
 ‘Giis justifying him that believeth in Jesus” (ver. 
 
 26). His past exercise of forbearance, and his 
 present ministry of justification, are the two acts 
 which might seem to impeach the rectitude of his 
 moral government and touch or tamper with the 
 sanctions of his law, but for his “setting forth” 
 or “foreordaining” (ver. 25, niarg.) “ Christ to be 
 a propitiation, through faith in his blood.” 
 
 The distinction here is, in the first instance, a 
 distinction between the general character of God’s 
 treatment of men before Christ came into the 
 
 12 
 
178 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FOPvBEARANCB. 
 
 PAr.T 
 
 ji. 
 
 Tho dis¬ 
 pensation 
 of long- 
 suffering 
 and tlie 
 dispensa¬ 
 tion of jus¬ 
 tifying 
 grace. 
 
 world, and the peculiar grace of the gospel dis¬ 
 pensation. The former is, as has been seen, else¬ 
 where described by this same apostle as a sort of 
 connivance, on the part of God, in comparison with 
 the urgency and universality of bis subsequent 
 appeal: “ And the times of this ignorance God 
 winked at; but now commandetb all men every¬ 
 where to repent.'’ In these “ times past be suf¬ 
 fered all nations to walk in their own ways ” (Acts 
 xiv. 16); whereas now he would have all men to 
 “ turn from lying vanities unto the living God ” 
 (ver. ] 5). It is plain, however, that even thus 
 viewed, the distinction in question does not turn on 
 the dates of these dispensations of forbearance and 
 of justification respectively, nor on the era of tran¬ 
 sition from a period when the dispensation of for¬ 
 bearance prevailed to a period characterized by the 
 prominency of the dispensation of justification. It 
 turns really on their difference in nature from one 
 another, and on their bringing out God’s twofold 
 manner of dealing with the children of men,— 
 his showing forbearance to all, and his justifying 
 them that believe. We are to remember, also, 
 that before Christ’s coming, thouo-h the leadinq; 
 feature of God’s providence was his letting men 
 alone, he never left himself without a witness,—he 
 always had a ministry of justification going on ; 
 while since that time, though his appointment is 
 more clear and unequivocal, that an aggressive 
 
FORBEARANCE AND SAVING GRACE. 
 
 179 
 
 system is to be plied towards the whole world— 
 whose inhabitants, instead of being let alone, and 
 havino; their “ times of isfiiorance winked at,” and 
 being “ suffered to walk in their own ways,” are 
 all to be pressed to accept of a fuller grace—still, the 
 wonder of mercy is God’s forbearance—the sus¬ 
 pension of his judgment—his passing by sins so 
 many and so heinous—sins, too, aggravated by 
 the rejection of the offered Saviour. On the whole, 
 therefore, we may understand the passage under 
 review as discriminating the respective natures, 
 rather than the dates, of these two dispensations, 
 and as connecting both of tlieni equally with the 
 “ setting forth of Christ to be a propitiation.” It 
 is that transaction whicli, whether as regards the 
 history of the world at large, or as regards the 
 history of its individual inhabitants, justifies God 
 in both of these modes of dealing with men. 
 Without it, or apart from it, he could neither ex¬ 
 ercise long-suffering nor impart justification, except 
 by a compromise of his righteousness—a sacrifice 
 and surrender of that all-important and essential 
 attribute of his character and administration. 
 
 It is to be observed, liowever, that this can be 
 said only of a dispensation of forbearance wliich 
 is gracious in its character and tendency, having 
 in it gracious means and infiuences of a saving- 
 tendency. It is only such an exercise of long-suf¬ 
 fering towards the guilty that needs any such vindi- 
 
 CHAPTKR 
 
 I. 
 
 Both dis¬ 
 pensations 
 connected 
 with 
 
 Chiist be¬ 
 ing “ set 
 forth to be 
 a propi¬ 
 tiation.” 
 
180 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The gra¬ 
 cious cha¬ 
 racter of 
 the dis¬ 
 pensation 
 of forbear¬ 
 ance 
 
 proved by 
 its con¬ 
 nection 
 with the 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
 There 
 might 
 have been 
 a suspen¬ 
 sion of 
 judgment 
 not of a 
 gracious 
 character. 
 
 cation of God’s righteousness as the atoning death 
 of Christ is declared to furnish. It is an additional 
 proof, therefore, of the dispensation of forbearance 
 being really gracious—granted in love and meant 
 for good—that it is so expressly associated with 
 that highest instance of the Divine benevolence, 
 God’s gift of his Son to be the propitiation for sin. 
 This great transaction—the setting up on eartli of 
 the cross of Christ—is that which makes it plain, 
 in the eyes of all intelligences, that God is still 
 just, when, in his long-suffering patience, waiting 
 to be gracious, he spares for an appointed season 
 a whole guilty race and all its guilty member,s, as 
 well as when he freely and graciously justifies them 
 that believe in Jesus. 
 
 For it is possible to conceive of another sort of 
 dispensation of forbearance that might have been 
 extended to fallen man, and that would have re¬ 
 quired no such vindication. • There might have 
 been reasons for sparing mankind, irrespectively 
 altogether of the atonement, and although no such 
 provision of grace had ever been contemplated. 
 Thus, for the sake of illustration, we ma}^ venture to 
 conceive of the alternative before the Divine mind, 
 upon man’s commission of sin, having been decided 
 otherwise than he was pleased to decide it, in his 
 eternal counsels. We may imagine that instead of a 
 gracious purpose to save any, there had been a right¬ 
 eous and lioly determination to leave all to,*[ierish. 
 
JUDICIAL FORBKARANCE. 
 
 181 
 
 Even on such a supposition, the earth, cursed for 
 man’s sake, might have been preserved for a season. 
 The final judgment and conflagration might have 
 been delayed. The race of sinners might have 
 been suffered, or ordained, to increase and multi¬ 
 ply, till the full number of the generations of 
 Adam’s children should be completed, and all in 
 succession should individually and collectively give 
 evidence of their participation in his guilt and cor¬ 
 ruption, by bringing forth, from the seed of original 
 sin, the bitter fruit of actual transgressions. By 
 their own deeds, virtually consenting to the deed 
 of Adam and concurring in it, they might have 
 been appointed to manifest personally each one of 
 them his own iniquity, in order that, in the final 
 and universal ruin, the righteousness of the Judge 
 of all might be all the more conspicuously vindi¬ 
 cated and glorified. 
 
 This, indeed, maybe regarded as but too probable 
 a result, or rather the inevitable result, of such a 
 purpose of inexorable judgment Avithout redemption 
 as I have dared to indicate. For it was not with 
 fallen man as it was with the fallen angels. These 
 last completed their apostasy at once. They may, 
 indeed, like the race of man, have been dealt with 
 by God upon that footing or principle of repre¬ 
 sentation Avhich seems to characterize so generally 
 his providential government of his intelligent crea¬ 
 tion. They may have been led on in their rebel- 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 I. 
 
 On the 
 supposi¬ 
 tion of 
 there be¬ 
 ing no re¬ 
 demption. 
 
 Difference 
 between 
 the fail of 
 tile angels 
 and tlnit 
 of man. 
 
182 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 JIankind 
 
 have been 
 Bjiared till 
 all had by 
 their own 
 sin sealed 
 their own 
 doom. 
 
 lion by an individual of their number, either chosen 
 by themselves or appointed by God to be their cap¬ 
 tain and head; and it may have been ordained 
 that by his conduct they were to stand or fall. 
 In their case, also, as in the case of mankind, it 
 may have been a single offence, committed in the 
 name of the disobedient by a single and selected 
 surety, whicli signalized their disloyalty, and sealed 
 their character and fate. There is, however, a 
 very obvious difference. In the probation of the 
 angels, all the parties on whose behalf the trial 
 was made being alread}^ in existence, and capable 
 of giving voluntary consent, the execution of the 
 sweeping sentence might be swift and summary. 
 But in the case of man, had there been no remedy 
 provided, we must believe that the whole progeii}’’ 
 of Adam, whom, in his probation, he represented, 
 would still have been brought into being. They 
 were not in existence when he, as their head and 
 representative, was tried and fell. They must 
 have come into existence, in successive generations 
 after him. Is it not, then, a fair and probable 
 presumption, that all would have been suffered, one 
 after another, each individual for himself, to show 
 what was in them ? None would have been taken 
 away in infancj^. None Avould have passed from 
 earth before opportunity had been given them on 
 earth to manifest, by their own wicked works, 
 their practical acquiescence and complicity in the re- 
 
THE DEATH OF INFANTS. 
 
 183 
 
 bellion of tlieir first father. Under such an arrange- chapter 
 inent the reality and universality of the imputed - 
 guilt and transmitted taint of his original apostasy 
 would have clearly appeared, and the condemna¬ 
 tion of all his posterity would have been proved 
 to be inevitable. 
 
 I have ventured to say, that, upon the supposi- The death 
 tion now made, none would have died in infancy, would 
 All would have lived on until their actual as well 110 place 
 as original iniquity was full. Hence it follows dispensa- 
 that the death of little children must be held to pended^'^^' 
 be one of the fruits of redemption. It is a blessed 
 consequence or corollary which may thus be drawn 
 from what I cannot but regard as an all but cer¬ 
 tain, if not even a self-evident, assumption. If 
 there had been no atonement, there would have 
 been no infant death. It is on account of the Their 
 
 death the 
 
 atonement that infiints die. Their salvation is fruit of 
 
 Clil'isUs 
 
 therefore sure. Clirist has purchased for himself purchase, 
 the joy of taking them, while yet unconscious of 
 guilt or corruption, to be with him in paradise. 
 
 That any little children at all die,—that so many 
 little children die,—is not the least among the be¬ 
 nefits that flow from his interposition as the Saviour. 
 
 There is great satisfaction in this thought. In 
 many ways, I apprehend, it may be inferred from 
 Scripture that all dying in infancy are elect, and are 
 therefore saved. Our Lord’s special love to little 
 children,—his taking them into his arms and bless- 
 
184 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FOEBEAEANCE. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 ing them,—liis saying- “ Of such is the kingdom 
 of heaven,’'—cannot but suggest this hope. The 
 apostle’s argument (Rom. v. 14, 1 5) on the subject 
 of imputation fairly implies that as they are in¬ 
 volved in the deadly disease of sin, “ though they 
 have not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s 
 transgression,” so they are interested equally in 
 the life-giving remedy of the gospel. The whole 
 analogy of the plan of saving mercy seems to 
 favour the same view. And now it may be seen, 
 if I am not greatly mistaken, to be put beyond 
 question by the bare fact that little children die. 
 Their dying while yet innocent of actual sin— 
 their being thus “taken from the evil to come” 
 —is of itself a proof of their being “ righteous,” in 
 the righteousness of Christ (Isa. Ivii. 1). When 
 thej^ die, it is because he says, “ Suffer the little 
 children to come unto me, and forbid them not.” 
 
 It is true that early death is usually depre¬ 
 cated in Scripture as a heavy calamity; and in 
 particular, the death of a little child is represented 
 as a sore stroke, and sometimes also a heavy judg¬ 
 ment, to its parents. It was so in the instance of 
 David, when Nathan announced it as the punish¬ 
 ment of his sin in the matter of Uriah : “ And 
 David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the 
 Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord 
 also hath put away thy sin ; thou shalt not die. 
 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given 
 
SALVATION OF INFANTS. 
 
 185 
 
 great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to bias- chapter 
 pheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall —L 
 surely die"’ (2 Sam. xii. 13, 14). It is true, also, 
 that in the glorious state of things described by 
 Isaiah (Ixv. 17-25), the death of infants seems to 
 be referred to as a special source of sorrow, as well 
 as a peculiar token of sin, from which that period 
 is to be exempt. Nor, indeed, is it possible to 
 conceive of any more affecting proof of the malig¬ 
 nity and power of sin, than the sight of one who 
 has never sinned after the similitude of Adam’s 
 sin, or of our sin—the new-born babe, guiltless 
 of actual transgression—yet, on account of sin, 
 doomed to suffer, to languish, and to expire, often 
 in convulsions of pain. The heart round which 
 the tie of a new affection has bemin to twine 
 
 O 
 
 itself, cannot but be smitten to the dust when the 
 bond is thus rudely and prematurely cut in twain; 
 and recognising the melancholy ravages of the 
 destroyer, where shall it find rest but in a scene 
 from which this sad disaster is excluded ? But Infents 
 all this is quite consistent with the opinion that 
 
 Tin home from 
 
 to die in infancy is a privilege procured by the the evu to 
 death of Christ for those who are thus early car- 
 ried away ;—that but for his interposition, all the 
 children of Adam would have lived to heap the 
 guilt of their own wilful iniquities, besides their 
 inherited sin, upon their own heads ;—that it is a 
 part of his purchase to have many of his seed 
 
186 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 given to liim to be regenerated and sanctified from 
 the womb, and of these to have so large a propor¬ 
 tion taken early home to be with him where he is. 
 
 This idea which I here venture to throw out is 
 one full of interest and consolation, and it seems 
 to be warranted by the analogy of Scripture; but 
 the j^resent is not the occasion for enlarging upon 
 it. My immediate object is to explain that we 
 are not to connect the sparing of the earth, and of 
 men upon the earth, in itself, and as a matter of 
 course, with the death of Christ ; since, even had 
 there been no design of atonement and mediation 
 at all, it might still have been necessary, for the 
 ends of righteous judgment, that there should be 
 time given for the whole race to increase and mul¬ 
 tiply, and sin, and perish. But that would not 
 have been an exercise of long-suffering, or a dis¬ 
 pensation of forbearance and patience, properly so 
 called;—any more than the partial respite or 
 licence given to Satan and his angels, before their 
 being first bound, and then cast into the lake of 
 fire, can be viewed in that light. 
 
 Evidently, however, the apostle speaks of a dis¬ 
 pensation of postponed or suspended judgment, 
 with the accompan 3 dng benefit of a system of 
 means fitted to effect reconciliation,—he points to 
 a gracious respite, and not merely to a penal licence 
 or opportunity,—when he represents the “ passing 
 over of men’s sins through the forbearance of God ” 
 
GRACIOUS FORBEARANCE—A REAL BOON. 
 
 187 
 
 as being, not less than the “justifying of him that chapter 
 believeth in Jesus/' connected with this as its pro- 
 curing cause,—that God hath “ set forth Christ 
 to be a propitiation." 
 
 Now, this surely is a real, definite, and sub-Thedis- 
 
 , . pensivtion 
 
 stantial benefit, of a universal sort, accruing to ofgradous 
 
 ^ ^ T . forbear- 
 
 the human family at large, from there being auanceisa 
 atoning sacrifice provided and accepted by God. anda imi- 
 So far all men alike are interested in the death of vieLedt. 
 Christ. This, at all events, is a great fact, to be 
 ever kept in view when we inquire concerning the 
 aspect which the atonement presents to all men 
 alike, as an indication or discovery of the mind 
 and will of God. It establishes God’s claim to be 
 reccarded by all men as their benefactor in this it's a real 
 
 O ^ ^ ^ ^ pi-OQf Of 
 
 matter; to whom they are indebted for what is in good-wiii 
 
 on the part 
 
 itself a good thing, and what is fitted to be a good of God. 
 thing to them,—for that “ long-suffering” which 
 may be, and ought to be, “ accounted salvation.” 
 
188 
 
 DISPENSATION OP FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PAUT 
 
 II. 
 
 Every 
 
 mouth 
 
 stopped. 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE DISPENSATION OF GRACIOUS FORBEARANCE—THE GOOD-WILL 
 OF GOD—THE UNI-^-ERSAL WARRANT AND ENCOURAGEMENT TO 
 BELIEVE. 
 
 Having attempted to show that, according to the 
 teaching of the divine word, the grant of a 
 gracious respite to all our guilty race,—a suspen¬ 
 sion of judgment with a view to overtures and 
 appliances of mercy,—is due to the atoning work 
 of Christ, and that his death must consequently 
 be regarded as having so far a universal bearing; 
 I might take leave of this part of the subject 
 by simply asking if this great fact is not enough 
 at least to stop every mouth, and cause all men 
 everywhere, instead of cavilling, to stand in awe. 
 A few additional remarks, however, it may not be 
 superfluous to offer, for the purpose of bringing 
 out still more clearly the “ good-will to men ” which 
 the dispensation of forbearance founded on the 
 atonement breathes; as well as the warrant of faith 
 which it furnishes, by at once imposing a duty 
 upon all, and affording encouragement to all. 
 
 I would observe, then, in the first place, that 
 what has been said as to the actual oblio-ation 
 
 O 
 
 under which mankind at large, including the 
 finally lost, lie to Christ and his work, for a 
 
FORBEARANCE NOT FOR THE ELECT’s SAKE ALONE. 189 
 
 benefit in point of fact real and valuable, is not 
 at all affected by the circumstance that the season 
 of long-suffering, and the system of means which 
 it includes, are extended to them all indiscrimi¬ 
 nately, mainly and chiefly for the sake of the elect 
 who are among them. For, on the one hand, it 
 does not appear that this can be established, from 
 Scripture, to be the only reason which God has 
 for such a mode of dealing with the world. It is 
 true, indeed, that the elect are the salt of the 
 earth, Avhose presence would procure a respite 
 even for a Sodom ; and when they are gathered 
 in, and not a soul remains to be converted, the 
 period of forbearance will come to a close. But 
 this does not prove that God may not have other 
 ends to serve, besides the salvation of his elect 
 people,—and ends more closely connected with the 
 individuals themselves who are thus spared and 
 subjected to salutary influences, though in vain,— 
 when he extends to them his goodness for a time. 
 And then, on the other hand, whether directly or 
 indirectly—mediately or immediately—for their 
 own sakes or for the elect’s sake—the fact, after 
 all, is the same—and it is important and signifi¬ 
 cant—that the forbearance granted to every sinner, 
 and the favour shown in a way manifestly fitted 
 to lead him to repentance, must be ascribed to the 
 interposition of Christ, and his sacrifice of himself 
 uj)on the cross. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 II. 
 
 Forbear¬ 
 ance ex¬ 
 tended to¬ 
 wards all 
 for the 
 sake of 
 the elect. 
 
 But not 
 for that 
 cause 
 only. 
 
 Nor does 
 that affect 
 the fact of 
 a gracious 
 cliaractef 
 belonging 
 to the dis¬ 
 pensation 
 of forbear¬ 
 ance per 
 se or in se. 
 
190 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FOKBEAEANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Sinners 
 the au¬ 
 thors of 
 their own 
 destruc¬ 
 tion. 
 
 It is this consideration which explains the fre¬ 
 quent use of language concerning the impenitent 
 and unbelieving, fitted to conve}^ the impression of 
 their interest in Christ’s death and in the plan of 
 mercy being, at all events, such as to make the 
 ruin which may overtake them in spite of it, 
 really their own doing and their own choice. 
 What strong and touching appeals are made to 
 sinners in that state, as “ bringing upon themselves 
 swift destruction,”—as “ treasuring up unto them¬ 
 selves wrath,”—as being, in a word, the wilful 
 authors and causes of their own miserable fate ! 
 Thus the Eternal Wisdom testifies : “ Whoso find- 
 eth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the 
 Lord. But he that sinneth ao;ainst me wrongeth 
 his own soul: all they that hate me love death ” 
 (Prov. viii. 35, 86). So also the Prophet Jonah 
 puts the case ; “ They that observe lying vanities 
 forsake their own mercy” (Jonah ii. 8). And 
 Jesus, weeping over Jerusalem, exclaims: “ 0 
 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the pro¬ 
 phets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, 
 how often would I have gathered thy children 
 together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens 
 under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matt, xxiii. 
 37.) The same consideration must also be taken 
 into account, as adding solemn weight to denuncia¬ 
 tions like that which the Apostle Peter launches 
 against apostates, who are “ bringing in damnable 
 
THE LOST PUECHASED BY CHKIST. 
 
 191 
 
 heresies,” when he charges them with “ denying 
 tlie Lord tliat bought them.” For, whatever 
 other explanation may be put upon these words, 
 as indicating chiefly what these criminals profess 
 to be, and what they must in the judgment be 
 accounted to be,—still it is never to be forgotten 
 that there is a very terrible, and as it were ulti¬ 
 mate and flnal sense, in which even the reprobate 
 are declared to be within the reach and range of 
 the atoning work of Christ, and to be really pur¬ 
 chased or bought by him with a price. 
 
 It is a material part of the covenant of re¬ 
 demption, that, in respect of his obedience and death, 
 the Redeemer has received the right, and power, 
 and commission to deal judicially with those who 
 will not have him to deal with them graciously,— 
 to dispose of them in such a manner as to glorify his 
 Father’s holy and righteous name, and secure the 
 accomplishment of his people’s salvation. This is 
 one fruit of his purchase as Redeemer. For his 
 finished work of propitiation, and as its recompense, 
 ke himself declares that the Father hath “given him 
 power over all flesh, that he might give eternal 
 life to as many as the Father hath given him ” 
 (John xvii. 1,2). And the Father, accordingly, is 
 represented in the Psalms as ratifying this assur¬ 
 ance to his Son ; “Ask of me, and I shall give 
 thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the 
 uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. 
 
 N 
 
 CHAPTEK 
 
 n. 
 
 Even tlie 
 lost pur¬ 
 chased hy 
 Christ. 
 
192 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou 
 — shalt dash them in pieces like a potter s vessel ” 
 (Ps. ii. 8, 9). 
 
 Twofold Let it be observed here, in explanation of this 
 
 purchase 
 
 ofchiist. last view of the bearing of the atonement, and 
 the concern which all sinners, even the lost, have 
 in it, that there is a double sense in which we 
 may speak of Christ’s purchase. Strictly and 
 properly, we are to regard him as purchasing men. 
 It is only in a secondary sense, and with less pro¬ 
 priety, that we are to consider him as purchasing 
 benefits for men; in a sense rather figurative and 
 His pur- metaphorical than real and literal. For the idea 
 be^e^s of Christ purchasing benefits from the Father for 
 for men. must cver be so understood as to be in 
 
 consistency with the Father’s sovereignty, and 
 especially in consistency with the Father’s pre¬ 
 existing love to the children of men. The Father 
 not induced or persuaded to bestow benefits on 
 men by a price paid to him ; but being antece¬ 
 dently full of compassion to all, and having a pur- 
 A gracious posc to deliver many, he ajipoints and ordains— 
 ance for he decrees and brings in—this death of his Son as 
 a satisfaction to divine justice, and a propitiation 
 for human guilt, that he may be justified in show- 
 ino; forbearance and kindness to the world, as well 
 as in ultimately and gloriously saving his own 
 elect. In this aspect, therefore, of the matter, it 
 may be said, I apprehend, with equal fitness and 
 
Christ’s purchase twofold. 
 
 193 
 
 equal truth, that Christ purchased the benefits im¬ 
 plied in the long-suffering of God for all, and that 
 he purchased the blessings of actual salvation for 
 his elect. Both the one and the other may be 
 held to be the fruit of his purchase. For, so far 
 as appears from Scripture, his death is not less in¬ 
 dispensable as a condition of any being spared for 
 a season, than it is as a condition of the “great 
 multitude, which no man could number’^ (Rev, 
 vii. 9), being everlastingly saved. 
 
 In regard, av-ain, to the other light in which 
 Christ’s purchase may be viewed,—its being a 
 ]iurchase, not of certain benefits for men, but of 
 men themselves,—there is room for an important 
 distinction. In right of his merit, his service, and 
 his sacrifice, all are given into his hands, and all 
 are his. All mankind, therefore, may be said to 
 be bought by him, inasmuch as, by his humilia¬ 
 tion, obedience, and death, he has obtained, as by 
 purchase, a right over them all—he has had them 
 all placed under his power, and at his disposal. 
 But it is for very different purposes and ends. 
 The reprobate are his to be judged ; the elect are 
 his to be saved. As to the former, it is no ran¬ 
 som or redemption, fairly so called. He has won 
 them—bought them, if you will;—but it is that 
 he may so dispose of them as to glorify the retri¬ 
 butive righteousness of God in their condemnation; 
 
 aggravated, as that condemnation must be, by their 
 
 13 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 II. 
 
 Salvation 
 for the 
 elect. 
 
 His pur¬ 
 chase of 
 men them¬ 
 selves. 
 
 Of the re¬ 
 probate to 
 be used 
 and dis- 
 jiosed of 
 in a wise 
 provi¬ 
 dence and 
 rigliteous 
 judgment. 
 
194 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FOEBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Of the 
 elect to be 
 saved. 
 
 Two in¬ 
 ferences 
 to be de¬ 
 duced. 
 
 rejection of himself. This is no propitiation, in 
 any proper meaning of that term. It is no offer¬ 
 ing of himself to hear their sins—no bringing in 
 of a perfect righteousness on their account. It is 
 rather an office or function which he has obtained 
 for himself by the same work—or has had in¬ 
 trusted to him for the sake of the same shedding 
 of blood—by which he expiated the sins of his 
 people, as their true and proper substitute, and 
 merited their salvation, as their righteous repre¬ 
 sentative and head. It is an office or function, 
 moreover, which he undertakes on his jieople’s be¬ 
 half, and which he executes faithfully for tlieir 
 highest good, as well as for his Father’s glory. 
 
 These distinctions seem to be important as ex¬ 
 planatory of the real aspect and bearing of the 
 atonement, considered in the light of a purchase. 
 But they do not, let it be ever kejit in mind, in 
 the least touch or impeach the great fact that the 
 atonement does actually procure for all mankind 
 indiscriminately a suspension of judgment, or dis¬ 
 pensation of long-suffering patience, embracing 
 means and movements of grace, more or less abun¬ 
 dant in different cases, but yet of a nature to stamp 
 an undeniably gracious character on the dispensa¬ 
 tion itself to which they belong. This will pro¬ 
 bably appear stiU more clearly if due attention 
 is given to two inferences fairl}?- deducible from the 
 great fact which I have been illustrating. 
 
CHRIST MANIFESTS THE FATHER, 
 
 195 
 
 I. The death of Christ is to all men univer- chapter 
 sally, and to every individual alike, a manifesta- •—h 
 tion of the character, or name, or nature of God, cross a 
 and of his plan of mercy. In this respect, Christ uon ofue 
 is “ the true light, which lighteth every man that 
 cometh into the world.” He is so as the Eternal 
 “ Word, by whom the world was made, and who 
 has ever been in the Avorld, the life and the light 
 of men” (John i. 4-9). From the beginning he 
 has always been the living light of men ; their 
 “ light of life ;” shining among them and in them, 
 more or less clearlj^, in the revelation or discovery 
 of the truth, and by the inspiration or illumina¬ 
 tion of the Spirit; giving the light of the know¬ 
 ledge of the glory of God unfolding, “at sundry 
 times and in divers manners,” the being and attri¬ 
 butes of the Most Higli, and opening up, at least 
 in a measure, the holy and loving heart of the 
 Everlasting Father. As “ the Word made flesh,” 
 
 “ in these last days,”—in his incarnation, in his 
 human life, and in his death, he is now more 
 manifestly and' pre-eminently “ the light of men 
 the lifjht to enlijxhten them in the true knowledo’e 
 of God,—of what his essential attributes and his 
 dispositions towards his creatures really are,—ac¬ 
 cording to his own saying : “ He that hath seen 
 me hath seen the Father” (John xiv. 9). For it 
 is when he is seen “ lifted up,” expiating guilt on 
 the cross, that Jesus now fully reveals the Father, 
 
196 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FOEBEARANCE. 
 
 part and the Father’s pure and perfect benevolence, in 
 
 II. 
 
 — the provision so wonderfully and fearfully made 
 for reconciling the exercise of mercy with the 
 claims of justice. This service his cross renders 
 equally to all before whom it is exhibited, and in 
 proportion to the distinctness and completeness of 
 the exhibition of it. It is a service, therefore, 
 which it renders, not to the elect specially, but 
 to men generally and nuivensally. 
 
 II. Tiie ^ II. But not only is the cross of Christ a mani- 
 oxpvession festation equally to all of the name or nature of 
 div'ine God,—it is the proof and measure of that infinite 
 
 compassion which dwells in the bosom of God to¬ 
 wards each and all of the lost race of Adam, and 
 Ins infinite willingne.ss, or rather longing and yearn¬ 
 ing desire, to receive each and all of them again 
 into his favour. Even the cross itself would 
 almost seem to be an inadequate expression— 
 though it is a blessed confirmation—of what is in 
 his heart ;—of the feeling, so to speak, to which he 
 gives utterance, when, enforcing his appeal by an 
 oath, he swears: “ As I live, saith the Lord God. 
 I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked — 
 and of the deep, ineffable sincerity of his assurance, 
 that he would rather—how much rather !—“that 
 the wicked should turn from his way and live” 
 (Ezek. xxxiil 11). 
 
 Here, once more, I must ask the thoughtful 
 student of Scripture to discriminate. 
 
DISTINCTION IN THE DIVINE WILL. 
 
 197 
 
 There is a well known theological distinction 
 between God’s will of decree {voluntas decreti) and 
 his will of desire or of good pleasure {voluntas 
 hcneptaciti )—between what his mind, on a con¬ 
 sideration of all interests, actually determines, and 
 what his heart, from its very nature, if I may 
 venture to use the expression, cannot but de¬ 
 cidedly prefer and wish. The types, or expressions, 
 of these two Avills respectively, are to be found in 
 two classes of texts which are commonly quoted 
 as proofs and instances of the reality of the dis¬ 
 tinction between them. Of the first class of texts, 
 one of the most obvious is that in which the 
 Apostle Paul puts into the mouth of the gainsayer 
 the sophistical argument that he is about to 
 answer : “ Thou wilt say then unto me. Why doth 
 he yet find fault ? for who hath resisted his will 
 (Rom. ix. 19). Such a question could be asked 
 only with reference to God’s will of determina¬ 
 tion, or of decree, fixing what is to take place. To 
 the same aspect of the will of God the penitent 
 king of Babylon more reverentially and submis- 
 sivel)^ points when he exclaims : “ He doeth ac¬ 
 cording to his will in the army of lieaven, and 
 among the inhabitants of the earth ; and none can 
 stay his hand, or say unto him. What doest thou?” 
 (Dan. iv. 35.) Of the other class of texts, indicat¬ 
 ing the other aspect of the will of God,—his will, 
 if one may so speak, of nature, or of natural pre- 
 
 CUAPTKR 
 
 II. 
 
 Divine will 
 twofold. 
 
 The will of 
 decree— 
 voluntas 
 ckcreli. 
 
198 
 
 DISrENSATION OF FORBEAEANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The will of 
 desire or 
 Rood 
 
 pleasure— 
 
 voluntas 
 
 beneplaciti. 
 
 The dis¬ 
 tinction 
 recognised 
 in a liu- 
 inan 
 agent. 
 
 ference and desire,—exain})les in abundance might 
 be quoted ; but one may suffice. Take that in 
 which the Lord pours forth his earnest longing, 
 almost in a burst of pathetic and })assionate re¬ 
 gret ; “ Oh that my people had hearkened unto 
 me, and Israel had Avalked in my Avays ! I should 
 soon have subdued their enemies and turned my 
 hand against tlieir adversaries ”—“ He should have 
 
 O 
 
 fed them also with the finest of the Avheat; and 
 Avith honey out of the rock should I have satisfied 
 tliee” (Ps. Ixx.xi. 1 3, 14, 16). 
 
 This latter will of desire or good pleasure, as 
 distinguished from the former Avill of determina¬ 
 tion or decree, denotes the pure complacency Avith 
 Avhich God approA^es of a certain result as just and 
 holy and good in itself On tliat account he delights 
 in it, and therefore Avills to enjoin it on the crea¬ 
 ture, as his most bounden duty. And for the same 
 reason, in enjoining it, he cannot liut add the assur¬ 
 ance of his most Avilling acceptance of it, when- 
 soevei', Avheresoever, and hoAvsoever realized. 
 
 Even in a human agent, some such distinction 
 as is here contended for must be recognised. 
 Knowing his character—knowing his veiy heart,— 
 you can at once specify, promptly and most confi¬ 
 dently, Avhat Avould be most agreeable and Avel- 
 come to liim,—Avhat sort of scene or spectacle he 
 Avould most delight to contemplate. But you 
 must know a great deal more respecting his opi- 
 
DISTINCTION IN HUMAN WILL. 
 
 199 
 
 nions, and the circumstances wdtli which these 
 opinions come into contact—or, in a word, respect¬ 
 ing his mind,—his judgment as to what, in certain 
 contingencies, he is to do, and the reasons of his 
 judgment,—before you can be qualified to under¬ 
 stand the whole of his procedure. Still, if he were 
 a straightforward man, you would act without 
 hesitation, in any case in which your personal in¬ 
 terest was concerned, on what you knew of his 
 heart, although you might have much perplexity 
 in discerning, or even conjecturing, all the views 
 which, in certain difficult cases, must enter into 
 the making up of his mind. 
 
 Thus, I may take a ffimiliar instance,—which, 
 however, I would say, by way of warning, is by no 
 means to be pressed too far. A man of undoubted 
 and notorious beneficence to the industrious poor, 
 or the poor willing to be industrious, has peculiar 
 opinions on pauperism generally, and on the right 
 mode of dealing with certain instances of pau¬ 
 perism. His peculiar opinions involve his conduct 
 in some degree of mystery to the uninitiated : they 
 may, and must, give rise to various questions in re¬ 
 gard to some unexplained parts of his })rocedure. 
 Now, if I am a beggar, perishing without his aid, 
 shall I perplex myself with difficulties arising out 
 of my ignorance of the reasons that determine his 
 resolution in these particulars;—or shall I not 
 rather proceed upon my acquaintance Avith his 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 II. 
 
 A familiar 
 instance of 
 tile ilis- 
 tinction. 
 
200 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 acknowledged goodness, and, on tlie faith of his 
 own express invitations, appeal at once to his 
 generosity and truthfulness as my ample warrant 
 for expecting at his hands all that is needed to 
 meet my case ? Evidently, in such a state of 
 matters, I would practically draw the very dis¬ 
 tinction on which theologians insist. Knowing 
 my friend’s character, and frankly interpreting his 
 frank assurances to me,—to all situated like me,— 
 without reference to any inquiries that might be 
 raised respecting his possible or actual treatment 
 of certain difficult cases, not as yet fully opened 
 up to me,—I would venture confidently to make 
 my application to him, and I would feel no anxiety 
 whatever about the issue. 
 
 So is it with God. His will, as determining 
 what, in any given case, is to be the actual result 
 realized, is an act of his omniscient mind, which he 
 need not explain to us. But his will, as defining 
 what, in every conceivable case, would be the 
 result most agreeable and welcome to him, is an 
 inherent part of his nature, and, as it were, a fea¬ 
 ture of his heart. In the one view, his will is 
 consistent with many being impenitent and lost; in 
 the other, his will, or rather he himself, would have 
 all men everywhere to repent and be saved. 
 
 Now, it is into this latter will, this will of the 
 DIVINE HEART, and iiot into the former, the will of 
 the DIVINE MIND,—it is into what God, from his 
 
INSIGHT INTO GOD’S HEART. 
 
 201 
 
 very nature, must and does desire, in reference to cuai*teti 
 lost sinners, and not into what God, for ends and —^ 
 on principles as yet unknown, has decreed,—that intouil 
 the cross of Christ gives mankind at large, and heart! 
 every individual, if he will but look, a clear, un¬ 
 equivocal, and most satisfying insight. To every Given in 
 individual, believer or not, elect or not, it is a tola 
 proof and pledge of the Father’s bowels of com- 
 passion yearning over him, and the Father’s eye 
 looking out for him, and the Father’s arms open 
 to embrace him freely, if he will but be moved to 
 return. And to no individual, before he does 
 return, is it, or can it be, anything more. To 
 none does it beforehand impart any further insight 
 into the character and will of God, as a warrant 
 or encouragement to believe. 
 
 Nor is more needed. This alone is sufficient 
 to lay a foundation for the universality of the 
 gospel offer or call; to vindicate its sincerity or 
 good faith on the part of God; and to demonstrate 
 its sufficiency as regards men. For all practical 
 ends, enough is gained when the gospel call or 
 offer, as both free and universal, is fairly put be¬ 
 yond question, or cavil, or doubt. And that it is 
 so, on the view advocated by Calvinists respecting 
 the atonement, a few closing observations may 
 now suffice to show. 
 
 1. To vindicate God in this procedure, and to 
 
202 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The pospel 
 cull vindi¬ 
 cated. 
 
 Its sove¬ 
 reignty 
 and faith¬ 
 fulness. 
 
 satisfy men, it is enough that these two things he 
 acknowledged and established:—first, His right to 
 require and command the sinner’s return to him¬ 
 self ; and, secondly. His willingness and ability, 
 in consistency with the ends of justice, to save all 
 such as do return. It is irrelevant here to raise 
 any question either as to the extent, or even as to 
 the sufficiency, of the atonement. It is enough 
 that it is sufficient for all who will avail them¬ 
 selves of it, and who seek, in this appointed way, 
 to return to God—sufficient for washing away 
 guilt of deepest dye, and corruption of darkest 
 stain. This, taken along with the undoubted 
 right which God has to say to the sinner—not 
 merely graciously, and in the way of a free per¬ 
 mission, but authoritatively, and in the way of a 
 peremptory command—Return, repent, believe— 
 is enough to shut the sinner up to the necessity of 
 complying with the call. And if we add, what 
 has already been explained, the insight given into 
 the character and heart of God,—into the intensity 
 of his longing desire to see every sinner return, 
 and to embrace every sinner returning,~what 
 can be wanting, so far as argument, or motive, or 
 warrant is concerned, to bring the prodigal again, 
 in relenting contrition, to his Father,—to bring 
 the rebel, in new-born allegiance, to his Lord ? 
 
 2. No sinner, before believing, is entitled to 
 stipulate for any information on the subject either 
 
SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 
 
 203 
 
 of the extent or of the sufficiency of the atonement, chaptkr 
 beyond the assurance that it will suffice for him, —1 
 if he will make use of it. To raise a question as husno 
 to what may be its aspect or bearing towards him, askfuniicr 
 while he is yet rejecting it, and to insist on his ^imeron- 
 haviug that question answered or settled, as a uXkef."' 
 preliminary condition of his believing, is not only 
 arrogant presumption, but mere infatuation. And 
 to deal with any such question, as if it might 
 occasion any scruple really embarrassing to a soul 
 really in earnest, and therefore really deserving of 
 pity,—or as if the statement of Christ’s dying for 
 his people, and for them only, must be modified 
 or qualified to meet the scruple,—is but fostering 
 the impiet}^, and flattering the folly, of unbelief. 
 
 Let the sovereign authority of God in the gos])eT~| 
 call be asserted, and let the sinner, as a rebel, be ! 
 summoned, at his peril, to return to his allegiance. 
 
 Let him be certified, also, of the sufficiency of 
 Christ’s atoning death for all the purposes for 
 which he can possibly need it, and the free and 
 full welcome that awaits him with the Father. 
 
 What more has he a riffiit to ask ? The secret 
 
 o 
 
 of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he 
 will show them his covenant.” To believers, ac¬ 
 cordingly, more insigffit may be given into the 
 mind and purpose of God. But let not unbelievers 
 imagine that they, while yet in an attitude of 
 rebellion, are entitled to have all things made 
 
PAIiT 
 
 II. 
 
 204 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 }>lain. What I shall it be deemed necessary to 
 accommodate our statements respecting God’s love 
 to his elect, Christ’s death for them, and the Spirit’s 
 witness in them, to the difficulties which may be 
 started as to the precise relation of all these to 
 the unconverted, — difficulties which the uncon¬ 
 verted man starts while continuing; in a state of 
 sin,— difficulties which wmuld A^anish on the in¬ 
 stant of his being converted, and so ceasing to 
 sin ? Surely to give the slightest countenance to 
 any such notion, is to bring down the sovereign 
 Jehovah to the rank of a mere petitioner for man’s 
 favour, and to degrade the gospel to the level of a 
 kind of bargaining and trafficking with presumptu¬ 
 ous offenders. It is, in fact, to place salvation at 
 the mere discretion of sinners, who may conde¬ 
 scend to look at it, and, if all is to their mind, 
 make trial of it; instead of bringing the guilty, 
 at once and peremptorily, to the bar of an offended 
 Judge, who does not relinquish the stern hold of 
 his just sovereignty over them, even while, with 
 melting love, he beseeches them, as a gracious 
 Father, to be reconciled to himself. It is to be 
 feared that the gospel trumpet has sometimes, in 
 this respect, given forth too feeble and hesitating 
 a sound, when a higher tone miffiit have been 
 more constraining in its influence over the heart, 
 as well as more cogent and commanding in its 
 appeal to the conscience. 
 
SUBMISSION man’s DUTY. 
 
 205 
 
 3. Bub, further, it might be shown that even 
 if men had more information on the point in ques¬ 
 tion, it would not help them to believe. For faith 
 is not the belief of an express proposition defining 
 the precise relation of Christ s death to the elect, 
 or to men in general, or to the individual in par¬ 
 ticular. It is “ the receiving and resting upon 
 Jesus Christ alone for salvation, as he is freely 
 offered in the gospel.” According to that view, 
 even the revelation of the decree of election, and 
 of my name in it, would not materially help me 
 in believing; and, at all events, would not produce 
 faith. For it is not the knowledofe or belief of a 
 
 O 
 
 certain fact respecting the bearing of Christ’s death 
 on me, that saves me, but my trust in him as “ the 
 way ” to the Father. Still less could it avail me 
 to know with the utmost possible exactness, and 
 to be able to put into the most preci.se categorical 
 proposition, the exact relation or connection be¬ 
 tween the death of Christ and ,men at large, 
 including the non-elect. The knowledge of that 
 fact, and the belief of that proposition, would not, 
 after all, advance me by a single foot,step towards 
 true faith. For the faith which is truly saving 
 is neither mere knowledge nor bare belief, but a 
 hearty acquiescence in God’s proposal, and accept¬ 
 ance of God’s gift, and reliance on his faithful 
 promi.se, for all the benefits of salvation, including 
 pardon, peace, holiness, and everlasting life. 
 
 CHAPTKK 
 
 II. 
 
 Satisfac¬ 
 tion on 
 such fur¬ 
 ther ques¬ 
 tions 
 neither 
 necessary 
 nor helpful 
 to faith. 
 
20C 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FOEBEAEANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 n. 
 
 Faith not 
 the belief 
 of proposi¬ 
 tions 
 merely, 
 but reli¬ 
 ance on 
 Christper- 
 Bonally. 
 
 It would be premature to discuss here fully 
 the question which will meet us afterwards, as to 
 the nature of the faith wliich saves the soul. I 
 may be allowed, however, again to remind the 
 reader that this treatise originated in an attempt 
 to illustrate the harmony of divine truth, and to 
 show how an error, however trivial, in one part 
 of the Christian system, vitiates the whole. The 
 instance selected was faith, and especially the 
 view held by those who make faith a simple 
 act of the understanding—the intellectual appre¬ 
 hension and belief of the truth. Eight or wrong, 
 I cannot but regard it as a consequence of that 
 view of fiiith, that it forces us to express in the 
 shape of a definite and exact proposition the re¬ 
 lation of Christ’s death to those who are called 
 to believe,—that is, to mankind at large; and so 
 to frame a sense in which it may be said that 
 Christ died for all men, and in which, therefore, 
 every sinner may be at once and summarily re¬ 
 quired to believe that Christ died for him. It 
 must be a sense, however, after all, falling short 
 of the sense in which the believer does actually, 
 upon his believing, come to apprehend and appro¬ 
 priate Christ as his surety, according to the full 
 meaning of Paul’s language of appropriation: 
 “ The life which I now live in the flesh, I live by 
 the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and 
 gave himself for me” (Gal. ii. 20). On the otlier 
 
KECEIVING AND BESTING UPON CHillST. 
 
 207 
 
 Land, as I am still inclined to argue, the more chapter 
 simple view of faith which seems to be sanctioned. —i- 
 by our Standards, supersedes the necessity of any 
 such definition, since it makes faith consist, not in 
 the belief of any definite proposition at all, but in 
 the committing of the soul, and the soul’s interests 
 for eternity, to a divine person. In order to the 
 exercise of such a faith as that, it is indispensable 
 to know the truth concerning Christ’s death, as a 
 manifestation of the Father’s character, and as the 
 way to the Father’s fellowship. But as to any 
 more minute information, respecting the relation 
 of Christ’s death to the world while yet unbe¬ 
 lieving, not only has Holy Scripture, as I believe, 
 withheld such information, but, even if it Avere 
 granted, it would avail nothing to understand and 
 receive it. The real belief of the truth is inde¬ 
 pendent of it altogether; and, in fact, for any 
 practical purposes connected with the sinner’s ac¬ 
 tual return to God, it would be alike impertinent 
 were he to ask it, and useless were he to obtain it. 
 
 When I say that saving faith does not consist in 
 the belief of any definite proposition, I do not mean 
 that it consists in the belief of an indefinite one. 
 
 In so far as it has to do with propositions at all, it is 
 with such as are quite definite and precise; clear, 
 exact, and categorical. That “ God is love that 
 he “ so loved the world that he gave his only-begot¬ 
 ten Son, that whosoever believeth in him might 
 
208 
 
 DISPENSATION OF FORBEARANCE. 
 
 PART 
 
 11 . 
 
 not perish, but have everlasting life;” that Jesus “ is 
 able to save unto the uttermost all that come unto 
 God by him;” that as “all that the Father giveth 
 him shall come unto him,” so “ him that cometh 
 unto him he will in no wise cast out;”—these, 
 and many other similar propositions with which 
 faith is concerned, are not indefinite; if by inde¬ 
 finite we are to understand vague statements, or 
 statements of doubtful interpretation. But while 
 these definite propositions constitute the warrant 
 or ground of saving fiiitli, and while the intelli¬ 
 gent belief of them must lie at the foundation of 
 any gracious act or exercise of soul, still I cannot 
 but think that savin" hiith is somethin" more than 
 
 O O 
 
 this belief, and something different from it. The 
 truth is, this belief of these definite propositions, 
 liavin" its seat in the understandin" needs to be 
 
 O 
 
 quickened, as it were, into warmth and vital power, 
 by touch and contact with the more energetic 
 principles of our nature; so that firs t, carrying the 
 will, it becomes appropriating faith; next, meeting 
 with the conscience, it becomes repentance and 
 godly sorrow for sin; then, entering the heart, it 
 worketh by love ; and lastly, impregnated with the 
 instinct of ambition and the desire of the highest 
 good, it ripens into holy and heavenly hope. 
 
THE SECRET AND THE REVEALED WILL OF GOD. 209 
 
 CHAPTER HI. 
 
 THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT — ITS ADAPTATION TO 
 THE REAL NEED OF THE SINNER. 
 
 The following propositions may be taken as em¬ 
 bodying the substance of the statements in the 
 preceding chapters, respecting the beaiing of 
 Christ’s work, or rather of the publication of it, 
 on the world at large. 
 
 For it is to be observed always, that, let the 
 design and efficacy of the work itself be ever so 
 definite, the publication of it, being confessedly 
 indefinite, cannot but affect materially the condi¬ 
 tion of all to whom it is made, as regards both 
 their present duty and their ultimate responsi¬ 
 bility. To say, as some do, that the atonement, 
 if held to have been undertaken for a certain 
 number, cannot be a demonstration of love to all, 
 is to confound the secret with the revealed will 
 of God (Deut. xxix. 29). Were the parties, 
 whether few or many, for whom it is undertaken, 
 named in the proclamation of it, in that case, 
 doubtless, it could not be a demonstration of 
 good-will to mankind generally, or to sinners 
 indiscriminately as such. But since wliat is 
 revealed is simply the way of acceptance, or the 
 
 14 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
 Tlio secret 
 anil the 
 revenletl 
 will of 
 God., 
 
210 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 II., 
 
 The in¬ 
 soluble 
 difficultj'. 
 
 principle on which God acts in justifying the 
 ungodly, it seems plain that to whomsoever such 
 a revelation comes, with names and numbers 
 suppressed, it is, in its very nature, a revelation 
 of love. Let it be granted that Christ’s work, 
 like Christ himself, is set forth “ for judgment ” 
 (John ix. 39); for “the fall and rising again of 
 many in Israel” (Luke ii. 34) ; for “a savour of 
 life or of death” (2 Cor. ii. 15, 16). Let it be 
 granted, also, that the names and numbers of 
 those to whom it is to be the one or the other 
 respectively, are fixed in the very undertaking 
 and accomplishment of the work. Still, to each 
 individual to whom it is presented, with the 
 alternative announcement that it will certainly be 
 to him either life or death, and with that alone, 
 it necessarily must be a manifestation of grace. 
 Any question that may be raised as to the divine 
 rectitude and faithfulness in such a procedure, 
 is reall}^ no other than the great and insoluble 
 question as to the combination of the divine will 
 with the human, or the divine agency with that 
 of man, in any work whatever. That difficulty 
 remains on any supposition. And certainly, on 
 the hypothesis of a general and universal design 
 or intention in the atonement itself, coupled with 
 a limited and special design in the application 
 of it, or in the w'ork of the Spirit making it 
 effectual, the difficulty is not less than on the 
 
SUMMAKY OF PRECEDING CHAPTERS. 
 
 211 
 
 most rigid Calvinistic theory. No system but chapter 
 that of universal pardon, or ratlier that of uni- —- 
 versal salvation, cuts the knot. No system ad¬ 
 mitting special grace anywhere, or at any stage, 
 even approaches a solution of it. The truth is, 
 we attempt what is ])resumptuous and vain, when 
 we seek to vindicate the consistency and sincerity 
 of God in the gospel call by going beyond the 
 assurance, that whosoever will put liim to the 
 proof, will find him faithful. 
 
 But, to return to the propositions in which the snmmary 
 
 precuil- 
 
 substance of the former sections may be embodied, ing ciiai> 
 they are these :—■ 
 
 1. The present dispensation of long-suffering 
 patience towards the world at large stands con¬ 
 nected Avith the work of Christ, as its condition 
 or cause. That dispensation of forbearance is 
 subservient to the dispensation of grace, and 
 preparatory to the dispensation of judgment. And, 
 in either view, it is the fruit of Christ's mediation. 
 
 2. To all alike, the work of Christ is a mani¬ 
 festation of the divine character, as well as of 
 the divine manner of dealing with sinners of 
 the human race. 
 
 3. To all alike, it is a proof and pledge of the 
 desire, the earnest and strong desire, subsisting in 
 the divine heart, to see every sinner return to 
 himself, and to welcome every one so returning. 
 
 That desire is involved in the very nature of 
 
212 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 God, considered as originating sncli a plan of 
 salvation at all,—whatever, on grounds and reasons 
 unknown to us, his decree may be, as to its 
 extent, or as to its actual issue and result. 
 
 4. To every individual it brings home the 
 divine claim of sovereign and supreme authority. 
 It is an appeal to conscience. Whether the sin¬ 
 ner is to be satisfied on all points, or not, before 
 believing, the gospel proceeds on the principle 
 that God has a right to demand submission and 
 allegiance to himself; and that conscience must 
 recognise that ris^ht. 
 
 5. To every one who hears the gospel, assur¬ 
 ance is given of the full and infinite sufficiency 
 of Christ’s work for any, and for all, who will 
 come unto him. The dignity of his person, the 
 merit of his obedience, and the value of his death, 
 as a propitiation, secure this. 
 
 6. Savinfj faith—not beino; the mere belief of 
 any definite proj)Ositions, far less of any that are 
 indefinite, but union Avith a person, and reliance 
 on a person, even Christ—requires nothing be¬ 
 forehand as the ground and warrant of its exerci.se, 
 beyond the apprehension of these two precise and 
 unequivocal truths:—(1.) That God is entitled to 
 command the sinner’s return to himself; and, (2.) 
 That the sinner, returning, is .sure of a sufficient 
 salvation. No additional information is neces.sai’v; 
 nor would it be of any use. 
 
PRACTICAL TEST. 
 
 213 
 
 With this brief summary or I’ecapitulation, I 
 take leave of that first view which I proposed to 
 consider of the question at issue, as raised in the 
 interest of mankind at large, and especially the 
 unbelieving portion of mankind ; whose right to 
 be satisfied beforehand in such a case,—and even 
 to stipulate, as they seem often inclined to do, 
 that unless satisfied beforehand they Avill not 
 believe,—is surely more than doubtful. And I 
 proceed to the other view of the question, which 
 is far more entitled, as I cannot but think, to 
 sympathy. I deal with the question now as 
 raised in the interest of the earnest inquirer, 
 and his search after salvation, whether for himself 
 or for his fellow-men. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 iir. 
 
 The ques¬ 
 tion to be 
 consiUeiecl 
 as in the 
 interest of 
 tlie ear. 
 nest in¬ 
 quirer. , 
 
 It may be useful, at the very outset of the 
 inquiry as now adjusted, to apply a kind of prac¬ 
 tical and experimental test, of Avhich this whole 
 subject seems very particularly to admit. 
 
 The test turns upon this consideration—that the 
 instant we begin to conceive of Christ’s work as 
 undertaken and accomplished for any but those 
 actually saved,—under whatever vague phrase¬ 
 ology of a general reference, or general relations, 
 this may be done,—we altogether change the 
 nature and character of that work, so that it 
 ceases to be a work of substitution, properly so 
 called, at all. We subvert the whole doctrine of 
 
 Practical 
 
 test. 
 
 Uanger of 
 tampering 
 with the 
 integrity 
 of tile 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Q) 
 
214 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Progi-ess 
 of an 
 anxious 
 soul. 
 
 imputation, whether of the individual sinner’s 
 guilt to Clirist, or of Christ’s righteousness to 
 him. We materially modify the principle on 
 which faith is held to justify and save us, making 
 it not simply the instrument of vital union to 
 Christ, but a work, or condition, supplementary 
 to his work. We insensibly incline to an inade¬ 
 quate feeling of the utter impotency and just con¬ 
 demnation of the sinner. And, above all, we sadly 
 detract from the completeness and certainty of the 
 salvation that is in Christ. It is chiefly on this 
 last consequence, resulting or deducible from the 
 assertion of a universal range in the atonement, 
 that attention must be fixed, in applying the test 
 by which, as it seems to me, the practical value 
 and importance of the opposite doctrine may be 
 illustrated. 
 
 Thus the matter may l)e brought to a sort of 
 experimental issue, liy tracing the progi’ess of an 
 awakened soul towards assurance of salvation; from 
 the first feeling of desiderium, or the apprehension 
 which such a soul has of what it really needs ; 
 through the successive stages of its “ first love,” 
 or fresh and childlike simplicity of faith, its sub¬ 
 sequent trials and difficulties, even verging po.ssibly 
 on despair, and its matured confidence of tried and 
 ascertained integrity; onwards and upwards to 
 that infallible certainty of hope which “ maketh 
 not ashamed.” This jirogress, at least in its initial 
 
THE “dESIDEEIUM” AND “ DESIDERATUM.' 
 
 215 
 
 or commencing stage, is sufficiently marked to 
 admit of a very simple question being put. 
 
 The question is this:—What is it that the 
 awakened soul really needs, and feels itself to need? 
 What is its desiderium ? Without hesitation I 
 reply, that what such a soul desiderates is, not a 
 general or universal redemption, which must ne¬ 
 cessarily be contingent and doubtful—but one that 
 is particular, and therefore cei'tain. 
 
 I ajipeal here to the experience, not only of 
 those who are converted, but of all who have ever 
 been conscious, or who now are conscious, of any 
 inward movements at all, tending in the direction 
 of conversion. Were you ever aware,—I would 
 be inclined to ask any friend thus exercised,— 
 of any spiritual awakening in your conscience 
 and heart, without having the instinctive convic¬ 
 tion, that, as regarded both the end to be attained 
 and the method of attaining it, what you needed 
 —what alone you cared for and could no longer 
 do without—was, not an interest in some kind of 
 general deliverance, or some bare chance and 
 opportunity of deliverance, common to all, but an 
 interest in a real and actual salvation, such as, you 
 feel, must be peculiar to God’s own people ? “ Re¬ 
 
 member me, O Lord, with the favour that thou 
 bearest unto thy people : O visit me with thy 
 salvation ; that I may see the good of thy chosen, 
 that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, 
 
 CnAPTES 
 
 III. 
 
 What its 
 deside¬ 
 rium ? 
 What its 
 desidera¬ 
 tum ? 
 
 Not a sal¬ 
 vation 
 common 
 to all, but 
 what is 
 peculiar 
 to the 
 people of 
 God. 
 
21G 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Two otlier 
 ways of 
 meeting 
 the sin- 
 lier's case. 
 
 Popery 
 and Pela- 
 gianism. 
 
 that I may glory with thine inheritance ” (P.s. cvi. 
 ■t, 5). I am persuaded that tlie.se words expi’ess 
 what the soul under s})iritual concern really de¬ 
 siderates and seeks. The very anxieties and per¬ 
 plexities of its spiritual awakening turn upon this 
 particular sense of need. 
 
 In fact, there are but two ways in which, other¬ 
 wise, the sinner’s case, when it comes to be realized 
 by his own quickened consciousness, can be at all 
 comfortalily met. The one of these leans to the 
 Popish, the other to the Pelagian, error. But they 
 agree in this, that both of them proceed on the 
 same idea of the divine work of redemption being 
 left to be supplemented, whether as to its accom¬ 
 plishment or as to its application; either, on the 
 one hand, by a priestly ministry in the hands of 
 the Church ; or, on the other hand, by some effort 
 of spontaneous will, some self-originated volition 
 and choice, or some attainment of righteousness, 
 on the part of the individual. For in this re.spect 
 these two systems show a marked tendency to run 
 into one another. Popery is naturally Pelagian ; 
 and Pelagianism is apt to be Popish. The point 
 of contact, or bond of sympathy, lies mainly in the 
 very coincidence now pointed out. Both of the 
 systems make the plan of salvation contingent and 
 conditional. They would have it to be a sort of 
 general 2 '^<^nacea ,—a universal medicine and sove¬ 
 reign specific,—in the possession, under the con- 
 
TRUE STATE OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 217 
 
 trol, and at the disposal, either of the Church and chapter 
 her priesthood, as dispensers of it, or of all and —^ 
 sundry, as qualified to administer it to themselves. 
 
 The “ balm ” that is “ in Gilead ” is thus to be 
 taken and used, apart from the Physician who 
 is there ” (Jer. viii. 22). The remedy proposed, 
 
 —which is admitted on all hands to be in itself of 
 general, nay of universal, applicability, inasmuch 
 as it is fitted for every form and every measure of 
 disease,—is to be distributed and rendered actually 
 efiectual, either on the principle of a close spiritual 
 corporation and ecclesiastical monopoly, the Church 
 being recognised as having the sole key of this 
 divine dispensary; or on the principle, or the 
 hap-hazard, of absolute free trade, as it were, 
 every man being left to be his own mediciner. 
 
 Thus it is but one great gigantic error, at Their 
 
 . _ agreement 
 
 bottom, which raises itself against the truth of in one 
 
 great ' 
 
 God ; whether it be the priesthood, with its mys- error, 
 tical and sacramental charms ; or the individual 
 will of fallen man, with its supposed freedom, its 
 self-moving power, its ability of independent choice, 
 that is regarded as dealing with the divinely 
 ordained and divinely accomplished salvation, so 
 as to effect, or to determine, or in any way to 
 regulate, its particular application. It is the grand True state 
 
 of the 
 
 question, Whether I am to possess God’s salvation, question 
 or God s salvation is to possess me ? whether 1 am consid- 
 
 Gr6(3« 
 
 to have God in my power, and at my discretion, or 
 
218 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 ' PART God is to have me ? whether the Creator is to 
 —h place himself under the control of the creature, or 
 the creature is to submit to the Creator ? whether 
 man is to make use of God, or God is to reign 
 over man ? And how intimately the believer’s 
 confidence, as well as his high and holy calling, is 
 bound up with a right answer to this question, 
 let the apostle’s phraseology testify, when he re¬ 
 presents himself, not as apprehending, but as 
 “apprehended, of Christ Jesus”—caught and laid 
 hold of by him (Phil. iii. 12) ; and when he 
 appeals to his fellow-Christians as “ having known 
 God, or rather,”—he immediately adds, as if 
 anxiously guarding and correcting himself,—“be¬ 
 ing known of God” (Gal. iv. 9). 
 
 Neither For, in fact, to this practical issue the question 
 
 form of tlie _ ^ 
 
 error will must ultimately come. So every av/akened sinner 
 
 satisfy an _ 
 
 awakened feels, whether he may be able to put his feeling 
 
 iiowever it nito any definite expression or not. As the pro- 
 
 ficeforthe cess of earnest thought and deep exercise of soul 
 
 Ciirelcss. » • 
 
 in the things of God goes on, the systems and 
 forms of religion, which once appeared sufficient, 
 whether more or less ecclesiastical, or more or less 
 rationalistic and self-righteous or self-willed, be¬ 
 come wholly unsatisfactory and distasteful. Once, 
 it might not be difficult for the sinner to content 
 himself with a Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian notion 
 of his being at liberty, and having power, to use 
 the promises of the gospel as a remedy for the 
 
“ APPREHENDED OF CHRIST.” 219 
 
 disorders of his nature and the ills of life, and to 
 mould his character according to its precepts. 
 Or, he might graft on this notion some Popish, or 
 semi-Popish confidence in the Churclfs ritual and 
 observances. And so he might have a fair-weather 
 religion, with not a little apparent fervour, and 
 with not a little fruit, which might look well 
 enough, and serve his purpose well enough, while 
 his sky was comparatively clear and his heart in 
 the main was whole. But when experience of 
 another kind comes—when he sees the wind 
 boisterous, and is afraid, and begins to sink—ah ! 
 then, it is not his laying hold of Christ, with his 
 own withered arm, or through the Church’s treach¬ 
 erous mediation, that will save him ; but his being 
 powerfully caught and laid hold of by Christ him¬ 
 self. He feels this when he cries, “Lord, save 
 me; I perish.” And immediately “ Jesus stretches 
 forth his hand to catch him,” with a look and a 
 word of tender reproach : “ O thou of little fiiith, 
 wherefore didst thou doubt?” (Matt. xiv. 28-^1'). 
 
 Thus far, it seems evident enough that when a 
 sinner is really apprehended or laid hold of by the 
 Spirit of God,—when he is made to feel the guilt 
 and miseiy of his sinful rebellion against God, and 
 his sinful alienation from God,—when he is in real 
 earnest about his deliverance from the wrath, and 
 his restoration to the favour, of his justly offended 
 
 CnAl'TKR 
 
 III. 
 
220 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The same 
 practical 
 test to be 
 applied to 
 tile more 
 evangeli¬ 
 cal Armi- 
 niaa view. 
 
 Maker, Lord and King,—Ids case is not so easily 
 met,—the desideratum or felt want of Ids sonl 
 is not so readily supplied, nor its desiderium or 
 longingdesire so readily satisfied,—as those spiritual 
 guides are inclined to fancy, who, affecting to be 
 wiser than God, and to have a simpler gospel to 
 propose than that of Christ, would set before him 
 nothing more than a possibility of salvation, to 
 become for him actual salvation, either throuMi 
 his use of the Churclds ministry, or through some 
 self-originating movement of his own will,—his 
 inward moral power of choice and action. Here, 
 therefore, I might almost be contented to leave 
 my case, in so far as it depends on the sort of 
 practical and experimental test to which I appeal. 
 To do so, however, would be to evade an important 
 part of the investigation, and one that touches 
 directly the subject of this treatise. For it must 
 be admitted that those with whom the controversy 
 is more immediately carried on, may not be fairly 
 chai’geable with any conscious tendency in the 
 direction of any form of Pelagianisrn. They are 
 not disposed to call in priestly or ecclesiastical aid; 
 nor are they inclined to exaggerate the sinner’s 
 natural ability to avail himself, at his own dis¬ 
 cretion, of the remedy provided, or the plan of 
 salvation proposed. Their Arminian leanings do 
 not lead them so far away as that from the evan¬ 
 gelical doctrine of man’s utter helplessness and his 
 
TEST FUETHEK APPLIED. 
 
 221 
 
 absolute dependence on sovereign grace. Still 
 they think that somehow the awakened sinner 
 may see his way smoothed to the appropriation 
 of the benefit he needs, bv an extension of the 
 remedy, or the plan of salvation, so as to make it 
 comprehend within its scope and design others 
 besides the individuals actually saved. It is 
 necessary, therefore, now to deal with that modi¬ 
 fication of the anti-Calvinistic view, and to apply 
 to it the test of an appeal to experience, or to the 
 spiritual feeling of an earnest soul. 
 
 Accordingly, I would still say. Put that soul to 
 the trial. Go to a conscientiously exercised, and at 
 the same time intelligent, inquirer. Tell him of a 
 universal redemption—an atonement or propitia¬ 
 tion made for all—pardon and life purchased for 
 all. Ask him,—Is it this that you want ? is it 
 this that you feel yourself urgently, indispensably, 
 immediately to need? 
 
 It is true that, in a certain stage of his experi¬ 
 ence, this doctrine of an unlimited atonement may 
 seem to remove a difliculty, as to the earnest 
 cordiality of the call or invitation on the part of 
 God, and the waiTant for compliance with it on 
 the part of the sinner. It may thus contribute, 
 in his apprehension, to facilitate the decisive step, 
 or, as it were, the leap,—not indeed in the dark, 
 but yet at a venture and in faith,—b}^ which he 
 is to pass over the great gulf, and make good his 
 
 CHAPTEn 
 
 III. 
 
 A general 
 reference 
 in the 
 atonement 
 said to fa¬ 
 cilitate the 
 fii'st step 
 of faith. 
 
V 222 
 
 COMPLETENESS OP THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 This, liow- 
 ever, 
 neither 
 necessary 
 nor useful. 
 
 clear and unequivocal transition from a state of 
 nature to a state of grace. Such is the purpose 
 which this notion is apparently intended to serve, 
 in the system of some who, being better preachers, 
 as I am inclined to think, than theologians, unite 
 with the doctrine of a universal atonement, or 
 general redemption, certain other doctrines which 
 are usually held to be incompatible with it;—the 
 doctrine, for instance, of particular personal elec¬ 
 tion, on the one hand, and that of the efficacious 
 and sovereign work of the Spirit, in order to faith, 
 and in the act of believing, on the other hand. 
 They think they find, in their theoiy of general 
 redemption, a stepping-stone to that personal 
 appropriation of the blessings of saving grace 
 which they rightly hold to be incumbent, as a 
 duty, on every hearer of the gospel, and to be 
 involved in the acceptance of the gospel call. But 
 the assistance which the idea of a universal atone¬ 
 ment affords is, after all, more apparent than real. 
 In point of fact, to a sinner situated as I am now 
 supposing, it is the universal, unlimited, authori¬ 
 tative and imperative command to believe ;— 
 coupled with the unrestricted and unconditional 
 promise,—the free, full, unequivocal and infallible 
 assurance,—that whosoever believeth will be 
 saved ;—which, after ail, does the thing. It is 
 that which gets liiin over the difficulty, and lands 
 him in peace and enlargement of heart; and not 
 
A FULL SALVATION NEEDED. 
 
 223 
 
 any conception, either of a universal purchase, or 
 of a universal application, of the benefits which he 
 anxiously covets, and with trembling eagerness 
 seizes and holds fast. 
 
 Put it to such a sinner, whose conscience within 
 him, thus spiritually quickened, and undergoing 
 the pangs of the new spiritual birth, is scarcely 
 pacified, and with difficulty made to rest. Ask 
 himself. Do you look to Jesus,—do you believe on 
 him, or long to believe on him,—for no more 
 special and specific blessings than what are common 
 to the whole human race, for all of whom you are 
 told that he died as a propitiation ? Is it for 
 nothing more sure and certain-—more complete 
 and full—in the way of salvation, that you seek 
 an interest in Christ, and venture timidly and 
 fearfully to hope that you have obtained, at least, 
 a first instalment, as it were, or infeftment and 
 investiture in it? Ah, no! he will reply. For 
 such a redemption, common to me with the 
 lost and damned, it were little worth my while 
 to believe in Jesus. If I am to believe in 
 him at all, it must be for a great deal more than 
 that. 
 
 Nor will it be of any avail here to introduce 
 the scheme of a double sense. According to that 
 scheme, it would seem to be thought that the 
 belief that Christ died for me, in some sense in 
 which he equally died for the traitor Judas, may 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IIT. 
 
 For wliat 
 am I, a 
 sinnei', to 
 look to 
 Chi’ist ? 
 
 Not for 
 what is 
 common 
 to me with 
 the lost. 
 
 Hypotiie- 
 sis of a 
 double 
 sense un¬ 
 availing. 
 
224 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 help me, as a sort of stepping-stone, to believe 
 something altogether different;—to believe in 
 Christ as dying to make such propitiation for sin, 
 and purchase such a salvation, as must, confessedly, 
 be restricted to them that are “ chosen, and called, 
 and faithful.” The impression, I apprehend, is as 
 vain as it is gTatuitous. Universal redemption, 
 universal atonement, universal pardon, are ideas 
 or words that may seem to make the sinner’s 
 appropriation of Christ to himself, and his use of 
 Christ for all the purposes of his own spiritual 
 life, a very easy and simple thing. But if you 
 J exclude universal salvation, this apjiarent facility 
 becomes merely imaginary and delusive. For still, 
 what is needed is the appropriation of Christ;— 
 not as standing in a relation, and doing a work, 
 common to all, the lost as well as the saved; 
 but the appropriation of Christ as standing in a 
 relation, and doing a work, peculiar to them that 
 believe—to them that are not lost, but saved. 
 The really awakened and enlightened soul will 
 scarcely be manoeuvred into peace by any such 
 ambidextrous juggle or ambiguity as that which, 
 let me say it without offence, this scheme of a 
 double sense involves. Ask, I repeat, such a one 
 what he needs, what he wants,—what he now feels 
 that he cannot dispense with, or do without. He 
 will tell you that it is not a redemption consistent 
 with his being after all cast into hell; but a redemp- 
 
HYPOTHESIS OF A DOUBLE SENSE. 
 
 225 
 
 tion real and actual, full, finished, and perfect,—in- chapter 
 fallibly certain and irrevocably secure. —- 
 
 Nay, but you say to him, this redemption with 
 which you have to do, is, in one view, common 
 to all; and, in another, peculiar to those actually 
 saved. And it is the former, general aspect of it, 
 that you are first to take in, with a view to your 
 apprehending the other, Avhich is more special. 
 
 But I ask in reply,—What is it that makes the dif¬ 
 ference ? What is it that translates me from the 
 position of one generally interested, according to 
 some vague and undefined sense, along with man- 
 
 o o 
 
 kind at large, in the redemption purchased by 
 Christ, to that of one specially and actually re¬ 
 deemed ? My acceptance of the redemption, you 
 reply. But of what redemption ? It cannot be Beciemp- 
 my acceptance of real and complete redemption ; tins view, 
 for what is presented to me as the object of my piemented 
 faith—as that Avhich I am to believe—is the fact cJpuLr 
 of a general redemption, common to me with 
 Judas. It must be, therefore, my acceptance of 
 something which, as it is presented to my accep¬ 
 tance, is very far short of complete redemption, 
 and is made up to what is needed by my own act 
 in accepting it. Ah ! then, after all, it is a sal¬ 
 vation by works, at least in part. It is a salvation 
 only partially accomplished by Christ, to be sup¬ 
 plemented by those to whom it is offered. It is 
 
 a salvation, therefore, conditional, and contingent 
 
 15 
 
22G 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PAUT 
 
 II. 
 
 Langer of 
 making 
 ttie work 
 of tlie 
 Spirit an 
 objective 
 ground of 
 faith. 
 
 on sometliing on the part of the sinner, call it 
 faith or what yon will, that is to be not merely 
 the hand laying hold of a finished work, but .an 
 additional stroke needed to finish it. 
 
 Nor does it help the matter to tell me that this 
 also is the work of God, this faith being wrought 
 in me by the Holy Ghost. Still it is a different 
 work from that of Christ, and must be associated 
 with it, not in the way of appropriating Christ’s 
 work, but in the way of supplementing it. For, 
 in this view, the work of the Spirit must become 
 necessarily objective, along with the work of 
 Christ, instead of being, as it ought to be, merely 
 subjective. The Spirit must “ speak of himself,” 
 as well as “testify of Christ” (John xvi. 13-3 5). 
 The Spirit must reveal to me, as tlie ground and 
 warrant of my confidence, not merely the work of 
 Christ, but his own work in addition. For as, on 
 this supposition, the work of Christ purchases 
 nothing more tlian salvability for all, and it is the 
 work of the Spirit whicli turns that common salva¬ 
 bility into actual salvation, what I am to believe 
 in for salvation is, not tlie work of Christ alone, 
 but, conjointly, Christ’s work for sinners generally, 
 and the Spiiit’s work in me individually. Hence 
 there comes a looking to inward signs, and leaning 
 on inward experience ; a walking, in short, by 
 sense, rather than by faith. 
 
 For thi.s, I strongly feel, is the worst effect of 
 
CHRIST ALONE THE OBJECT OF FAITH. 
 
 227 
 
 the notion of which I am speaking,—tlie notion,, chapter 
 
 HI. 
 
 I mean, of the atonement being general and uni- 
 versal, connected with a strict view of regeneration, effect-to 
 or of faith being the gift of God and the work of leaning 
 the Holy Ghost. It almost necessarily leads those 
 who hold it to place the work of Christ and the, 
 work of the Spirit on the same footini;, as makincji 
 
 I 
 
 up between them the ground, and warrant, and ’ 
 foundation of confidence ; so that the sinner is to 
 look to, and rest on, not Christ’s work alone, but 
 Christ’s work and the Spirit’s work conjointly and 
 together. But it is a great Scriptural truth, that, 
 in the exercise of saving faith, Christ’s work alone 
 is objective, and the Spirit’s wholly subjective ; 
 or, in other words, that while the Spirit is the 
 author of faith, Christ alone is its only object. 
 
 And if so, it must be Christ as securing, by his 
 atoning death, a full, finished, complete, and ever- 
 lasting salvation. 
 
 It is for this, and nothing short of tins, that the 
 awakened and enlightened sinner cares to believe 
 
 in Christ at all. He longs to appropriate Christ. 
 But it is Christ as not a possible, but an actual 
 Saviour, that he does long to appropriate ; Christ 
 as having purchased a complete salvation,—a sal¬ 
 vation complete and sure, irrespective of his own 
 act of appropriating it, or of the work of the 
 Spirit by which he is persuaded and enabled to 
 appropriate it. True it is that he may experience 
 
228 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The only 
 redemp¬ 
 tion worth 
 the ap- 
 propriat- 
 iii;? must 
 be in its 
 very n£u- 
 ture re¬ 
 stricted. 
 
 difficulty in thus appropriating Christ and liis sal¬ 
 vation. He may have scruples, and doubts, and 
 miso^ivino-s manifold, in bringino- himself to realize 
 anything like a personal interest in the love and 
 in the death of Jesus. But will it meet his case, 
 to widen to the very utmost the extent of Christ's 
 work, and to represent it as designed and intended, 
 undertaken and accomplished, for all, even the lost? 
 Do you not, in proportion as you thus widen its 
 extent, limit and diminish its real efficacy; and in 
 consequence, also, the actual amount of benefit 
 implied in it ? You say to the broken-hearted 
 anxious inquirer, that he may appropriate this 
 redemption as a redemption purchased for all. 
 Ah ! then it becomes a redemption scarcely worth 
 the appropriating. Nay, you rejoin, it is very 
 precious; for, when accompanied by the work of 
 the Holy Ghost, it becomes a great deal more than 
 redemption common to all,—it becomes redemp¬ 
 tion special and peculiar to the saved. Be it so. 
 But do you not thus instantly set me, the inquiring 
 sinnei’, on putting the two works—that of Christ 
 and that of the Holy Ghost—together, as constitut¬ 
 ing together the ground of my hope ? And this is a 
 grave practical mistake, opposed to my peace and 
 to the mind of the Spirit concerning me. For the 
 Spirit himself would not have his own woi’k to 
 be, in any degree or in any sense, either the ob¬ 
 ject, or the ground, or the reason, or the warrant, 
 
THE CALL AND THE ASSURANCE. 
 
 229 
 
 of my faith at all; but only and exclusively the'cnAPTEn 
 
 I 2JJ 
 
 finished work and sure word of Christ. ^ —i. 
 
 The truth is, what is needed to meet such a 
 case is a complete salvation freely offered. The 
 difficulty in question,—so far as it is to be over¬ 
 come by argument and reason at all, or by consid¬ 
 erations addressed to the understanding,—is to be 
 got over by pressing the peremptory gospel call to 
 believe, and the positive gospel assurance of a 
 cordial welcome to all that will believe. That call Theciiii t 
 and that assurance are universal, unrestricted, un- assurances, 
 reserved ; as much so as any can desire. 
 
 But the call must be a call to the sinner to Both un- 
 submit himself to the righteousness of God, or the a^d 
 
 reserved 
 
 stricted. 
 
 work of Christ, as by itself alone justifying the 
 ungodly. And the assurance must be an assur¬ 
 ance that an interest in Christ immediately and 
 necessarily carries with it the full possession of all 
 saving blessings. Otherwise, if it be not the very Both fix 
 nature of the atonement itself, or its exact design ch,.“st*^ 
 and inherent efficac}’, that connects with it a sure 
 and perfect salvation—but something superadded 
 to, or supervening upon, the atonement, to qualify, 
 as it were, or to complete it—then it is on that 
 something, after all, whatever it may be, that the 
 sinner is to fix his eye and rest his hope, and not 
 really on the atonement, which, without it, is to 
 him unmeaning and unprofitable. 
 
 What, then, is that something to be ? 
 
230 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 11 . 
 
 Tlie salva¬ 
 tion to be 
 appro- 
 pi'iited 
 not merely 
 possible, 
 but actual 
 ajid real. 
 
 In the first place, there are some who say that, 
 on the part of God, it is a covenant transaction 
 alone that secures the actual salvation of a certain 
 portion of mankind, in connection with the atone¬ 
 ment. On that theory, the atonement of itself 
 does no more than make the salvation of any, and 
 of all, possible. They who maintain it, represent 
 the Son as undertaking his work for all; upon 
 the condition, however, of its being infallibly ren¬ 
 dered effectual on behalf of a given number. And 
 they seem to hold that it is this alone which im¬ 
 parts to that work anything like a more special 
 reference to that given number than it has to the 
 world at large. It is plain that this view touches 
 very deeply the nature of tlie work of Christ. We 
 are accustomed to believe that in the covenant 
 traiLsaction between the Father and the Son, an 
 elect people being given to Christ, he did, in their 
 room, and as their surety, undertake and accom¬ 
 plish a work which, from its very nature, as a 
 work of satisfaction and substitution, insured in¬ 
 fallibly their complete salvation. But that other 
 theory makes the whole peculiarity of Christ’s re¬ 
 lation to his people tuim, not on the essential 
 nature of his work on their behalf, but on the 
 terms which he made with the Father ; so that, 
 in fact, it comes to this, that Christ really has not 
 done more for them than for others ; although, by 
 the divine arrangements regarding it, what he has 
 
CUEIST ALL IN ALL. 
 
 231 
 
 clone is to be rendered effectual for their salvation, 
 and not for that of others. 
 
 And hence it follows, secondly, that, on the 
 part of the sinner himself who is called to receive 
 salvation, there must be a tendency to have his 
 attention turned, not to Christ’s work, as, from 
 its very nature, a sure and sufficient ground of 
 hope, but to those arrangements Avhich define 
 and determine its otherwise unlimited efficacy, in 
 so far as these are made known. And here the 
 great practical evil comes out. The death of 
 Christ, or his work of atonement, is viewed very 
 much as an expedient for getting over a diffi¬ 
 cult}^ that had occurred in the government of 
 God, in reference to the negotiating of a treaty 
 of reconciliation with the guilty. It is a sort of 
 coii'p d’etat ,—a stroke of administrative rule,— 
 a measure of high and heavenly policy,—for up¬ 
 holding generally the authority of law and justice 
 in the universe. But that purpose being served, 
 it may now be put very much in the background, 
 excepting only in so far as it is a manifestation 
 of the divine character, which it must always be 
 right to ponder and admire. For now, the hitch, 
 as it were, or crisis that demanded such an in¬ 
 terposition, being adjusted,—and the door being 
 open for a negotiation of peace,—attention must 
 chiefly be directed, in a practical point of view, 
 not to what has opened tlie door, but to what now 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 III. 
 
 Danger of 
 Christ’s 
 work of 
 atonement 
 being put 
 in tlie 
 baok- 
 ground. 
 
232 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT, 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Salvation 
 
 not 
 
 through 
 or from 
 Christ, hut 
 ill Christ. 
 
 is needed, in addition, for the actual effecting of 
 the end desired. In the consideration of what 
 that is, and in the settlement of matters accord¬ 
 ingly between God and the sinner, reference may, 
 indeed, be made to the atonement—but rather as 
 if it made way for reconciliation, than as if it 
 actually procured it. 
 
 Is not this like what Paul calls “ another gos¬ 
 pel ?” To preach, or proclaim, salvation tlirough 
 Christ, is a different thing from proclaiming sal¬ 
 vation in Christ. I go to the crowd cf criminals, 
 shut up in prison, under sentence of death ; and 
 my message is, not that in consequence of Christ’s 
 death I have now to offer to them all liberty to 
 go out free ;—but that Christ himself is there, 
 even at the door; in whom, if they will but apply 
 to him, they will find one who can meet every 
 accusation against them, and enrich them with 
 every blessing. I refer them and point tliem to 
 himself—to himself alone ; assuring them that all 
 they have to care for is that they may “ win 
 Chri.st, and be found in him” (Phil. hi. <S, 9). 
 I bring nothing from Christ to them ; I tell them 
 that all is in him, and bid them go to him for all. 
 I do not speak to them of a certain amount of 
 atoning virtue purchased by the obedience and 
 death of Christ, as if it were a store laid up for 
 general use, from which they may take what they 
 need. I speak to them of Christ as being himself 
 
SALVATION IN CHRIST. 
 
 233 
 
 the atonement, and summon them to a personal 
 dealing with him accordingly. In a Avord, I pre¬ 
 sent to them, not a general amnesty, or vague and 
 indiscriminate jail-delivery, proceeding upon the 
 transaction which Christ finished upon Calvary ; 
 —hut Christ himself, and him crucified, a present" 
 Saviour now, as Avell as then; having in his hand 
 a special pardon and special grace for every one 
 who will resort to him,—and nothing for any who 
 will not. 
 
 The Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian, expedient for 
 meeting the sinner’s case, by exaggerating his na¬ 
 tural ability to believe, already partially noticed, 
 will fall to be afterwards more particularly con¬ 
 sidered. In the meantime, it Avould appear that 
 little is gained, in the way of facilitating his ac¬ 
 ceptance of Christ, by any extension of the design 
 and efficacy of Christ’s work beyond those who 
 actually come to him and are saved, or any idea of 
 a general aspect or reference in the atonement 
 accomplished by him. 
 
234 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 Vi 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Two rea¬ 
 sons for 
 udvocat- 
 int? a 
 general 
 reference 
 in the 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Danger of 
 viewing 
 this sub¬ 
 ject fi'om 
 a merely 
 human, 
 rather 
 tlian from 
 the divine 
 stand¬ 
 point. 
 
 CHAPTER lY. 
 
 THE DIVINE FAITHFULNESS AND HUMAN RESPONSIBILITV—WHERE 
 THE INSOLUBLE DIFFICULTY SHOULD BE PLACED. 
 
 The reasons which, as it would appear, chiefly 
 weigh with those who advocate the theory of a 
 “general reference,” or “general relations,” in the 
 atonement, reaching beyond the individuals actually 
 saved by it, are, on the one hand, a desire to ex¬ 
 plain and establish the consistency of God in the 
 universal call of the gospel; and, on the other 
 hand, an extreme anxiety to facilitate the sinner s 
 compliance with that call. The design is, in so 
 far, worthy of commendation, while the motive 
 unquestionably is good. It is to justify to all 
 men the divine procedure, and to leave all men 
 without apology or excuse. 
 
 At the same time, it may be doubted if this can 
 ever be altogether a becoming or safe point of 
 view from which to contemplate the plan of saving 
 mercy. It can scarcely be so. For it almost in¬ 
 evitably leads to our regarding that plan rather in 
 the light of what seems due to man, than in the 
 light of what is due to God. It is remarkable, 
 accordingly, that Holy Scripture rarely, if ever, 
 concerns itself with these aspects of the great fact 
 
THE PKEEOGATIVE OF GOD. 
 
 235 
 
 and truth which is its subject—the fact and truth cnAPTKR 
 of redemption. The Bible is not careful to vindi- ill 
 cate the ways of God to man, or to make them all ,!^ot^carei 
 so smooth and plain that there shall be no stum- [ucateoie 
 bling-block in them for those who will stumble. 
 
 It represents these ways, indeed, as such, that “the 
 wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein'' 
 
 (Isa. XXXV. 8) ; but it represents them also as 
 such, that they who turn aside may think them¬ 
 selves entitled to complain of their “ narrowness," 
 and of the “straitness of the gate" that leads into 
 them. In point of fact, the Bible, in all that it 
 reveals as to the adjustment of the relation between 
 the God of love and his guilty creatures, proceeds 
 much more on the ground of what God claims as 
 his own proper right, than on any notion of what 
 man may consider to be due to him. It stands 
 much on God’s high prerogative,—his irresistible The Biwe 
 power and unquestionable sovereignty; and though much or. 
 it does leave men really without excuse before lu-Lolfa- 
 God, it does not leave them without specious and 
 plausible excuses to themselves. 
 
 This, indeed, is one chief evidence of the divine Tins one 
 authority of the Bible, as well as of the divinity divinity, 
 of that blessed Saviour of whom it testifies, that, 
 in the whole system of truth which it contains— 
 the truth as it is in Jesus—it maintains so lofty 
 and uncompromising a tone of loyalty and alle¬ 
 giance to God ; and shows so much more anxiety 
 
23G 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 to silence and subdue man, than—at least before¬ 
 hand, or before he is subdued—to satisfy him. 
 “ Let God be true, and every man a liar.” “Who 
 art thou, O man, that repliest against God?” Let 
 “every mouth be stopped.” “He that is unjust, 
 let him be unjust still; and lie which is filthy, let 
 him be filthy still.” “Be still, and know that I 
 am God.” “ He that doeth my will shall know 
 of the doctrine.” These, and such as these, are 
 the maxims of whicli Scriptui’e is fidl. The whole 
 strain of the divine Word, and especially of the 
 glorious Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, is to the 
 same efiect. So the Apostle Paul emphatically tes¬ 
 tifies, when he says : “ The preaching of the cross 
 is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us 
 which are saved it is the power of God. We 
 preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling- 
 block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto 
 them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, 
 Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” 
 (1 Cor. i. 18-24). And the testimony of the 
 Apostle Peter is equally explicit, when he thus 
 speaks of Christ: “ Unto you which believe he is 
 })recious; but unto them which be disobedient, 
 the stone which the builders disallowed is made 
 the head of the corner, and a stone of stumbling 
 and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble 
 at the word, being disobedient ” (1 Peter ii. 7, 8). 
 
 It were well if, in this respect, the disciple did 
 
VINDICATION OF GOD’S SINCEEITY. 
 
 237 
 
 not seek to be above bis Master. Let the am¬ 
 bassadors and messengers of the King leave it to 
 himself to \dndicate bis own ways to all to whom 
 be cares to vindicate them ; to the little children 
 to whom be points when be says, “ I thank thee, 
 O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou 
 hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, 
 and hast revealed them unto babes” (Matt. xi. 25). 
 And let them, for their part, take to themselves 
 the humbler function of handing over inquirers to 
 him for satisfaction, instead of offering or trying 
 to make all that concerns him plain to them; and 
 that, too, even before they are willing to assume 
 the attitude of Mary, “ sitting at his feet and 
 hearing his word” (Luke x. 89). This humilia¬ 
 tion on the part of his ministers is their best cre¬ 
 dential ; for it is thus that, like Jesus himself, 
 they “ speak as having authority.” 
 
 But with reference, more particularly, to the 
 matter in hand, let the real value be ascertained 
 of the two reasons already assigned for that re¬ 
 laxation, which some propose, of the strict and 
 stern Calvinism of our evangelical divinity. 
 
 The first reason relates to God,—to the supposed 
 necessity of vindicating his sincerity and good 
 faith, in connection with the ’ universality of the 
 gospel offer. 
 
 Now here it miMit be enouo-h. to dwell on the 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 The dis¬ 
 ciple 
 should 
 not, in 
 this mat¬ 
 ter, be 
 above his 
 JIaster. 
 
 The first 
 reason: te 
 vindicate 
 God’s sin¬ 
 cerity in 
 the gospel 
 offer. 
 
COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PA AT 
 II. 
 
 The diffl-t 
 culty is 'V 
 not solved, 
 but merely- 
 shifted. 
 
 very plain and simple consideration that this whole 
 matter might he left to God himself. We have 
 his own authority for most emphatically and un¬ 
 equivocally assuring all sinners, without exception, 
 tliat none ever put him to the proof, by accepting, 
 or desiring to accept, his offer, and found him fail; 
 and that none ever shall. That, surely, ought to 
 be sufficient for every practical purpose. But, 
 setting such considerations aside, let it be asked. 
 What is the actual import of the expedient pro¬ 
 posed for the end contemplated ? 
 
 It is obvious, in the first place, that it merely 
 sliifts the difficulty. In fact, of all theories upon 
 this vexed question, the most inconsistent would 
 seem to be that of a universal atonement, or an 
 atonement with a general reference ” to all man¬ 
 kind, taken along with a purpose and provision of 
 special grace in regard to its application. To say 
 that, in a sense, Christ died for all, but that in so 
 dying for all, he stipulated, in covenant, with the 
 Everlasting Father, that the Spirit, without whose 
 agency his death would be effectual for the salva¬ 
 tion of none, should be given infallibly to a certain 
 number, and to them alone—this is so manifest 
 an evasion of the real perplexity, so shifting and 
 sandy a refuge, that none can long continue to 
 occupy such a position. Accordingly, it has been 
 almost invariably found, that the theory halts, and 
 is lame. And the result in the long-run i.s, that 
 
DIFFICULTY MERELY SHIFTED. 
 
 239 
 
 even the doctrine of a special purpose and special chapter 
 grace in the application of the remedy is aban- —1 
 doned, as well as that of a limited, design in the 
 work itself. Nay, rightly followed out, this theory ^ 
 can scarcely stop short, either, on the one hand, 
 of a denial of all that is essential to the idea of 
 an atonement, as a true substitution of the innocent 
 in the room of the guilty; or, on the other hand, 
 of universal pardon, or the universal salvation of-^ 
 all mankind. Certainly, the middle stage, or in¬ 
 termediate position, which would combine a general 
 reference in the atonement itself with a limited 
 purpose, from all eternity, in its application—the 
 notion, in short, of Christ’s work being more ex¬ 
 tensive than that of the Spirit rendering it effectual 
 ■—will not go far to satisfy any who are inclined 
 to raise a question as to the honesty of the gospel 
 offer. For how is it more ea.sy to explain the ^ 
 universal offer of salvation on the footing of a 
 
 general atonement, with a particular purpose in 
 regard to its application, than it is to explain 
 the universal offer of salvation in connection with 
 an atonement which is, from its very nature, 
 restricted, indeed, but which at the same time, on 
 that very account, and by that very restriction, 
 secures efficaciously the salvation offered, and ren¬ 
 ders it absolutely certain to all who are made 
 williug to receive it ? 
 
 The real question, let it be observed, in this 
 
240 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 TAUT 
 
 II. 
 
 The real 
 question 
 is, where 
 to place 
 the diffi¬ 
 culty. 
 
 The worst 
 place is 
 hetween 
 the work 
 of Clirist 
 and the 
 work of 
 the Spirit. 
 
 Only two 
 consistent 
 landing- 
 places. 
 
 whole inquiry, is not how the difficulty is to be 
 explained, but where it is to be allowed to rest. 
 It is admitted that there is a knot which cannot 
 be unloosed,—an arrangement, or ordinance, or 
 decree, which must be resolved into an exercise of 
 the divine sovereignty, of which no account is 
 given to us. The only question is. Where is it to 
 be placed? Is this restriction, or limitation of the 
 plan of mercy, which constitutes the real per- 
 plexit}^, to be introduced between the work of 
 Christ purchasing redemption and the work of the 
 Spirit applying it ? 
 
 I own that this seems to me to be the very 
 worst of all niches in which to hide it. For thus 
 situated, it dishonours either the Spirit’s work or 
 the work of Christ. It dishonours the Spirit’s 
 work, if we ask. Why should not that blessed 
 accent give the most wide and universal effect to 
 the wide and universal atonement of Christ ? Or 
 it dishonours the work of Christ, if we ask. Why 
 should not that infinitely meritorious and precious 
 atonement of his, having reference, as it is alleged, 
 in its own nature, to all, avail to purchase or ob¬ 
 tain for all the needful supplement of the gift of 
 the Spirit ? 
 
 The truth is, there are but two consistent land¬ 
 ing-places for this high mystery which has been 
 so much tossed and bandied to and fro;—the one 
 at a point prior, in the order of nature, to both of 
 
THE REAL ALTERNATIVE. 
 
 241 
 
 these works ; the other at a point subsequent and chapteu 
 posterior to both. In other words, the reason of 
 the admitted limitation, practically, of the plan of forebotir 
 salvation must be sought, either in the purpose of ilie sovo- 
 God’s will, going before both the work of Christ o?God7or 
 and the work of the Spirit, and defining both: or 
 in the power (arbitrium) of man’s will coming 
 after both of these works, and restrictins; what 
 God has left general. This is the real alternatiA^e. 
 
 And this is the danger to be apprehended from 
 any attempt to shift the difficidty from the former 
 of these two positions, that it almost infallibly' 
 leads, sooner or later, to an adoption of the latter. 
 
 Then we have a general love of tlie Father, 
 a general work of the Son, and a general in¬ 
 fluence of the Spirit, all depending on the 
 power of man’s will for their fruit and efficacy. 
 
 Is it not better to regard the will of the Eternal The first 
 Godhead as the source, alike, and the limit, of the best 
 the whole plan ; and to make both the work 
 of Christ and the work of the Spirit com¬ 
 mensurate with that will, which they exactly ful¬ 
 fil ? Then the whole difficulty is resolved into 
 the sovereignty and mere good pleasure of God, 
 
 Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; and the question. 
 
 Why is it not God’s pleasure to save all men, or 
 to save more than are actually embraced in the 
 plan? is met by the question. Why is it his good 
 pleasure to save any ? 
 
 16 
 
242 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PAUT 
 
 II. 
 
 rne Cal- 
 vinistic 
 system 
 not pi'o- 
 sumjitu- 
 OLis ill this 
 matter, 
 but 
 
 humble. 
 
 The ser¬ 
 vice whicli 
 it renders 
 to theo¬ 
 logy. 
 
 It is but justice to the Calvinistic system to 
 bccar always in mind the remark now made, that 
 it does not profess to solve the great difficulty 
 involved in the adjustment of the relation be¬ 
 tween the will of the Creator and the will of 
 the creature. All that it proposes is, to fix the 
 position of the difficult}^ rightly ; so that it shall 
 not interfere either with the sovereignty of divine 
 grace in the whole matter of salvation, from first 
 to last, or with the responsibility, the dependence, 
 and the free agency of man. In this respect, so 
 fill* from being liable to the imputation of pre¬ 
 sumption, or attempting to pry into the divine 
 secrets, it rather possesses the character of true 
 and honest humility. It does not, like some 
 other theories, affect to explain and vindicate the 
 divine administration, to the entire satisfaction of 
 human reason. It franklj^ owns the impossibility 
 of making all plain, and appeals to the absolute 
 supremacy and almighty power of God as the 
 only answer, in the last resort, to cavilling ques¬ 
 tions. Its simple aim is, to assign to the in¬ 
 explicable knot its light jilace ; so that it shall 
 not come in between the counsels of God and the 
 salvation of believers, in such a manner as to 
 occasion any incongruity in passing from the 
 purpose of redemption to the purchase of it,— 
 or again, in passing from the purchase to the 
 a})j)lication of it. 
 
DIFFEEENT POINTS OF VIEW. 
 
 243 
 
 This, I apprehend, is an important service ; 
 although the importance of it may not be in all 
 circumstances equally apparent. Much may de¬ 
 pend on the point of view from which people 
 have been accustomed to consider the subject. 
 I have referred, for example, to some whom I 
 have ventured to call “ better preachers than 
 theologians,”* who hold pretty strongly the Ar- 
 minian doctrine of a universal atonement, and 
 yet hold no less strongly the evangelical doctrine 
 of the sovereignty of grace in regeneration, con¬ 
 version, and faith. It is, perhaps, no discredit 
 or disparagement to such divines as Wesley and 
 his followers, that, in the intensely practical busi¬ 
 ness of the Methodist revival of the last century, 
 theyshould have manifested a distaste for what they 
 might be inclined to call metaphysical speculation 
 in divinity. At the same time, even their way 
 of representing the universality of the atonement, 
 in connection with a confessedly restricted divine 
 work rendering it effectual, might be shown to be 
 attended with all the inconvenience that is apt to 
 arise from the real difficulty in the case being 
 concealed or slurred over, by being put in its 
 wrong place; although we wmuld be far from 
 confounding their theology with any of the more 
 rationalistic forms which Arminianism is apt to 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 Not al¬ 
 ways ap¬ 
 preciated 
 even by 
 parties in 
 the main 
 evangeli¬ 
 cal. 
 
 See page 2 l>2. 
 
244 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 TART 
 
 II. 
 
 Allowance 
 to be made 
 for dif¬ 
 ferent 
 points of 
 view. 
 
 EiTor 
 more dan¬ 
 gerous in 
 some soils 
 tlian in 
 otliers. 
 
 assume, wlieu, resenting the notion of divine 
 sovereignty, it magnifies unduly human freedom 
 and human power. 
 
 For, surely, in the discussion of this vexed and 
 vexing question, one cannot but be anxious to 
 keep the door as widely open as possible, for the 
 mutual recognition of the one evangelical faith 
 among all who have been taught “by the Holy 
 Ghost to call Jesus Lord” (1 Cor. xii. 8), by 
 making allowance' for the different lights in which 
 they look at it. We can afford to smile at the 
 bitter hatred of Calvinism which breathes through 
 the Wesleyan writings, when we perceive the 
 caricature of that system which they set up to be 
 attacked ; and still more, when we take into ac¬ 
 count their soundness in the faith in other essen¬ 
 tial particulars. In fact, with the high doctrine 
 which they hold respecting the work of the Spirit, 
 it becomes rather an inconsistency than a heresy, 
 with them, that they put a more lax interpreta¬ 
 tion on the extent of the work of the Son. 
 
 It does not follow, however, that what may be 
 comparatively safe for them, must be equally so 
 in the case of others. Much depends on the soil 
 in which a dangerous weed groAvs. Here it may 
 be so merged and lost in the strong and flourishing 
 luxuriance of the good grain as to be almost, 
 if not altogether, harmless ; whilst appearing 
 elsewhere, like a deadly blight in the most 
 
ENGLISH AND SCOTCH DIVINITY. 
 
 245 
 
 goodly field, it may “ eat as doth a canker/’ 
 and “ increase unto more ungodliness ” (2 Tim. 
 ii. 16, 17). In Scottish theology, for example, 
 any departure from the strict view of the extent 
 of the atonement is to be seriously dreaded, 
 because it almost uniformly indicates a lurking 
 tendency to call in question the sovereignty of 
 divine grace altogether.. Hence it is invariabty 
 found to open a door for the influx of the entire 
 tide of the Pelagian theory of human ability, in 
 the train of that Arminian notion of the divine 
 decrees which is so apt to be its precursor. 
 
 In this view, it might furnish an interesting 
 topic of inquiry, to investigate the cause of a 
 difference which, I think, may be traced through¬ 
 out, between the practical divinity of England 
 and that of Scotland, at least since the days of 
 the Covenant and Puritan contests. In England, 
 Calvinism has mueh more frequently lapsed into 
 Antinomianism than in Scotland; whereas in 
 Scotland, Arminianism has always run more im¬ 
 mediately into Pelagianism than in England. 
 These are evidently the opposite tendencies of 
 the two systems. Calvinism inclines towards 
 Antinomian fatalism, and Arminianism towards 
 Pelagian self-righteousness or self-conversion. Now, 
 in Scotland, a Calvinist is rarely Antinomian; 
 while an Arminian, or semi-Arminig.n, has almost 
 always a leaning towards Pelagianism. In Eng- 
 
 CHAPTSR 
 
 IV. 
 
 Difference 
 
 between 
 
 English 
 
 aiulScotcli' 
 
 divinity. 
 
 In Eng¬ 
 land, Cal¬ 
 vinism 
 more apt 
 to become 
 Antino¬ 
 mian and 
 fatalistic; 
 in Scot¬ 
 land, Ar¬ 
 minianism 
 more apt 
 to become 
 Pelagian. 
 
246 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 land, again, a hard, cold, and indolent ortliodoxy 
 soon began to take the place of living ])iety, 
 amoncf too manv of the successors of the Cal- 
 
 O 
 
 vinistic and Nonconformist divines—until the 
 philosophical necessity of the Socinian school of 
 Priestley almost came to be held as the legitimate 
 representation of the Predestinarian theology; 
 while, on the other hand, in the IMethodist re¬ 
 vival, an Arminian notion of the extent of the 
 atonement sprung up, in connection witli a 
 strictly Calvinistic view of the new birth, under 
 a free and fervid preaching of the gospel of the 
 grace of God. The national difference of in¬ 
 tellectual talent and moral temperament may go 
 far to explain the fact to which I have referred ; 
 the different histories of the two countries, still 
 further. That it is, at all events, sub.stantially, a 
 fact con'ectly stated, can scarcely be questioned. 
 
 But, however one might be inclined to specu¬ 
 late on this national or ecclesiastical distinction, 
 as a fact well worthy of study, and in whatever 
 way it is to be accounted for, it does not in the 
 least affect the view which I have been rdviim, 
 as to the danger of misplacing, under the profes¬ 
 sion of solving, the knotty problem which meets 
 us at every turn in this high field of thought. 
 Tlie universality of the gospel call is not really 
 justified or vindicated, as on the side of God, by 
 widening the extent of that provision of atoning 
 
WHAT IS OFFERED IN THE GOSPEL ? 
 
 2-17 
 
 blood and rigliteonsness on which it is based. 
 On any theory, however wide, that stops short of 
 the universal salvation of all mankind, the diffi¬ 
 culty still remains as great as ever; with a 
 difference, however, for the worse, — that the 
 difficulty comes to be put where it is apt to 
 increase our perplexity and endanger our whole 
 faith. 
 
 This might be, of itself, a sufficient answer to the 
 first reason alleofed for enlarmno; the rans^e of the 
 
 o o o o 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 The diffi¬ 
 culty in 
 regard to 
 the uni¬ 
 versality 
 of tile gos¬ 
 pel offer 
 not really 
 met in tlie 
 way pro¬ 
 posed. 
 
 efficacy of Christ’s death, that the offer of salvation 
 in terms of it may be seen to be real and earnest. 
 There is another answer, however, Avhicli perhaps 
 goes still deeper into the root of the matter. 
 
 For, secondly, in our anxiety to avoid a sup¬ 
 posed appearance of insincerity, on the part of God, 
 in one direction, we may be apt to incur the very 
 same risk in another. By all means let there be 
 an honest offer of the gospel, it is said. Surely. 
 But let it be honest in respect of what is offered, 
 as well as in respect of those to whom it is 
 offered. “ Let God be true ” to those who accept 
 the offer, though all else should “ make him a liar.” 
 Now, consider what they who are in ‘Christ are 
 said, according to Scripture, and on the terms 
 of the gospel offer, to possess. Is it anything 
 short of a real and personal substitution of Christ 
 in their room and stead, as their representative 
 
 An oppo¬ 
 site diffi¬ 
 culty 
 
 Wliat is 
 offered in 
 tlie gospel 
 and ac¬ 
 cepted by 
 faith. 
 
248 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 and siu’ety, fulfilling all their legal obligations, 
 and undertaking and meeting all their legal 
 liabilities ? Is it anything short of such a sub¬ 
 stitution as must insure that, in consequence of it, 
 and upon their acceptance of it, they are now, 
 by a legal right—in terms of the law which He 
 as their covenant head has magnified and made 
 honourable in their behalf—free from the impu¬ 
 tation of legal blame ; that, as one with him in 
 his righteousness, they are judicially absolved and 
 acquitted,'—justified from all their transgressions, 
 and invested with a valid legal title to eternal 
 life and salvation ? This, they will themselves be 
 ready to say, is what was presented to them and 
 pressed upon their acceptance, before they believed, 
 as being all freely and fully theirs, in Christ, if only 
 they would have it to be theirs. It was for this, 
 and nothing short of this, that they were brought, 
 in their conversion, to believe in Christ. It was 
 this, and nothing short of this, that in believing 
 they actually obtained. They obtained, they got, 
 they apprehended, and laid hold of as their own, 
 —theirs by the gratuitous gift of God,—Christ 
 himself, the Son, the Saviour. But it was not 
 Christ considered as standino: in a vamie and 
 undefined relation to all mankind, that they had 
 offered to them, and that they got. No. It was 
 Christ considered as standing in a special relation 
 to his willing and saved people ; being literally 
 
CHRIST OFFERED AS A REAL SUBSTITUTE. 
 
 249 
 
 their substitute—who took their place under 
 the law, and was “ made sin ” for tliem,—in 
 such a sense, and to such an effect, as to imply 
 that their being thereafter themselves condemned 
 for sin would be unrighteous, and, by necessary 
 consequence, must be impossible. 
 
 That is what God offers in the gospel ; what 
 he offers in good faith ; what all who accept the 
 offer find that he fully and faithfully bestows. 
 
 Look at some of the passages of Scripture 
 which describe what Christ is to “ as many as 
 receive him,” even to “ them that believe on his 
 name.” Take such passages as the following : 
 “ In whom we have redemption through his 
 blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the 
 riches of his grace ” (Eph. i. 7 ) ;—“ There is 
 therefore now no condemnation to them which 
 are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. viii. 1) ;—“Ye are 
 complete in him ” (Col. ii. 10) ;—“ Christ hath 
 redeemed us from the curse of the law, being 
 made a curse for us” (Gal. iii. 18);—“He hath 
 made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that 
 we might be made the righteousness of God in 
 him” (2 Cor. v. 21). Let these, and innumer¬ 
 able other texts of the same general class,— 
 including our Lord’s own assurances of what 
 those who receive him are to be to him, and 
 what they are to find in him,—be duly pondered. 
 And then let the question be asked, In what 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 k 
 
 Scriptural 
 proof of 
 the com¬ 
 pleteness 
 of wliat is 
 offered. 
 
2oO 
 
 COJIPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PA RT 
 II. 
 
 Christ 
 offered as 
 a real sub¬ 
 stitute and 
 coraplete 
 Saviour. 
 
 r 
 
 y 
 
 character is Christ set forth and offered to sinners 
 of mankind generally and universally,—-in what 
 character and aspect is he proposed to their belief, 
 and pressed on their acceptance ? Is it not in the 
 character which he sustains to his own people, and 
 which he can sustain to none other ? Is it not in 
 the character of a real and actual substitute in 
 their room and stead ? Is this an honest offer ? 
 Is it honest, as regards not only the parties to 
 whom it is made, but the portion of good which 
 it contains? Honest ! Nay, the offer, the pro¬ 
 posal, the gift, of what is implied in a general 
 atonement, may be, and must be, delusive ; for it 
 is the offer of what does not meet the sinner’s 
 case. But “ it is” indeed “ a faithful saying, and 
 worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came 
 to save sinners, even the chief;”—to save them b}'' 
 the actual substitution of himself in their place, 
 under the law which they have broken, and by 
 the actual fulfilment of all the righteousness of the 
 law, and the endurance of its penalty, on their 
 behalf and in their stead. 
 
 Thus Hr I have been dealing with the first of 
 the two reasons urged in favour of the doctrine of 
 a universal reference in the atonement ; its beinof 
 supposed to be of use in explaining and vindicat¬ 
 ing the consistency and good faith of God in con¬ 
 nection with the universality of the gospel offer, 
 i think I have shown that it really serves no such 
 
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF GOD. 
 
 251 
 
 purpose. In the first place, it merely shifts the fciiAPTrR 
 2 :)Osition of what is confessedly an inexplicahle —1 
 difiiculty in this whole matter, and shifts it for the 
 worse. It is better at once to own the sovereignty me better 
 of God, to bow before it, and to confess that he own the 
 is justly entitled to demand the return of guilty God.* 
 rebels to their allegiance, upon the simple assur¬ 
 ance that, returning to their allegiance, they will 
 find grace enough for tliem. Thev have no right 
 to raise difficulties and start questions before re¬ 
 turning. And then, secondly, a new element of 
 doubt is introduced, affording room to question 
 the good faith of God in respect of what it is tliat 
 he offers in the gospel, as well as in respect of the 
 parties to whom the offer is made. I hold it to 
 be of the utmost consequence to maintain that 
 what is offered in the gospel to all men indis¬ 
 criminately and without .exception, is Christ as a 
 real substitute—a real and efficacious propitiatory 
 sacrifice. That is what all who acce])t the offer 
 find him to be. That is what unbelief rejects. 
 
 It rejects Christ in that chai’acter and capacity. 
 
 “ This is the record, that God hath given to us 
 eternal life, and this life is in his Son” (1 John v. 
 
 II);—“ Ye wdll not come to me, that ye might 
 have life” (John v. 40). 
 
 There is a second reason, which weighs with 
 some wdio object to any limitation or restriction 
 
252 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 TART 
 
 II. 
 
 The second 
 reason for 
 widening 
 the extent 
 of the 
 atonement 
 —to faci¬ 
 litate faith 
 and deep¬ 
 en respon¬ 
 sibility. 
 
 D.anger of 
 fostering 
 error on 
 the subject 
 of wliat 
 constitutes 
 responsi¬ 
 bility. 
 
 of the plan of saving mercy, or, at least, to such 
 limitation and restriction as is imjdied in the 
 doctrine that the whole work of Christ was under¬ 
 taken and accomplished for those actually and 
 ultimately saved, and for them alone. It is a 
 reason founded upon the supposed necessity of 
 not merely vindicating God, but satisfying sinners 
 themselves, on this point, with a view to facilitate 
 their acceptance of the gospel call, or to leave them 
 inexcusable in rejecting it. 
 
 There are several practical considerations that 
 might here be urged, to show the danger of mak¬ 
 ing such a concession, to the weakness or the wil¬ 
 fulness of unbelief as would seem to be implied in 
 admitting the validity of this reason. There is 
 one in particular, however, on which I think it 
 important to dwell, not only because it is in itself 
 conclusive as to the matter immediately at issue, 
 but because it is of very wide and vital application 
 in the department of human opinion. 
 
 The train of thought, or habit of mind, which 
 the objection I am now dealing with either indi¬ 
 cates or fosters, has an important bearing on the 
 whole question of what it is that makes man 
 accountable, and renders his condemnation just. 
 In fact, it is a train of thought or habit of mind 
 that is veiy apt to derange or vitiate most seri¬ 
 ously that most delicate of all the parts of our 
 moral and spiritual frame,—the sense or feeling 
 
THE PRINCIPLE OF RESPONSIBILITY, 
 
 253 
 
 of responsibility. For it goes far to countenanee chapter 
 the impression,—which sinners are prone enough —^ 
 otherwise to take up,—that, except upon a certain 
 understanding, and certain conditions, such as they 
 themselves would dictate to meet their own views, 
 they ought not to be held, and cannot equitably 
 be held, accountable before God at all. / 
 
 This impression operates in various forms and Extreme 
 
 , • T • 1 I i *1 foiTii of the 
 
 degrees among men. in its worst extreme, it eiror— 
 becomes the plea of infidelity itself, leading to a deniaTof 
 denial of all moral accountability, properly so ' 
 called, and all retributive justice or penal judg- 
 ment. “ I am so framed, and so situated,” says 
 the infidel, “ that I have no fair chance, or fair 
 play, in this mighty moral warfare which I have 
 to wage; and so cannot fairly be made to answer 
 for the issue. The child of impulse, and, to so 
 large an extent, the creature of circumstances, I 
 have not the liberty or power essential to my con¬ 
 tending with any liope of success. If I am to 
 engage in this life-struggle, and peril my all on its 
 issue, give me a better constitution, and more 
 equitable or more favourable terms.” To this 
 demand of the infidel what reply can be given, 
 beyond an appeal to liis own consciousness and his 
 own conscience ;—to his consciousness, as testify¬ 
 ing that he sins wilfully,—and to his conscience, 
 as registering, even in spite of all his sophistry, 
 the just sentence of condemnation ? The same 
 
254 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Tendency 
 to shift the 
 ground of 
 responsi¬ 
 bility from 
 the moral 
 to the in¬ 
 tellectual 
 part of 
 man's na¬ 
 ture. 
 
 tendency is seen among many, who, stopping short 
 of a,bsolute infidelity, have, nevertheless, but very 
 vague and inadequate apprehensions of the prin¬ 
 ciples and sanctions of the divine government. 
 They take, as they say, a rational and moderate 
 view of human nature and human life ; and look 
 wdth an indulgent ej^e, as they allege the great 
 Creator himself must do, on a race of frail and 
 fallible mortals, who could sCcarceJy be expected to 
 be much better than they are, and who may, on 
 every ground of good sense and good feeling, 
 claim a certain measure of forbearance and indul¬ 
 gence, of favour and of friendship. They regard 
 the sins, the follies, and the crimes of men as 
 misfortunes, rather than faults; and look on 
 offenders as deserving rather to be pitied than to 
 be blamed. 
 
 Now, I cannot help thinking that there is some¬ 
 thing of a similar tendenc}" in the idea which I 
 am combating—the idea, that is, of its being 
 necessary to extend and stretch out the scheme of 
 grace, with a view to satisfy men as to its appli¬ 
 cation to them, and so to enlarge their feeling of 
 freedom, and deepen their feeling of responsibility, 
 in dealing with it. It tends to shift, or transfer, 
 the ground of responsibility too much away from 
 the moral to the intellectual part of our nature. 
 It is true, indeed, that the sense of respon.sibility 
 must be intelligent as well as conscientious. But 
 
THE SUPKEMACY OF CONSCIENCE. 
 
 255 
 
 all that the understanding is entitled to demand 
 is, that it shall be satisfied on these two points, 
 namely, first, That what is duty, in the matter on 
 hand, is clear; and, secondly. That it is reason¬ 
 able,—or, in other words, that there is no reason 
 against it, but every reason for it. These preli¬ 
 minaries being settled, the understanding inquires 
 no further, but at once hands back the affair to 
 the department of the conscience, and recognises 
 the imperative and indispensable obligation im¬ 
 posed or declared by that supreme and ultimate 
 faculty of our moral nature. And all this is 
 independent of any question of will, on the part 
 either of the Being who claims, or of the party 
 who owes, the duty ;—any question, I mean, 
 either regarding the purpose of God’s will, or 
 regarding the power of man’s will. Leave the 
 burden of responsibility here, and all is safe./^But 
 it is most dangerous to give the slightest counte¬ 
 nance to the idea, that any information respecting 
 the purpose of God’s will, or any communication of 
 power to man’s will, is to enter at all as an ele¬ 
 ment or condition into this vital principle, or great 
 fact, of accountability. It is most dangerous to 
 admit that man is entitled to stipulate, before 
 consenting to hold himself responsible in any 
 matter, that he shall have any knowledge of the 
 intention of God, or any assurance of ability in 
 himself; or anything whatever, in short, beyond 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 How far 
 tlie under¬ 
 standing 
 has any¬ 
 thing to 
 do with 
 responsi¬ 
 bility. 
 
 The su¬ 
 premacy 
 of con¬ 
 science. 
 
 Questions 
 as to the 
 divine will 
 or the 
 human 
 irrelevant. 
 
256 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART 
 
 ir. 
 
 Conviction 
 of sin by 
 the law. 
 
 Conviction 
 of sin by 
 the gospel. 
 
 the apprehension that this is his duty, and that it 
 is altogether reasonable. 
 
 Thus, in dealing with the law, or covenant of 
 works, the sense of guilt is wrought in the awak¬ 
 ened sinner’s conscience, by the insight given him 
 into the excellency and spiritualit}'’ of the law, 
 and the holiness, the reasonableness, and the 
 benevolence of all its requirements. Nor is this 
 sense of guilt at all affected by the sad experi¬ 
 mental conviction, that he is himself so carnal, 
 and so sold under sin, that he cannot do the things 
 which he would. On the contrary, when he is 
 rightly and spiritually awakened, the bitterness of 
 his sense of guilt is not alleviated, but aggravated, 
 by the melancholy discovery, which extorts from 
 him the grievous complaint and cry, “ I find then 
 a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present 
 with me. For I delight in the law of God after 
 the inward man ; but I see another law in my 
 members, wamng against tlie law of my mind, and 
 bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which 
 is in my members. O wretched man that I am ' 
 who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” 
 (Rom. vii. 21-24.) 
 
 So, also, in dealing with the gospel, the con¬ 
 demnation of unbelief, as a sin, rests altogether 
 on the right which God has to demand the sinner’s 
 retuiTi to himself; and the reasonableness of that 
 demand, arising out of tlie full and sufficient war- 
 
CONVICTION OF SIN. 
 
 257 
 
 rant with which he has furnished the sinner, and chapter 
 
 IV. 
 
 the evidence and assurance which he has given of - 
 
 his gracious willingness to receive him. Convic¬ 
 tion of the sin of unbelief is wrought in me by 
 the Holy Ghost, simply by his manifesting to my 
 conscience the enormous impiety, infatuation, and 
 ingratitude, which, in its very nature, unbelief 
 involves, apart altogether from every other con¬ 
 sideration, either as to the ultimate design of God 
 in the gospel which my unbelief rejects, or as to 
 the utter helplessness and impotency of my own 
 unbelieving will in rejecting it. 
 
 On this subject, a very confident appeal may be me fruut 
 
 T , , 1 . p T I . T of unbelief. 
 
 made to the experience oi every deeply exercised 
 soul. When the Spirit has been convincing you (j- ■ 
 at any time of sin, “ because you believed not in 
 Jesus,""—or because you believed not Jesus, for 
 it is the same thing (John xvi. 9),—was there 
 any other thought present to your mind but 
 that of the infinite unreasonableness, in every 
 view of it, of your unbelief ? Had your feeling 
 of guilt any reference at all to the purpose of 
 God"s sovereign will ? Was it not rather wholly 
 and exclusively concerned with the just authority 
 of his government, as asserted in the gospel which 
 you had been disbelieving; and the infinite perfec¬ 
 tion of his character, as there so gloriously and 
 attractively displayed ? Or again, on the other 
 
 hand, did you raise any question as to your own 
 
 17 
 
258 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PART power of will to believe, or as to your possession 
 —L of effectual grace, as if that might modify your 
 responsibility for not believing ? Nay, the very 
 feeling of that impotency with which your whole 
 nature has been smitten—with the thorough im¬ 
 pression, moreover, that so far from being due to 
 you, all help from above may be most justly with- 
 
 Notfobe held—only increases your distress. And it does 
 
 bewailed 
 
 as a mis- SO, iiot in the way of transferring this inability to 
 
 fortune, . • i 
 
 but con- believe, out of the category of a sin to be con- 
 
 siu. * demned, into that of a misfortune to be complained 
 of and deplored;—but in the way of fastening 
 down upon you, with even a deeper acknowledg¬ 
 ment than ever of God’s perfect equity and your 
 own inexcusable demerit and guilt, the sentence 
 of righteous judgment for the unrighteous and 
 unreasonable sin of unbelief. 
 
 Something like this, it is apprehended, is the 
 course of the Spirit’s work, and of the experience 
 of the people of God, in reference to conviction of 
 the sin of unbelief But it is to be feared, that 
 this true and solid ground, on which guilt is to be 
 brought home to the unbeliever’s conscience, is apt 
 to be not a little shaken by the jealousy which 
 has always been entertained, by some, of special 
 love in the accomplishment of Christ’s work; and 
 by others, of special love in its application. For 
 it seems to be thought, that the responsibility of 
 , the sinner for his unbelief is at least rendered more 
 
UNBELIEF IN ITSELF A SIN. 
 
 259 
 
 obvious, more tangible, and more simple, when he 
 is told of an unlimited atonement; and still more, 
 when he is assured of an unlimited work or ope¬ 
 ration of the Spirit. The contrary, as has been 
 said, seems to be the impression which a sound 
 view of the nature of the case, and of the consti¬ 
 tution of man, is fitted to make. 
 
 For the real danger is, lest you thus substitute 
 responsibility for continuing, under certain circum¬ 
 stances, in the state of unbelief, instead of responsi¬ 
 bility for the sin of unbelief itself You thus, in 
 point of fact, change the character of the responsi¬ 
 bility altogether. You almost inevitably lead the 
 sinner to think, that but for the information whicli 
 he supposes himself to obtain respecting God’s 
 grace in the work of Christ,—as embracing all 
 and being common to all, himself among the num¬ 
 ber,—he would be scarcely, or at any rate would 
 be far less to be blamed, for not submitting and re¬ 
 turning to God. And the next step is, that he con¬ 
 siders himself entitled to insist on a knowledge of the 
 purpose of God’s will, and a removal of the impo- 
 tency of his own will, as necessary conditions of his 
 accountability. It is a convenient discovery of the 
 imagination. It goes far to make his conscience very 
 easy, as to the guilt which his unbelief, in its very 
 nature, implies; causing him to dwell exclusively on 
 the aggravations which attach to it, in consei^uence 
 of this supposed universal and unlimited grace. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IV. 
 
 Not con¬ 
 tinuing in 
 unbelief 
 under cer¬ 
 tain cir¬ 
 cum¬ 
 stances, 
 but unbe¬ 
 lief itself, 
 sin. 
 
2G0 
 
 COMPLETENESS OF THE ATONEMENT. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 Univer¬ 
 sality of 
 tliB gospel 
 invitation 
 all that is 
 required 
 to make 
 unbelief 
 sin. 
 
 Now, the universality of the gospel offer is an 
 aggravation of the sin of unbelief, which it is 
 important to take into account. Nay rather, I 
 freely admit, it is not properly an aggravation, 
 but an essential ingredient in its criminality. For 
 it is that which establishes the perfect reasonable¬ 
 ness of what is required of the sinner, and therefore 
 leaves him without excuse. But, as to any of 
 these other aggravations, which may be supposed 
 likely to tell upon his conscience, the risk is that 
 they operate rather as palliatives, and conduce to 
 a state of mind the most difficult, perhaps, of all 
 its morbid experiences to be dealt with. I mean 
 the state in which unbelief is bewailed much as 
 an evil, without any adequate sense of its guilt as 
 a sin. It is but too 'common to hear one com¬ 
 plaining, in doleful accents, that he cannot be¬ 
 lieve ; and alleging, perhaps, the decree of election, 
 and its kindred doctrines, as a difficulty in his way. 
 And, in treating such a case, one is often tempted 
 to enter into lengthened explanations ; to go on 
 arguing and redarguing about these high mysteries, 
 until one is almost tempted to wish that the per¬ 
 plexing and obnoxious dogmas were got rid of 
 altogether. But, alas ! however ffir we go in that 
 direction, and whatever assurances we try to give 
 of universal grace, the sufferer complains the more. 
 His misfortune is the greater, that even under a 
 universal scheme of mercy, and with a universal 
 
THE SIMPLE GOSPEL WELCOME. 
 
 261 
 
 promise of the Spirit, he cannot believe. What, chapter 
 
 IV. 
 
 then, is the real remedy ? It is simple enough. —1 
 Let him cease to be a patient—to be soothed and way of 
 sympathized with. Let him be viewed and treated witiiunbe- 
 as a criminal, to be placed at the bar of that great 
 God whose word of truth he is belying, whose au¬ 
 thority he is defying, whose love he is refusing. 
 
 Then, in the Spirit’s hands, he begins to feel what The spirit 
 true responsibility is, and to be “convinced of sin, ingortim 
 because he believes not on Jesus.” And then, as belief.”" 
 in the case of conviction of sin under the law, the 
 sense of his own utter impotency,—his inability 
 to know, or to believe, or to will, or to do, accord¬ 
 ing to what God requires,—taken along with the 
 deep and solemn impression, that he has no claim 
 at all upon God for the communication of any 
 light or any power from on high—so far from 
 alleviating the poignancy of his feeling of inex¬ 
 cusable guilt, fastens and rivets it more firmly in 
 his inmost soul. In such an attitude, the Avord of Makes the 
 
 God, in the proclamation of the gospel, finds him gospel 
 little disposed to ask questions or to raise difficul¬ 
 ties; but rather ready, Avith all the simplicity of the 
 early converts to Christianity,—Avith Avhom this 
 Avhole doctrine of soAmreign and free grace was less 
 an affair of the head, and more of the heart, than, 
 alas! it is apt to be.Avith us,—to receive the Father’s 
 testimony concerning his Son, and, led by the Spirit, 
 to return through the Son to the Father. 
 
282 
 
 SzVVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 PABT 
 
 11 . 
 
 Aspect in 
 ■whicli the 
 Hosjiel pre¬ 
 sents 
 Christ to 
 sinners. 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE OFFICE OF F.-VITH—TO APPROPRT.ATE CHRIST—A COMPLETE 
 ATONEMENT AND A COMPLETE SALVATION. 
 
 A DESIRE to facilitate the sinner’s comiiiir to Christ 
 
 O 
 
 and closing with Christ,—to help him over the 
 great gnlf which on this side of the grave is to 
 none impassable—the gulf which divides a state 
 of reconciliation from a state of enmity,—is the 
 motive or reason which leads many to dislike the 
 restriction or limitation of the work of Christ, 
 and of the whole of his savino' offices and rela- 
 
 O 
 
 tions, to the people actnall}^, in the end, reconciled. 
 Now, it should be kept in mind, as a consideration 
 fitted to modifv this dislike, that it is not at all 
 this seemingly obnoxious feature of the salvation 
 of the gaspel,—its restrictedness or limitation,—• 
 which is presented to the sinner in the first in¬ 
 stance, as the ground and warrant of his faith, 
 and the argument or inducement that should lead 
 him to believe. It is another aspect altogether 
 of the salvuition of the gospel, which is not in the 
 least affected by the doctrine objected to, that the 
 sinner is asked to contemplate. He is to view 
 that salvation sinpily and exclusively in the light 
 of these two plain and unequivocal qualities or 
 
THE FREE GIFT OF GOD. 
 
 263 
 
 characteristics of it. In the first place, it is in 
 its nature suited and adapted—it is specially 
 applicable—to the case of each individual sinner; 
 as much so as if that individual sinner’s case had 
 been the case particularly provided for,—nay, had 
 been the only case provided for,—when the sal¬ 
 vation was planned and accomplished. A\ d, 
 secondly, it is in its terms freely and unrestricted^ 
 offered ;—it is by an absolutely gratuitous grant 
 or deed of gift conveyed and made over to the 
 acceptance of every individual sinner who will 
 have it,—who, according to the divine command, 
 will receive and take it;—for this is the Father’s 
 “ commandment, that we should believe on the 
 name of his Son Jesus Christ” (1 John iii. 23); 
 “this is the work of God” which we have to do, 
 “ that we believe on him whom he hath sent” 
 (John vi. 28, 29). 
 
 True, it may be said, all this liberality in the 
 ostensible proclamation and front scene, as it were, 
 is well; but there is the fatal contraction and 
 drawing in, in reserve behind. Nay, I reply, 
 there need be no reserve in the matter. The 
 exclusive reference of the work of Christ to those 
 actually saved by it may be, and must be, an¬ 
 nounced. But this does not touch the plain matter 
 of fact, that the work is, in its very nature, such 
 that each individual sinner may see and feel it to 
 be what meets, and what alone can meet, his case. 
 
 CHAPTEK 
 
 V. 
 
 As exactly 
 Ill eetiiig 
 their case. 
 
 As freely 
 given, if 
 they will 
 hut have 
 him. 
 
 The exclu¬ 
 sive re¬ 
 ference of 
 the atone¬ 
 ment not 
 really a 
 ditficulty. 
 
264 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 PART Nor, on the other hand, does it affect or alter the 
 
 II. 
 
 •—• terms on which a personal interest in it is bestowed. 
 These terms are still such that each individual 
 sinner may see and feel the completely saving 
 work,—the complete Saviour himself,—to be freely 
 and fully within his reach, if he will but consent, 
 in obedience to the divine call and command, to 
 lay hold of the salvation—to let the Saviour lay 
 hold of him. 
 
 But I go much further on this point. I ven¬ 
 ture confidently to add an observation for the 
 truth of which I appeal to every spiritually en¬ 
 lightened and spiritually exercised man. And the 
 observation, I think, is as important as it is true. 
 It is this very exclusiveness, so often complained 
 of, that imparts to the work of Christ that char¬ 
 acter of special and pointed adaptation to his own 
 case, which is so readily apprehended by every 
 sinner truly sensible of his sin;—which makes 
 the free offer of a saving interest in Christ’s work 
 
 so veiy precious and welcome to a sinner so situ¬ 
 ated ; and which is, in fact, what chiefly encourages 
 and emboldens him to receive that which is thus 
 offered as really meant for sinners such as he is,— 
 But rather as meant in good faith for him. If my soul is 
 its meet- deeply groaning under the burden of sin,—what- 
 caL'”^ ever difficulty I may feel in getting over the 
 decree of election, or the necessity of the Spirit’s 
 agency in producing faith,—I ought not to feel— 
 
THE UNIVERSALITY REALLY NEEDED. 
 
 265 
 
 and sinners so situated do not, I believe, usually chapter 
 feel—the pressure of any difficulty on the side of —h 
 the work of Christ arising out of its definite, and 
 therefore limited efficacy. On the contrary, I 
 would not wish to have it more extended, lest it 
 should cease to be what, on a first glance, and on 
 the first awakening of a desire towards it, it ap¬ 
 proves itself to be,—a complete remedy for all 
 my soul’s disease, through the substitution of Him 
 who bears it all in my stead. 
 
 The real truth, I apprehend, may be found to 
 lie in a very simple distinction. The universality 
 so much in demand, and admitted to be so indis- 
 joensable, is not the universality of an actual in¬ 
 terest of any kind, in anything whatever that is 
 Clirist’s, but the universality of a contingent or 
 possible interest, of the most complete kind, in 
 all that is his. What I need to have said to me offer of aii 
 
 things in 
 
 for my encouragement is, not that I actually al- and with 
 ready have something in Christ; but that, having 
 now nothing in him at all, I am freely invited, 
 exhorted, and commanded, at once to have Christ 
 himself, and then in him to have, now and for 
 ever, all things. In a word, the gospel assurance 
 is, “ If thou canst believe, all things are possible 
 to him that believeth” (Mark ix. 23). And what 
 comes home to me as the crowning excellence of 
 the gospel, is this very assurance which it conveys 
 to me; not that there is something in Christ for 
 
266 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 TAUT 
 
 II. 
 
 'I'he real 
 difficulty 
 about 
 the sub¬ 
 jective act 
 of fiiith, 
 not about 
 its object. 
 
 Not go 
 inucli felt 
 in earnest 
 times and 
 by earnest 
 minds. 
 
 all, but that there are all things in Chri-st for 
 some,—for believers; and for me, if I can but say, 
 in the very agony of my helplessness, “ Lord, I 
 believe; help thou mine unbelief” (Mark ix. 24). 
 
 But the transition from this warrant to have, 
 to the actual having; the translation of the con- 
 tino^ent into the categforical; the transmutation 
 of the objective gospel offer,—Christ is thine, as 
 the saying is, for the taking,—into the subjective 
 go.spel assurance,—Christ is mine, in the taking,— 
 that now is the difficulty. It is a difficulty which, 
 more than an}^ other, has vexed the ingenuity of 
 practical and experimental divines, especially since 
 the era of the Reformation. It is a difficulty 
 which was not much felt, either on the first pro¬ 
 clamation of the doctrines of grace in apostolic 
 time.s, or on the first recovery of these doctrines 
 out of the rubbish of Popery. The fre.sli and 
 authentic simplicity of a newly awakened or re¬ 
 vived soul bursts throimh all entanffiements, and 
 asks no questions. With a dark conviction of sin, 
 and a bright discovery of the Saviour, it frankly 
 and unhesitatingly makes the obvious application, 
 and rejoices in the apostle’s language of deeply 
 penitent, and yet assuredly appropriating ffiith: 
 ‘‘ This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all ac¬ 
 ceptation, that Chri.st Jesus came into the world 
 to save sinners; of whom I am chief” (1 Tim. i. 1 5). 
 
THE EEDEEMER’s JOY—AND OUKS. 
 
 2G7 
 
 At eaci. of the times referred to, for at least a brief 
 moment, all was thus fresh and authentic. Nor, 
 even in the most doubtful and suspicious age—the 
 most to be doubted, or the most apt to doubt— 
 have there ever failed to be multitudes, “ converted 
 and l)ecome as little children,” who have been 
 content to know, Avitli Paul, that Jesus Christ 
 came into the world to save sinners, “ of whom,” 
 each has been ready instinctively and most sin¬ 
 cerely to add, “ I am chief.” And they have 
 found that knowledo:e enough. 
 
 This consideration is our chief comfort in at¬ 
 tempting to thread the mazes of an intricate in¬ 
 quiry like that in which we are now engaged; 
 this alone,—and this always. It is the same con¬ 
 sideration which, to speak with reverence, caused 
 the soul of the Pedeemer himself to “ rejoice” 
 (Luke X. 21), in the view of the very same mystery 
 which perplexes us. There are “ babes,” to whom 
 the Father reveals what is hidden from “ the wise 
 and prudent.” There is many a one who, through 
 grace, can say with David, “ Lord, my heart is 
 not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty; neither do I 
 exercise myself in great matters, or in things too 
 high for me. Surely I have behaved myself as a 
 child that is weaned of his mother; my soul is 
 even as a weaned child.” Let all such, being 
 “ Israelites indeed, in whom there is no guile,” 
 rejoice; let them enter into this joy of their Lord; 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 V. 
 
268 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The diffi¬ 
 culty must 
 be grap¬ 
 pled with. 
 
 Division 
 of the sub¬ 
 ject. 
 
 Tfie office 
 of faith. 
 
 “ let Israel hope in the Lord, from henceforth, and 
 for ever,” (Ps. cxxxi.) Yes! blessed be God, 
 there is a practical and experimental way of hav¬ 
 ing the mystery sufficiently solved, in tlie actual 
 trial which one who is, like the Lord liimself, 
 “ meek and lowly in heart,” is enabled to make 
 of his grace, and of the “simplicity that is in him” 
 (2 Cor. xi. 3); when, “coming to him and learn¬ 
 ing of him,” he “ tastes and sees how good he is, 
 and liow blessed is the man that trusteth in him” 
 (Ps. xxxiv. 8). 
 
 At the same time, for minds of a more restless 
 turn—for all minds in their reflective mood— 
 and with a view to the shunning of errors that 
 may to such minds, and in such a mood, be 
 dangerous, —a more minute investigation can¬ 
 not be declined. The inquiry into which we have 
 entered must still be prosecuted. It will be 
 found, I think, to embrace in it these four parti¬ 
 culars, which, taken together, may be regarded as 
 exhausting it—the office, the nature, the warrant, 
 and the origin, of saving fliith. 
 
 Tlie present chapter deals with the first of these 
 particulars. 
 
 Let the office of faith, then, be considered, or, in 
 other words, the place which it holds, and the pur¬ 
 pose which it is designed to serve, in the economy 
 of grace. Let the question be asked. Why is the 
 
FAIXn NOT MEEITOEIOUS. 
 
 2G0 
 
 possession of all saving blessings connected with chaptkr 
 faith, and with faith alone ? ' - 
 
 IT* n ques- 
 
 It IS easy, at once, to dismiss all answers to uon, why 
 this question which would imply that there ismsofsai- 
 anything like a plea of merit, or a qualification atticLd^ 
 of worthiness, in faith. Doubtless, faith is in it- 
 self an excellent grace, most honouring and ac¬ 
 ceptable to God, and his beloved Son, and liis 
 blessed Spirit,—as well as most becoming and en¬ 
 nobling to him who exercises it. It is, moreover, 
 the source of all excellence; working by love, and 
 assimilating its possessor to God himself; for, by 
 “ the exceeding great and precious promises” 
 which faith receives, we “ are made partakers of 
 the divine nature” (2 Peter i. 4). But to repre- Not on ac- 
 sent it as saving or justifying, on account of its worthi- 
 own excellency, or on account of the virtue tliat fruUfui- 
 goes out of it, is to build again, only in a modi- 
 fied form, the original covenant of works. It is 
 to make the good quality of faith, or its good 
 fruits, our real title to the divine favour and eter¬ 
 nal life, instead of the perfect obedience and full 
 satisfaction which the law requires. In this view, 
 the dispensation of grace, brought in through the 
 mediation of Christ, consists simply in a relaxation 
 of the terms of the old natural and legal method 
 of acceptance; not in the establishment and re¬ 
 velation of a method of acceptance entirely new 
 and entirely “ of grace.” 
 
270 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICF. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Not in vir¬ 
 tue of a 
 mere sove¬ 
 reign ap¬ 
 point¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Again, it is easy to answer the question which 
 has been put, by an appeal to the divine sove¬ 
 reignty, and the undeniable right which God has 
 to dispense his liberality in any manner, and upon 
 any footing, that may seem good to him. This, 
 undoubtedly, is the ultima ratio, the final expla¬ 
 nation or account to be given of the arrangement 
 
 in question. God is free to connect the enjo}^- 
 ment of the blessing with any act on our part 
 that he may be pleased to appoint. This sum¬ 
 mary argument or answer from authority, how¬ 
 ever, though it may silence, cannot .satisfy. That, 
 sometime.s, is all the answer to our questioning 
 that we can have. But on the particular point 
 at issue, it is in accordance both with reason and 
 with Scripture, that we should be not merely 
 silenced, but intelligently satisfied. For, if left 
 on this footing, faith would be as much the mere 
 blind fulfilment of an arbitrary or unexplained 
 condition, as the doing of penance would be, or 
 the undergoing of circumcision, or the compliance 
 with any task or ritual; and no sufficient rea.son 
 —indeed, no reason at all—could be given, Avhy 
 life and salvation should be inseparably and in¬ 
 fallibly annexed to an}" one of such conditions more 
 than to any other. 
 
 Is faith, then, to be viewed, in this matter, as 
 a condition, in any sense, or to any effect, at all? 
 I.s that propeily its office or function? Setting 
 
FAITH NOT AN ARBITRARY CONDITION. 271 
 
 aside, on the one hand, the idea of a condition of chaptkb 
 moral worth or qualification on the part of man; and —^ 
 on the other hand, the notion of a condition of 
 mere authoritative appointment on the part of Faith a 
 God,—as if faith were one of several kinds of ZTrjul 
 terms, any of which he might indifierently, at his 
 own mere good pleasure, have selected and chosen, 
 
 —there remains one other aspect in which faith 
 may be regarded. It may be held to be, as in 
 fact it is, simply a condition of necessary sequence 
 or connection; a conditio sine qua non. It is 
 that without the antecedence of which,—or its 
 going before,—the desired result or consequence 
 cannot possibly, from the very nature of things, 
 and the necessity of the case, be obtained or 
 realized. In this view, it may be said, without 
 impiety, or even impropriety, that God requires 
 faith in those who are to be saved, because he 
 cannot save them otherwise: so that, as “without 
 faith it is impossible to please God,” so without 
 faith it may be said to be impossible for God to 
 save men. For God saves men in a manner 
 agreeable to their rational and moral nature, as 
 beings endowed with mind and conscience ; free, 
 therefore, and accountable. 
 
 Hence, generally, the office or function of faith. Necessary 
 as distinguished from its nature, may be said to man’s fall- 
 be this,—to effect and secure man’s falling in with what'tTod 
 what God is doing. But more particularly, in 
 
272 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 PART 
 
 ir. 
 
 Tlie faith 
 of active 
 co-opera¬ 
 tion. 
 
 determinino; the office or function of faith—the 
 purpose which it is designed to serve—what, in 
 short, renders it indispensable—much will depend 
 on what it is that God is doing, in saving sinners; 
 and especially on the extent to which, and the 
 manner in which, he makes use of the sinner’s 
 own co-operation or instrumentality in saving him. 
 
 Take, for example, any saving work of God in 
 which man’s own agency is employed. This is 
 the simplest class of cases; in which, indeed, there 
 is no difficulty at all. God is about to save Noah, 
 when the flood comes; and this salvation is “by 
 faith.” Why so—why must it be by faith ? 
 What, in tins instance, is the office or function of 
 faith? Evidently to set Noah to work in prepar¬ 
 ing the ark, “ wherein few, that is, eight souls, 
 are saved.” For this end God gave tlie promise, 
 which Noah was to believe, and on which he was 
 to act. “ By faith, Noah, being warned of God 
 of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, pre¬ 
 pared an ark, to the saving of liis house.” So 
 the apostle testifies as to the immediate office or 
 function of Noah’s faith, witli reference to the 
 work on hand; while at the same time he iden¬ 
 tifies his faith in that matter with the faith which 
 falls in with what God does in the hi£rher matter 
 of justification and eternal life; for he adds, “ By 
 the which faith, he condemned the world, and be¬ 
 came heir of the righteousness which is by faith” 
 
FAITH A “ CONDITIO SINE QUA NON.” 273 
 
 (Heb. xi. 7). In like manner, when he was about cnAPTEu 
 
 V. 
 
 to make Abraham the father of the promised - 
 
 seed, God required faith. And for a similar rea¬ 
 son; because, without Abraham’s belief, and his 
 acting upon his belief, the promise could not have 
 been fulfilled. Abraham’s faith also, in that 
 matter of the birth of Isaac, is identified with the 
 faith which falls in with Avhat God does in the 
 economy of gi*ace and salvation, and in respect of 
 which “ righteousness is imputed without works” 
 
 (Rom. iv. 16-25). But as regards the specific 
 object for which he is called to believe, his faith 
 simply serves to secure his co-operation with God 
 for the accomplishment of it. In these cases, it is 
 not merely from any abstract delight which God 
 may be supposed to have in receiving the hom- 
 agce of a believinoj assent to his word,—nor out of 
 a regard to any barren honour thereby done to 
 his name, as the God of veracity, and faithfulness, 
 and truth,—that he requires this act or exercise 
 of faith; but for a more immediately practical 
 end, and, if we may so speak, with a business 
 view. The faith which he requires is the indis¬ 
 pensable prerequisite, or sine qua non, to the set¬ 
 ting in motion of the human agency or instrumen¬ 
 tality, on which the attainment of the result that 
 is sought necessarily depends. 
 
 The case is somewhat different, and the ex¬ 
 planation perhaps is not quite so simple, when we 
 
 la 
 
1-A IIT 
 II. 
 
 The faith 
 of simple 
 appropria- 
 tiou. 
 
 Not mere¬ 
 ly umler- 
 staiKlin)^ 
 and ap¬ 
 pro V ill K of 
 the divine 
 iduii, but 
 uciiuie.se- 
 iiiK in it 
 iiiui apply¬ 
 ing it to 
 one's self. 
 
 "74 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 pass to another mode of procedure on the pait of 
 God, and take for our example an act, or work, 
 or transaction, in which all is done by God, with¬ 
 out any co-operation or agency of man. Why is 
 faith required now? What is its function? It is 
 still the same faith; as we have seen it is declared 
 to be so by the apostle, in the instances of Noah 
 and of Abraham. But it is required for a some¬ 
 what different purpose, and exercised in a some¬ 
 what different way. Evidently it is not now 
 needed to insure the actual execution or perform¬ 
 ance of anything,—as of the building of an ark 
 or the birth of a child; for by the supposition, 
 the thing to which it refers is executed and per¬ 
 formed irrespective of any co-operation on the part 
 of him who believes. What then does it do? It 
 simply insures aequiescence, or appropriation. 
 That is all. But it is much,—it is everything. 
 
 For there is the same necessity for appropria¬ 
 tion here as there was in those former instances 
 for performance, in order that the saving work of 
 God may be effectual. That work, I here assume, 
 is complete and finished, independently of any 
 co-operation on the part of man. Faith, there¬ 
 fore, on his part, is not needed with a view to 
 any work to be done by him. For what, then, 
 is it demanded ? Is it merely that the individual 
 believing may have an intelligent apprehension of 
 this work of God, tlius finished without human 
 
KECSPTIVE CHARACTER OF FAITH. 
 
 275 
 
 concurrence, .and may admire it, and Le suitably chapter 
 
 V. 
 
 affected with all the sentiments and emotions ■—■ 
 which it is fitted to call forth ? Is this what 
 God immediately and most directly seeks when 
 he unfolds his plan of justifying mercy through 
 the righteousness of Christ, and asks jmu to be¬ 
 lieve ? Is it merely that your faith may lead 
 you to have a right conception of that plan, and 
 do justice to it, and approve of it ? Is it simply 
 that he may have your signature, as it were, or 
 your setting to your seal, to justify his wisdom 
 and love in the scheme of redeeming grace ? 
 
 Nay, it is not your approbation or admiration 
 mei'ely that he desires; though these, at all 
 events, he must have. It is something else, and 
 something more, that he would have ;—your 
 appropriation of it—your acquiescence in it— , 
 your personal application of it to yourselves. 
 
 For this end he requires in you faith. Othei^^-^^ 
 wise, the requirement of faith, in the matter of 
 the sinner’s justification, his forgiveness and re¬ 
 conciliation, has really no meaning or propriet}'. 
 
 Thus, then, in the divine arrangements, wherepistifyins 
 anything is left to be done by man himself, the such, not a 
 office or function of faith is properly that of a ”iTaLai 
 motive prompting to action; but where, on thegeiV"'** 
 other hand, as in tlie justifying of the ungodly, 
 all is done by God, and the act of justification 
 ])roceeds upon no work of man, but on the fin- 
 
27G 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 FART islied work and perfect righteousness of Christ, 
 instead of a motive to any act, faith rather takes 
 the character of an act in itself final. It is the 
 resulting movement, rather than the moving 
 power. It partakes more of the nature of an 
 effect than of the nature of a cause. It re¬ 
 sembles not so much the force of hunger prompt¬ 
 ing to the search for food, as the play and 
 motion of the muscles and organs of touch and 
 digestion, laying hold of the food that is pre¬ 
 sented to them. This, at least, would seem to be 
 the exact function of faith, in its ultimate and 
 The func- direct dealings Avitli its proper object. It is like 
 fa^thtoiay the closiiig of the hand upon what is brought 
 Christ^ into contact with it; or the action of the mouth 
 on what is put into it; or the heart’s warm 
 embrace of what is its nearest and dearest treas¬ 
 ure. • All these and the like processes or opera¬ 
 tions, considered in themselves, imply no working 
 out of anything new or additional, but simply 
 tlie apjiropriating of what is already perfect and 
 complete. I speak, of course, not of the induce¬ 
 ments and encouragements to believe, which go 
 before; nor of the gracious impulses and active 
 energetic affections that come after; but of the 
 mere act itself, or exercise of faith, in its imme¬ 
 diate dealing wdth that w'hich is set before it. 
 And, in this view, I submit that we cannot fail 
 now to perceive the fitness of such expressions as, 
 
FAITH UNITING TO CIIUIST. 
 
 V. 
 
 receiving Clirist, embracing Christ, closing with chapter 
 Christ—all describing the office or function which' 
 belongs to faith, as that which carries and makes 
 sure the sinner’s consent to be saved “ freel}^ by 
 grace, through the redemption that is in Christ.” 
 
 For, in one word, let the principle upon which Thefunc. 
 the salvation of the sinner, according to the faith to 
 gospel plan, turns or depends, be clearly under- chrut!° 
 stood. It is his union or oneness with Christ. 
 
 • He is in Christ, and Christ in him. They are 
 truly and spiritually '' one ” (1 Cor. vi. 17). Their 
 union or oneness is not an idea merely, but a 
 great fact.j It is not simply imputative, or by 
 imputation. It is not their being reckoned one, 
 otherwise than it is their being really one. It is 
 not as if, by a sort of fiction of law, Christ the 
 righteous one, and I the guilty one, Avere ac¬ 
 counted identical, and treated as identical;—he 
 being treated as one with me in my guilt and 
 condemnation ; I being treated as one with him 
 in his righteousness and life. No doubt that is a 
 correct enough representation of the matter, so fiir 
 as it goes. But it is imperfect, and therefore 
 apt, or rather sure, unless explained, to convey 
 an erroneous impression. It suggests the notion 
 of artificial contrivance or policy. It makes the 
 transaction look like an evasive or collusive device 
 of legal ingenuity, to save the technical validity 
 of the statute, while practically its rigid applica- 
 
278 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS OFFICE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Reality of 
 the union. 
 
 Uniting 
 virtue of 
 fuitii. 
 
 tion is got ritl of. It must be ever kept in mind, 
 that tliere is and can be nothing of this sort in 
 the dealing of the holy and just God Avith me, as 
 represented by Christ and identified with Christ. 
 There is imputation,—but it is because there is 
 reality,—in the union formed between Christ 
 the Saviour and me “ the chief of sinners.’^ The 
 imputation which the union carries in it, depends 
 on the reality of the union. The oneness is not 
 a legal fiction ; an “ as if,” or “ as it Avere,” if I 
 may so speak. It is real, personal, and vital 
 Chri.st and I are regarded and dealt Avith as in 
 the eye of the kxAV one, because Ave are indeed 
 one. And Avhat makes us one is my believing in 
 him,—my faith. The use or office of faith is to 
 unite me to Christ. It is the instrument or 
 means, as the Spirit is the agent, in eftecting this 
 real, close, personal, and intimate union. Evi¬ 
 dently, in that AueAV of it, Avhat gives faith its 
 whole Auxlue or utility, is its simply receptive 
 character. Its sole business is to receive Christ. 
 What I luxve to do in believing, and the only thing 
 I have to do, is to consent, to acquiesce,—to 
 respond in the affirmative, and ansAver Yes, in 
 reference to the proposal or overture for a treaty 
 of union that is made to me on the part of Christ. 
 I have to deal witli him alone ; and I liave to deal 
 Avith him simply and solely in tlie Avay of closing 
 Avith him Avhen he presents himself, or is pre- 
 
THE UNION HEAL. 
 
 279 
 
 seiited to me, in his Gospel and by his Spirit, as chatteu 
 
 V 
 
 willing to be mine, and willing —Oh, how will- -— 
 ing !—to have me to be his. I do not work or 
 wait for saving benefits to be reached through 
 Christ, or got from Christ. I lay hold of Christ ' 
 himself. My faith is the appropriation of Christ 
 himself as mine, and of all saving benefits as 
 mine in him. Such is the office or function of 
 faith. It unites to Christ, and therefore justifies 
 and saves. 
 
280 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE NATURE OF FAITH—NOT SIMPLY AN ACT OF THE INTELLECT 
 —THE CONSENT OF THE WHOLE INNER MAN TO THE APPROPRI¬ 
 ATING OP CHRIST—UNITES THE BELIEVER TO CHRIST. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Tlie nature 
 of faith. 
 
 The inquiry concerning the nature of saving fiiith 
 is, at least, an important as that which relates to 
 its office and function. I am inclined to think, 
 indeed, that an inadequate, if not erroneous, view 
 of the nature of faith lies at the root of much of 
 the crude speculation which has prevailed in the 
 department of theology with which I am now 
 occupied. The naked intellectual theory of faith 
 may possibly, as I shall presently explain, be so 
 held and maintained as to be isolated from what 
 seem to be its legitimate consequences. It may 
 even be so put as to simplify apparently the plan 
 of salvation, in its practical aspects and bearings. 
 It ma}^ have been, and I believe has been, thus 
 adopted and I’ecommended by not a few eminent 
 divines.* But I have a strong impression that 
 this theory of faith, ingeniously defended, has 
 
 ♦ In my oviftiniil letters, I named particularly that eminent ornament of a 
 past age of Scottish theology, Dr. Stewart of tlie Canongate, wliose “Treatise 
 on Faith” had been then recently republished by the late Dr. John Brown. 
 It is in many re.spects a valuable treatise, as are many of the otliers on the same 
 subject, also republished by the same illustrious man. To tliese, as well as to 
 some of Dr. Brown’s own writings, the remark here made will, I think, fairly 
 apply. 
 
EEEONEOUS TENDENCIES. 
 
 281 
 
 been the source of evil; especially in the hands chapter 
 of disciples not equal to their masters,—less —i- 
 thorou^hlv grounded in the fundamental truths 
 of the gospel, and less accustomed to guard every 
 step of their reasoning by a reference to the 
 sovereignty of divine law and divine grace. iTheinfei- 
 cannot but think that it is this theory of faith theory— 
 which has led the way,—first, to the devising of dcnck's. 
 a sense in which Christ may be regarded as dying 
 for all, while he really died as the proper sub¬ 
 stitute of the elect only ; then secondly, to the 
 notion of his death being, in its own nature, 
 equal!}’ for all, though limited in its application 
 by the decree of God, and the necessity of the 
 Spirit’s special w’ork of grace; and thirdly, to 
 the vague and wide idea of its being an atone¬ 
 ment equally for all, and of its depending on the 
 free will of the individual man, under the com¬ 
 mon influences of the Spirit, to render it effectual 
 on his behalf. 
 
 Entertaining this opinion, I am of course bound 
 to examine the theory in question, upon its own 
 merits, carefully and fully. I have been led, 
 indeed, already to anticipate in part this branch 
 of my subject in my remarks on the universality 
 of the gospel call, and the consequent universality 
 of the obligation to believe. I resume the dis¬ 
 cussion of it now, in the light of -what I have 
 attempted to contribute towards a right and clear 
 
282 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The nature 
 of faith 
 must cor- 
 respoiul to 
 its func¬ 
 tion or 
 office. 
 
 iinderstandiiio; of the office or function of savince 
 
 O O 
 
 faith. For the two topics will be found to be 
 intimately connected, so that according to the 
 office or function of faith will be its nature. 
 
 Let it be remembered, then, that the reason 
 wdiy faith is required or appointed as a step in 
 the accomplishment of the Lord’s purpose, is not 
 any grace or beauty in faith itself, making it 
 generally acceptable to God and useful to man ; 
 but this special virtue which it has, that it pro¬ 
 vides for and secures man’s falling in with what 
 
 God is doing. His faith, in fact, is simply his 
 taking the place which God assigns him ;— 
 whether it be, as in his sanctification, actively to 
 “ work out his own salvation with fear and trem¬ 
 bling, since it is God wdio worketh in him both 
 to will and to do of his good pleasure ” (Phil. ii. 
 12, 13); or, as in his justification, to appropriate 
 the free gift of God, and make it his own. Now, 
 if w^e comprehend in our idea of the nature of 
 faith, all that is essential for this office or func¬ 
 tion wdiicli it has to discharge, then, it would 
 seem, besides a rational conviction of the under¬ 
 standing, there must be included in it, or associ¬ 
 ated wdth it, some corresponding affection or de¬ 
 sire in the heart, as Avell as some active determin¬ 
 ation of the will. Otherwise, it is not explained 
 how it either acts and impels as a motive, or ap¬ 
 prehends and appropriates as a hand or handle. 
 
STATE OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 2S3 
 
 The question, therefore, comes to be very much 
 tliis : When faith is represented as justifying and 
 saving, are we to understand by that term the 
 whole complex movement of soul which I have 
 indicated? Or are we to detach and separate what 
 partakes of the character of emotion and voli¬ 
 tion,—regarding that rather as a necessary fruit 
 and consequence of faith than as being of its very 
 essence ;—and are we to make faith itself consist 
 exclusively in the assent of the mind to truth, 
 received as such upon the divine testimony ? 
 Those who favour this last view are anxious to 
 avoid the imputation of attaching a peculiar 
 meaning to faith in the department of theology, 
 as if it were something different from ordinary 
 belief, in any other branch of knowledge. The 
 faith which has the truth of God for its object, 
 they would have to be identical in kind with the 
 faith of which any truth whatever is the object; 
 resolving both alike into simple conviction. Thus 
 they are leel to make the intellectual part of our 
 nature, and that alone, the seat of faith strictly 
 and properly so called. Faith, according to them, 
 is altogether an act or exercise of the under¬ 
 standing, weighing the evidence submitted to it, 
 and drawing the legitimate or necessary conclu¬ 
 sions. And faith in God is simply the belief of 
 what God says, because he says it. There is an 
 advantage, as they think, in thus isolating the 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
 State of 
 the ques¬ 
 tion. 
 
284 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURF. 
 
 I'AKT 
 
 II. 
 
 Recom- 
 menda- 
 tions of 
 the intel¬ 
 lectual 
 view of 
 faith. 
 
 Faith a 
 reasonable 
 assent 
 upon suffi¬ 
 cient evi¬ 
 dence. 
 
 bare and simple act of belieAdng,—separating it 
 from any process going before or coming after, and 
 viewing^ it as nothinof more and notliing else than 
 the state of the mind assenting to certain truths, 
 on the testimony of Him who cannot lie, — a 
 state not at all differing, as to the nature of the 
 thing done, from that of the mind assenting to 
 truth of any kind, on the authority of any cred¬ 
 ible witness. 
 
 Tbs advantage of this way of considering faitli 
 is chiefly twofold. 
 
 In the first place, it most effectually puts away 
 and puts dovm the Popish or semi-Popish notion 
 of implicit faith, or of a blind reliance on the sup¬ 
 posed communication of spiritual blessings to the 
 soul by a mj^stical charm, or sacramental virtue, 
 or some process guaranteed by the priest, of which 
 he who is the subject of it need have no intelli¬ 
 gent knowledge, nor even any conscious cognizance 
 at all. That the faith with which all saving 
 blessings are connected, is a reasonable act of an 
 intelligent mind,—not merely taking upon trust the 
 thing said to be done, but understanding and as¬ 
 senting to what is done,—is a great scriptural 
 truth, and a gi'eat safeguard against the delusions 
 of the “ man of sin." It is a view of faith full}’’ 
 sanctioned by not a few passages of Scripture, of 
 which one may be quoted as a specimen. Writ¬ 
 ing to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul, for obvious 
 
NO MYSTERY IN THE ACT OF BELIEVING. 
 
 285 
 
 reasons, dwells much on the fact that the gospel chapter 
 system is foohshness to the Greeks. But at the -—1- 
 same time, he is careful to explain that it satisfies 
 the reason, and carries the intelligent assent, of the 
 humble and sincere disciple. He strongly asserts, 
 that, whatever aspect of mere blind fanaticism it 
 may present to “the princes of this world,” or its 
 proud intellects, it approves itself to the upright 
 in heart as altogether worthy of acceptance: “How- 
 beit'we speak wisdom among them that are per¬ 
 fect” (1 Cor. ii. 6, 7). 
 
 Again, in the second place, this view tends to Not any- 
 divest faith of that character of unknown and terious or 
 mysterious peculiarity, which is apt to make it 
 appear, in the eyes of an anxious inquirer, so very 
 recondite an exercise of soul—so very unattain¬ 
 able a grace—that he despairs of ever satisfac¬ 
 torily realizing it. Such a one is told of the ne¬ 
 cessity of faith. He hears much of its workmgs 
 and of its experiences. And hence, conceiving 
 that it must be some high and singular attain¬ 
 ment, altogether different from the ordinary act¬ 
 ings of the mind, he harasses and perplexes him¬ 
 self in groping after this unkown something, 
 without which, it seems, he cannot be saved. In 
 this way, he either involves himself in a labyilnth 
 of inextricable difficulties, or elaborately gets up 
 some frame or feeling which, he thinks, ansAvevs 
 the descriptions usually given of faith. And 
 
286 
 
 SAVING I'AIT-II—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Tliesini])le 
 intellec¬ 
 tual act in 
 faith may 
 he isolated 
 and test¬ 
 ed, as in a 
 chemical 
 analysis uf 
 a complex 
 substance. 
 
 thereupon, having got, at last, as he imagines, the 
 key, he summons courage boldly to enter and ran¬ 
 sack the treasury. It is manifest that the alter¬ 
 nation or transition—the vibration, as it were, 
 in such a case as this—between absolute help¬ 
 lessness on the one hand, and a subtle form of 
 self-righteousness on the other, cannot be either 
 salutary or comfortable. It is, therefore, a safe 
 and seasonable, as w^ell as hajijiy rehef, for a mind 
 so exercised, to have faith presented to it in its 
 very barest and most naked aspect. It is good 
 to be made to see and be satisfied that there is 
 really nothing recondite or mysterious in the act 
 of believing, considered in itself; that it is, in fact, 
 nothing more than giving to the living and true 
 God, in reference to things divine and eternal, the 
 same reasonable and intelligent credit that you 
 give to an upright man, in reference to the things 
 of time. 
 
 AVith these advantages, the intellectual view of 
 the nature of faith seems to be strongly recom¬ 
 mended by its simplicity and clearness. It may' 
 be shown, indeed, as I think, to be seriously de¬ 
 fective in a practical point of view, and to furnish 
 only an insufficient explanation of the principle on 
 which the free salvation of the gospel dejiends ;— 
 still it may be usefully employed as a sort of 
 spiritual test, as it were, to detach and isolate, for 
 the [)in’po.S(' of better mental analysis, what in 
 
ANALYSIS OF FAITH. 
 
 287 
 
 reality never exists but in a certain combination, 
 although it may yet be conveniently extracted and 
 examined by itself. In physical science, an ana¬ 
 lytical chemist may take out of a compound or 
 complex substance one single ingredient, that he 
 may subject it to the ordeal of a separate and 
 searching scrutiny, and verify its character in its 
 purest and most unequivocal form ; while still it 
 may be true that the ingredient or element in 
 question is never, as a natural phenomenon, to be 
 found otherwise than in a given union or affinity. 
 So also, in the science of mind, the moral analyst 
 may deal in like manner with some act or state 
 of the living soul, which, though seeming to be 
 one and simple, is yet capable of being resolved 
 into parts. He may detach and clear away, as 
 in a refining crucible, all that may be regarded as 
 the adjuncts, or accessories, or accompaniments, 
 leaving single and alone the real central and staple 
 article of the mass, around which the rest all 
 cluster, and with which they all combine. And 
 this he may do for the most important ends and 
 with the most satisfactory results, in the interest 
 of science, while at the same time he may be him¬ 
 self the readiest to admit that, for ordinary prac¬ 
 tical uses, it is the mass as a whole with which 
 we have to concern ourselves. 
 
 Thus, to apply this illustration, let it be gnanted 
 that faith may be resolved ultimately and strictly 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
288 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 ir. 
 
 Two qua¬ 
 lifying ob¬ 
 servations 
 on this 
 analytic or 
 intellec¬ 
 tual view 
 ul faitli. 
 
 into intellectual assent, or belief, on the evidence 
 of divine testimony; still it remains true, as a 
 matter of fact, that this assent or belief, if it is of 
 a saving character, has ever associated and blended 
 with it, on the one hand, a deep sense of sin in 
 the conscience, a clear sight of Christ in the un- 
 derstandino- and a consentinaj will and lonofino; 
 desire in the heart; and on the other hand, senti¬ 
 ments of trust, reliance, confidence, or what can 
 only be described as leaning and resting upon 
 Christ. And all these, in actual experience, so 
 enter into combination with the central element 
 of assent or belief, that the whole may be prac¬ 
 tically considered as making up one state of mind, 
 —complex in its ingredients, but simple enough 
 in its acting and out-going,—the state of mind, I 
 mean, in wdiich, as a poor sinner, I fiee away from 
 my guilty self to my righteous Saviour, and roll 
 over the burden of all my iniquities on Him who, 
 “ though he knew no sin, w’as made sin” for such 
 as I am, that such as I am, the chief of sinners, 
 “ might be made the righteousness of God in 
 him” (2 Cor. v. 21). 
 
 There are tw'O observations, however, which it 
 seems necessary to make, in the way, not so much 
 of controverting, as of guarding on the one hand, 
 and supplementing on the other, this analytical 
 view, if I may so call it, of the nature of faith. 
 
 The first observation is, that it must be under • 
 
FAITH A MORAL ACT. 
 
 289 
 
 stood with an express or implied qualification,—a 
 qualification of most vital moment in a practical 
 point of view. Whatever may be our theory of 
 the nature of this grace, it is indispensable that 
 it should be one which clearly and unequivocally 
 recognises both the moral character and the moral 
 influence of faith. It must recognise its moral 
 chai'acter, as proceeding from a renewed will. 
 It must recognise also its moral influence, as de¬ 
 termining that renewed will to embrace Christ, or 
 to embrace God in Christ, as the chief good. Not 
 only to maintain untouched the fundamental prin 
 ciple of man’s responsibility to God for his belief, 
 is this explanation necessary; but with reference, 
 also, to the scriptural doctrine of the depravity of 
 man, as well as the sciiptural idea of the office or 
 function of the faith which is required of him in 
 order to his being justified and saved. 
 
 All belief is voluntary, in so far as it depends 
 on the fixing of the mind upon the substance of 
 the truth to be believed, and upon the evidence or 
 testimony in respect of which belief is claimed. 
 To understand wdiat we are expected to assent 
 to, and to weigh the grounds of the assent ex¬ 
 pected, implies an exercise of attention; and at¬ 
 tention is a faculty under the direct and 'imme¬ 
 diate control of the will. Hence, any perverse 
 bias of the will must affect the kind and degree 
 
 of the attention which is given, and consequently, 
 
 19 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
 Moral cha¬ 
 racter and 
 influence 
 of faith to 
 be assert¬ 
 ed. 
 
290 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATUIlE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Renewal 
 of the will 
 necessary. 
 
 also, it must affect in a corresponding manner 
 the result attained. On this ground it may be 
 most consistently maintained, that the renewal 
 of the will is an indispensable preliminary to the 
 believing assent which the understanding has to 
 give to the truth of God. So the apostle ex¬ 
 pressly testifies: “ The natural man receiveth not 
 the things of the Spirit of God, neither can he 
 know them; because they are spiritually dis¬ 
 cerned” (1 Cor. ii. 1-4). The intellect of fallen 
 man is clouded and struck with impotency, 
 throuffh the entire estrano^ement of his affections 
 from God, the enmity of his carnal mind against 
 God, and the impossibility of his willing subjec¬ 
 tion to God and to God’s law. He is prejudiced, 
 blinded, darkened. In order that the light may 
 get into his understanding, and bring home to his 
 understanding a conviction of the reality of things 
 divine, there must be a direct work of God in the 
 soul, restoring to it the capacity of discerning and 
 perceiving the truth which God has to reveal. 
 And it must be a work, let it be noted, not re¬ 
 stricted to the undemtanding, but reaching to 
 other parts of man’s nature, and in particular 
 touching the conscience and the will. Not only 
 must the eye be purged that it may see; the man 
 himself must be made willing to look. The Spirit 
 might operate upon the intellect so effectually as 
 to repair thoroughly the damage which it has sus- 
 
HUMAN DErRAVITY. 
 
 291 
 
 taineJ, and perfectly restore its capacity of ap- chapter 
 
 vr. 
 
 prebending spiritual truth and the evidence of it. •— 
 Would that of itself suffice to produce certaiidy 
 even a riffiit intellectual knowledge and belief? 
 
 Not, one would say, unless there were such an 
 accompanying change in the moral frame as to 
 substitute for estrangement, offence, and enmity, 
 feelings of complacency and cordial interest in the 
 things of God that are to be known and believed. 
 
 This merely intellectual belief, therefore, must be 
 the result of the renewal of the whole man. It 
 must always be regarded in that light, if we would 
 con.sistently maintain uncompromised, either the 
 moral demerit of unbelief, as a sin for which man 
 is responsible, or the moral worth and excellency Moral 
 
 . . , worth of 
 
 of faith, as implying right dispositions and a heart faith, 
 ricrht with God. 
 
 o 
 
 And this suoffrests another remark, which is the Depravity 
 
 GO ' 
 
 in man to 
 
 counterpart of the preceding one. We must be-he duly es- 
 Avare of under-estimating the inveterate strength 
 of human depravity, as if it were such that an 
 intellectual conviction could overcome it. It 
 seems to be presumed or taken for granted, in 
 the scheme of human nature on which tlie merely 
 intellectual theory of faith proceeds, that once to 
 carry the understanding, is to carry all. Get the 
 mind, or intellect, enlightened and convinced, and 
 all is gained. Thus it is alleged that a man, really 
 understandino; and assenting to all that God re- 
 
 O O 
 
292 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 ir. 
 
 Extent to 
 which 
 light and 
 conviction 
 may go, 
 without a 
 real clos¬ 
 ing of tile 
 heart with 
 Clirist. 
 
 veals respecting coming wrath and present grace, 
 cannot but tlee from the one and lay hold on the 
 other. Hence, though neither reliance nor ap¬ 
 propriation be held to be of the essence of faith, 
 yet both are secured, if you have the intelligent 
 belief of what God testifies concerning his Son. 
 It is true, there seem to be individuals not a few 
 whose understandings are well informed in the 
 
 o 
 
 whole of Christian doctrine, and convinced, more¬ 
 over, of the truth of every portion of it, who yet 
 give too palpable evidence of their information 
 and their conviction being practically inert and 
 inoperative, and stopping far short of their actually 
 turning from sin to God. But then, it is said, 
 there must be, unknown to us, and perhaps even 
 unknown to themselves, some mistake or misap¬ 
 prehension in some particular, or some latent in¬ 
 credulity in regard to some point. They cannot 
 really know and believe all the truth; since, if 
 they did, it would be impossible for them to con¬ 
 tinue impenitent and unreconciled. 
 
 Now it is here, if anywhere, that I confess I 
 feel the exclusively intellectual view, as it is called, 
 of the nature of faith, giving way. We may allow 
 the extreme improbability of a man being able to 
 comprehend, even intellectually, the whole truth 
 of God, in aU its terrible and affecting reality, 
 without an inward work of God on his conscience, 
 his mind, his will, his heart. Even in that aspect 
 
RESISTANCE TO LIGHT AND CONVICTION. 293 
 
 of the matter, however, it is most painfully instruc¬ 
 tive to observe how very near, at least, natural 
 intelligence, under the ordinary means of gnace and 
 the common operations of the Spirit, may come, 
 and often does come, to a right speculative know¬ 
 ledge, and a real theoretical admission and belief, 
 of all the statements of the divine record, without 
 any valid consciousness, or any satisfactory evi¬ 
 dence, of a change of heart. It is, therefore, at 
 all times a solemn duty, in a land of privilege and 
 profession, to w’arn all hearers of the gospel that 
 they may have what seems to be commonly 
 understood by an intellectual acquaintance with 
 things divine, and an intellectual conviction of 
 their truth, through the mere use of their natural 
 faculties, under gospel light and gospel opportuni¬ 
 ties, without being spiritually enlightened, so as 
 savingly to know Christ Jesus the Lord. But it 
 is the other aspect of this matter that chiefly 
 strikes one as doubtful. When it is taken for 
 granted that the understanding is the riding 
 principle of our nature, and that to carry it is 
 to carry all, I have some fear that man’s de¬ 
 pravity may be under-rated. Is it so very clear 
 that a man, knowing and believing, even by divine 
 teaching, all that is revealed of his own lost estate, 
 and of the Bedeemer’s free and full salvation, will 
 necessarily consent to be saved ? Is there no case 
 of a shiner, whose mind is thoroughly enlightened. 
 
294 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATUKE. 
 
 PART SO far as an acquaintance witli all tlie trutli of 
 
 - God is concerned, and tliorouglily convinced, so 
 
 far as intellectual assurance goes, yet, from sheer 
 enmity to God, and unwillingness to own subjec¬ 
 tion or obligation to God, refusing to accept de¬ 
 liverance, and choosing rather to perish than be 
 indebted, on such terms, to a Being whom he 
 suspects, dislikes, and hates—to a Being who 
 will not barter salvation with him for a price, and 
 from whom he cannot bring himself to take it as 
 a free gift ? Such a case, peiliaps, so extremely 
 put, may be considered visionary and ideal; and 
 it may be alleged that, in point of fact, such a 
 man cannot really know vhat it is to perish, or 
 cannot believe in the certainty of his perishing, 
 since, if he did, he could not but seek and be 
 anxious to escape. Of this, however, at any rate, 
 Feeling of I am fully pei’suaded. I am much mistaken if it 
 God on be not the earnest feeling of almost every child of 
 ject. God, not only that such a depth of depravity as I 
 have indicated is conceivable, but that it is no more 
 than might have been, and, but for a strong pres¬ 
 sure from above on his rebellious will and heart, 
 must have been, realized in his own case and in 
 jhis own experience. On this account, as well as 
 jfor other reasons, I am rather inclined to consider 
 ^ consent and confidence, trust and reliance, as not 
 1 merely flowing naturally and necessarily from 
 * faith, but forming its very essence. Giving all 
 
FAITH AN APPROPRIATING ACT. 
 
 295 
 
 due prominence to the share which the under- chapter 
 standing has in bringing about that state of mind 
 which we call faith,—giving it, in fact, the first 
 place, since it is, and must be, through a spiritually 
 enlightened understanding that the Avhole soul of 
 
 an intelligent man is moved,—I would Still place 
 the seat of faith in the moral, fully as much as in 
 the intellectual part of our nature. I would 
 make it chiefly consist, not in the assent or credit 
 given to what God reveals or testifies, but in our 
 embracing, with a fiducial, reliance or trust. Him 
 whom God reveals, and of whom “ this is the 
 record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and 
 that this life is in his Son” (1 John v. 11). And 
 I would appeal to that word, which, though it can¬ 
 not be urged as conclusive, seems, at least, to coun¬ 
 tenance this view: “With the heart man believeth 
 unto righteousness ” (Rom. x. 10). 
 
 The second observation which I have to make Appro- 
 
 priution 
 
 confirms my leaning in the direction I have pointed implies 
 
 • 1 / T 1 11 -1 ™ore than 
 
 out. I return again to what 1 have already said a mere in- 
 of the office or function of faith, as appropriating act. 
 Christ, and all things in him. Now, it seems 
 clear to me that it is only through the medium 
 of this trust or reliance which I consider to be of 
 the essence of faith—G is casting of ourselves upon 
 Christ—that we arrive at any intelligible connec¬ 
 tion or correspondence between the nature of faith 
 and the office of faith. It is only thus that we 
 
 / 
 
296 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART are enabled to see how faith is fitted for the piir- 
 
 II, 
 
 -pose which it is designed to serve ; what .there is 
 
 ill it that adapts it for tlie appropriation of the 
 Sa^donr and the salvation presented to its ac¬ 
 ceptance in the gospel. Suppose that we limit 
 onr view of faith to the mere assent or credit 
 given by a S]uritually enlightened understanding 
 to the testimony of God concerning his Son. 
 Then, on the one hand, no .very satisfactory 
 reason can be assigned for the selection of faith 
 as the medium or instrument of justification. It 
 ma}^ be said, perhaps, that it is because it excludes 
 works. That, however, is rather a reason why 
 works are not, than wdiy faith should be, the ap¬ 
 pointed way of obtaining the blessing. But 
 further, on the other hand, it seems difficult to 
 explain how, upon this theory, a sinner can get 
 at the direct act of appropriation, which it is the 
 A'er}^ office and function of faith to secure. True, 
 Tiiedirect lie may arrive at this appropriation, and even at 
 ating act full personal assurance, by a reflex act of faith, or 
 be!nstin° by a syllogistic process of argument founded on 
 lom'the li'S own act of believing. For though there is no 
 sens^or rcvelatioii or testimony of God concerning the 
 ofailpTO- saUmtion of any individual sinner, personally and 
 pnation. name ; though there is nothing beyond the 
 general declaration of his being able and willing 
 to save all and any sinners who will believe ; j’ct, 
 according to the intellectual view of faith, ap- 
 
FAITH A VENTURING UPON CHRIST. 
 
 £97 
 
 propriation may be readied by reasoning thus : chapter 
 Christ is the Saviour of every one that believeth ; . 
 
 but I am conscious that I believe—that I under¬ 
 stand and assent to what is revealed in the gospel 
 concerning Christ, and the way of acceptance in 
 him: therefore, I conclude that Christ is my 
 Saviour ; and 1 rejoice in him as such. This, as 
 all must admit, is a legitimate and scriptui’al way 
 of arriving, through a process of reflex self-inquiry, 
 at a full assurance of one’s personal interest in 
 Christ. But for my part I plead for a more 
 <lirect and immediate sort of appropriation as 
 being involved in the very act of believing. And'^^ 
 for that, on the theory of faith which I am now 
 examining, there is scarcely any room. Accord¬ 
 ing to that other theory, however, which I would 
 prefer—but rather as supplementary than as 
 antao’onist to the former—making faith consist ' 
 mainly in trust, or reliance on Him of whom the \ 
 Father testifies, I hold that the discoveries of 
 Christ in the gospel, as the Saviour of sinners The direct 
 
 €xcrcis6 of 
 
 generally, are so full, pointed, and precise in them- faitu— 
 selves, and are so brought home to the individual, mysuf on 
 by the Spirit working in him, that he is per- 
 suaded, as by a leap—not indeed at hazard, or in 
 the dark, but still as one would venture from a 
 burning house into the arms of a friend standing 
 below—to cast himself upon Christ. And in so 
 doing, he directly and immediately appropriates ^ / 
 
2'JS SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 TART ^Christ as his own; his language Leing that of 
 -—- Thomas, in the very lookiim to Christ: “ My 
 
 “JlyUrd, ’ J a J 
 
 and my Lorcl, aiicl my God!” (John xx. 28). 
 
 God!** 
 
 This is probably the nearest approach that can 
 be made to the embodying of the direct act of 
 faith in lano-uafje such as does not turn it into the 
 reflex. It is the instinctive utterance of the soul, 
 when one naturally hard and slow of heart to be¬ 
 lieve,—having }delded, it may be, to sullen de¬ 
 spair, refusing to be comforted, — has such an 
 insight given him into the love of Jesus, and the 
 meaning of his wounded hands and side, as con¬ 
 strains him, not only to recognise the divine 
 character of Him who is mighty to save, but to 
 I'ealize his gracious and saving relation to himself 
 There is an end of hesitation; there is a frank 
 resolution to confide in him — “I will trust, and 
 not be afraid; ” there is a committing of his 
 soul and his all to Him,—in the direct, sti*aight- 
 forward, earnestness of ejaculation : “ My Lord, 
 and my God ! ” 
 
 The Refer- Here, then, on such grounds as I have indicated, 
 fi.nimia- I am disposed to make a stand in defence of that 
 .aionejus- vicw of faith wliicli includes in it something more 
 piiesuiat" simple belief I do not see how otherwise 
 more'than Consistently explain the place assigned 
 
 belief. faith in the matter of the sinner’s free justifica- 
 ^ tion and salvation by grace. We cannot well be 
 
SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE. 
 
 29!) 
 
 s;iid to be justified and saved by faith alone, iiii- Chapter 
 
 VT. 
 
 less we understand by faith that consent of the ( —^ 
 entire inner man which effects our union to Christ, 
 and the submitting of ourselves to him as “ the 
 righteousness of God,'’—“ the Lord our righteous¬ 
 ness,” and “ the Lord our strength.” It is not 
 enousTh for the advocates of the bare intellectual 
 
 O 
 
 theory to tell us that the belief for which the}^ 
 jilead will always produce as its accompaniment 
 or result the fiducial trust and appropriation on 
 which we insist, and which they as well as we 
 admit to be what really unites the believer to 
 the Saviour. On that footing, we are really 
 justified and saved, not by faith alone, but by 
 the fruit of faith,—the hearty embrace of Christ, 
 which faith prompts. Surely it is better to re¬ 
 cognise the uniting virtue or efficacy as residing 
 in the faith itself, if we are to hold fast in its 
 integrity the Reformation watchword, that faith 
 alone justifies. In fact, as I have been endeavour¬ 
 ing to show, it is hard to see what precise truth 
 it can be, the bare and simple belief of Avhich is 
 to work such a dnect appropriating assurance as 
 the calling of Jesus Lord must be held to mean. 
 For what is it that I am to believe ? Wliat is 
 the proposition to which I am to assent 1 Is it 
 this,—Christ .is mine ; or, I take Christ to be 
 mine ; or, I have good reason to conclude that I 
 have taken, or that I am taking, Chiist to be 
 
 Difflculy 
 of (lefiiiiiig 
 categori¬ 
 cally the 
 exact 
 
300 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Piscussion 
 on the 
 assurance 
 of faith. 
 
 mine ? The belief of any one of these proposi¬ 
 tions will doubtless give the appropriating assur¬ 
 ance sought. But how to arrive at that belief 
 otherwise than through the reflex and subjective 
 process of verifying, by self-examination, my own 
 state of mind towards Christ—that is a serious 
 practical difficulty. Nor do I see how the diffi¬ 
 culty can be got over, unless there be in the state 
 of mind itself which I am by reflection to realize, 
 something that directly effects the appropriation. 
 And what can that something be ? It cannot 
 well be the admission or conviction of any mere 
 proposition or statement concerning Christ; for 
 that simply throws me back upon some reflex 
 argument of my interest in Christ. It cannot 
 well be anything short of my actually so dealing 
 with Christ himself personally as to accept him, 
 and close with him, and embrace him. In a 
 word, my faith, in its direct and objective act or 
 exercise, makes Christ mine. And so it prepares 
 the way for the reflex or subjective line of reason- 
 ing by which I conflrin myself, on valid grounds, 
 in the humble confidence and assurance that 
 Christ is truly mine. 
 
 This subject may be illustrated by a reference 
 to a discussion of some interest, between Dr. 
 Bellamy and Dr. Anderson of the United States. 
 Bellamy’s “Treatise on the Nature of True Beli- 
 
DISCUSSION ON ASSURANCE. 
 
 301 
 
 gion/’ is known as a work of great tlieological 
 value, especially as searcliing very thoroughly the 
 foundations on which our knowledge of God, and 
 our obligation to love God, as well under the law 
 as under the gospel, must ultimately rest. In 
 another work, under the title of “ Letters and 
 Dialogues,” Bellamy sets himself to controvert the 
 views on the nature of faith put forth by Hervey, 
 the well-known author of “ Theron and Aspasio,” 
 as well as by Marshall in his book on Sanctifica¬ 
 tion. His strictures are perhaps unduly severe ; 
 manifestino- too much inclination to convict his 
 
 o 
 
 opponents of Antinomianism, and too great a 
 dread, also, of all assurance except what is the 
 result of a testing self-examination and appeal to 
 fruits. In exposing the untenableness of what he 
 imagines that his adversaries hold faith to be,— 
 namely, the mere belief that I am saved ahuady, 
 —he seems to disparage that act of direct appro¬ 
 priation by which, on the warrant of the gospel 
 call, and with a strong personal assurance, I take 
 Christ and his salvation to be mine ; mine at once 
 and immediately ; mine now and for ever. It is 
 upon this point, accordingly, that Dr. Anderson 
 chiefly dwells, -svitli remarkable clearness and 
 power, in his observations on Bellamy’s system. 
 The two divines, I am persuaded, somewhat 
 exaggerated, as is not by any means uncommon in 
 such cases, the real theological difference between 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI. 
 
 Bellamy’s 
 writings 
 on tlie 
 subject. 
 
 Ander¬ 
 son's ob- 
 seivations 
 on Bel¬ 
 lamy's 
 system. 
 
 1. 
 
 ! 
 
302 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Direct, as 
 distinct 
 from re¬ 
 flex assur¬ 
 ance. 
 
 Defini¬ 
 tions of 
 siiving 
 faith. 
 
 tliem. They were both of tliem men of sound 
 evangelical opinions, and eminently endowed alike 
 with gifts and with grace. They had before them 
 respectively different forms of error ; and each 
 might be apt to suspect the otlier of a leaning 
 towards that form of eiror which he liimself par¬ 
 ticularly dreaded. At the same time, the differ¬ 
 ence of their ways of viewing faith must not be 
 under-estimated. Bellamy is undoubtedly a})t to 
 urge too far the purely intellectual feature in faith, 
 as requiring that it shall always have some cate¬ 
 gorical sentence to grasp ; and Dr. Anderson’s 
 vindication, on the other hand, of the power which 
 there is in the outgoing of the soul to Christ, and 
 the hold which the soul takes of Christ, “to assure 
 our hearts .before God,”—is a valuable service, 
 not only to theological science, but to personal 
 and practical religion. 
 
 The truth is, I must repeat, the chief difficulty 
 in adjusting the matter at issue would seem to 
 arise out of the attempt to translate into a precise 
 formula, and embody in an exact proposition, 
 what is implied in the direct and immediate act 
 or exercise of saving hiith. Hence such defini¬ 
 tions of saving faith are given as justly provoke 
 the criticism of philosophical thinkers like Dr. 
 Bellamy. Take, for instance, the following: 
 “ It is a real persuasion in ni}’' heart tliat Jesus 
 Christ is mine, and that I shidl have life and sal- 
 
THE APPROPRIATING ACT OF FAITH. 
 
 303 
 
 VRtion by him—that whatsoever Christ did for chapter 
 
 VI. 
 
 the redemption of mankind, he did it for me.” — 
 
 “ It is a hearty assurance that our sins are freely 
 forgiven us in Christ; ” and its language is, “ Par¬ 
 don is mine—grace is mine—Christ and all his 
 spiritual blessings are mine.” 
 
 If these expressions are weighed in connection Attcn^pt 
 
 to express 
 
 with other views set forth by the same writers, eategori- 
 they will be found, perhaps, to mean nothing more tim appro- 
 than that faith, in its very essence, is an appro ■ act of faith 
 priating act; and that, consequently, in its direct doeL 
 exercise, it involves a measure of “ persuasion,” or 
 confidence, or “ hearty assurance ; ”—which, how¬ 
 ever, it would itself, if genuine, shrink from put¬ 
 ting into the bold and naked form of a categorical 
 proposition, or an express and positive deliverance. 
 
 Nor does this seem to be inconsistent with Bel¬ 
 lamy’s own opinion. He freely uses such scrip¬ 
 tural phraseology as, “ coming to Christ, receiving 
 Christ, trusting in Christ, believing on Christ, 
 flying to Christ; ”—all which he considers as 
 descriptive, not of any act subsequent to faith, but 
 of faith itself. Now, any exercise of mind such 
 as will suit that phraseology, must surely have in 
 it a measure of directly appropriating assurance, 
 which, if it is to be articulately interpreted at all, 
 must have some voice given to it, very similar 
 to the utterance which Dr. Bellamy condemns. 
 
 But this, I apprehend, is the very evil to be 
 
304 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Imperfec¬ 
 tion of lan¬ 
 guage. 
 
 Language 
 reflex; 
 faith di¬ 
 rect 
 
 complained of,—that men should either attempt, 
 or be required, to fix down, in written or spoken 
 words, an affection or movement of the mind, as 
 yet unable, or scarcely able, to realize itself For 
 all language is reflex, whereas faith is direct. It 
 is directly that I believe, and believing, take 
 Christ as mine. It is reflexly that I say that I 
 believe, or that Christ is mine. Thus it is with 
 other mental operations. I love ; but my loving 
 is not my saying, or thinking that I love. I take 
 an offered friendship to be my own ; but my so 
 taking it and using it is different from my saying, 
 or thinking, that it is mine. It is the imperfec¬ 
 tion of language, after all, that causes any fallacy 
 here. Language cannot catch a direct act of the 
 mind without instantly making it reflex. The 
 moment I put my faith or feeling into words, it is 
 as if I looked into a mirror, or sat to a painter, 
 to have, not the primary attitude of my soul, but 
 an image of it, presented to my own view, and to 
 the world’s. The mistake of the class of divines 
 whom Bellamy criticises somewhat sharply, would 
 seem to lie in their vainly endeavouring to make 
 lano^uafje do the office of that mauic art which 
 
 o o o 
 
 would arrest and stereotype the almost unconscious 
 glance of the eager eye. Or, in plainer terms, 
 they seem bent upon reducing into a formula that 
 direct exercise of simple trust, wdiich cannot thus 
 recognise its own reality without instantly and 
 
SOURCE OF FALLACY. 
 
 305 
 
 altogether ceasing to be direct, and becoming reflex chapter 
 and inferential. And Bellamy’s error, probably, —1 
 in so far as he erred, consisted in his making no 
 allowance for this source of misunderstanding, and 
 in his pressing, consequently, too far, his reductio 
 ad ahsurdum, or the running up of his antagonists 
 into a corner, and insisting on their becoming 
 responsible for some logical statement, which forth¬ 
 with he has no difficulty in proving to be either 
 baseless or inept. 
 
 I hold it, therefore, to be of tlie last consequence Hence a 
 always to keep in view this difference between a Imu-cfor 
 direct and a reflex act or operation of the mind, 
 and this inadequacy of language as the vehicle or 
 instrument of these two acts respectively. It is a 
 fruitful source of fallacy, and the main cause, I am 
 persuaded, of almost all the embarrassment that 
 is apt to perplex the question about the nature of 
 faith, in its relation to the other question about 
 the efficacy and extent of the atonement. Holy Cautious 
 
 Sll@TlC(5 of 
 
 Scripture, as every one must have observed, says scripture 
 little or nothing expressly on the subject. It sets ture of 
 forth the object of faith—Christ-—in all the glory 
 of his mediatorial character, in all the fulness of 
 his mediatorial work, and in all the freeness of his 
 mediatorial ministry of reconciliation. The mo¬ 
 tives to faith are urged ; the warrants of faith are 
 spread out; the blessed fruits of faith, in the pure 
 
 peace and holy joy of a believing soul, are traced; 
 
 20 
 
306 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATURE. 
 
 PART ,as well as its holy issues and evidences, in a con- 
 —h ' sistent life of new and loving obedience. But as 
 
 ( to the nature of the act itself, there is no analysis 
 in Scripture that seeks to reach it. It is assumed 
 that men know Avhat believing or trusting means. 
 That a more rigid and subtile scrutiny has been 
 rendered necessary in after times, by the accumu¬ 
 lation of errors on every side, must be admitted. 
 At the same time, we may be allowed to regret 
 that such a necessity should have arisen ; and we 
 cannot but fear that it may have led some to carry 
 the process too far. Thus, on the one hand, the 
 enumeration of so many different kinds of faith as 
 some divines have been wont to distinguish—such 
 
 O 
 
 as historical fixith, the faith of miracles, temporary 
 faith, saving faith, and so forth—has undoubtedly 
 tended to perplex;—while, on the other hand, the 
 attempt to simplify the whole matter, by reducing 
 all to one, has, perhaps,, created that very appear- 
 I ance of over-refinement which it was meant to 
 ^ remedy. 
 
 Tertium 
 quid be¬ 
 tween two 
 formulas 
 of faith— 
 the one 
 general, 
 the other 
 particular 
 and per¬ 
 sonal. 
 
 For, after all, the belief of a statement which 
 is abstractly or independently true, whether I be¬ 
 lieve it or not, is a different thing from the belief 
 of a statement which becomes true through some 
 process of conviction, or concurrence, or consent, 
 on my part; and it is different, also, from the pro¬ 
 cess itself on which the truth of a statement of 
 
THE INTEEMEDIATE STEP. 
 
 307 
 
 this latter kind turns. There is thus a sort of chapter 
 tertium quid, an intermediate something, between .—L 
 the belief of the one kind of statement and that 
 of the other, which it seems vain to attempt to 
 reduce into the form of a categorical proposition. 
 
 That Christ is the Son of God and Saviour of 
 sinners, is a clear announcement; that he is my 
 Saviour is a clear announcement also. But the 
 former is true, as a matter of fact, whether I be¬ 
 lieve or not ; the latter becomes true, as a matter 
 of fact, only upon my believing. Does not this 
 seem to prove that mj^ believing, standing as it 
 does between the two announcements, and forming 
 the stepping-stone from the former announcement 
 to the latter, is different from the belief of either 
 the one or the other ? But no categorical propo- | 
 sition can possibly be framed between these two : 
 
 He saveth sinners ; and. He saveth me. Must not\ 
 that faith, therefore, of which we are in search, be \ 
 an act or exercise of the mind, such as cannot be 1 
 expressed in any formula of the naked intellect ? I 
 For the intellect cannot turn the contingent— 
 which alone comes between the two propositions 
 ■—into the categorical. That, however, really is Tmst, or 
 
 confi- 
 
 the present problem. There must, therefore, be dence, or 
 some other function—call it trust, or confidence, 
 or persuasion, or assurance, or consent, or what 
 you will—to translate. He saveth sinners who 
 believe, into He saveth me. The whole specu- 
 
308 
 
 SAVING FAITH—ITS NATUKE. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 lation, in fact, or the whole inquiry, concerning 
 the nature of faith considered with reference to its 
 function or office, may he appropriately summed 
 up and closed in the exquisitely beautiful saying 
 of one of the writers to whom I have referred—a 
 saying not more remarkable for its poetic charm, 
 if I may so characterize it, than for its deep phi- 
 , losophic truth ;—“ Hence faith is not so much our 
 saying anything, as our silent acquiescence in what 
 God says.”* 
 
 * Dr. Anderson’s “Scripture Doctrine of the Appropriation,” Ac., page 105. 
 Edinburgh edition, 1843. I give in the Appendix two quotations from Dr. 
 Anderson’s work, to which I crave the reader’s particular attention. 
 
THE WARPwVNT OF FAITH, THE WORD OF GOD. 309 
 
 CHAPTER VIL 
 
 THE WARRANT OP FAITH—THE DIVINE TESTIMONY, APPEALING 
 TO THE DIVINE NAME OR NATURE AS EXHIBITED IN THE 
 ATONEMENT. 
 
 The warrant or ground of faith must be consi- chapter 
 dered in connection with the views already given, —^ 
 respecting the office or function which faith has to 
 discharge, as well as the nature of the act or exer¬ 
 cise itself. 
 
 Generally, it is agreed on all hands that the The wai- 
 warrant or ground of faith is the divine testimony. foRhistim 
 I believe, because the Lord hath said it. The goci. 
 formal reason for believing, is not the reasonable¬ 
 ness of what “ the Lord saith,” but the fact that 
 “the Lord saith it.” To give credit to a report 
 on account of its inlierent probability, or on 
 account of the circumstantial evidence by which 
 it is corroborated, is a different tiling from re¬ 
 ceiving it on the simple assurance of a competent 
 and trustworthy witness. The states of mind 
 implied in these two acts of faith respectively are Believing 
 very different; the one being that of a judge or titude, not 
 critic, the other that of a disciple or a little child.* 
 
 ____ cliiid. 
 
 ♦ I may be allowed, perhaps, to refer, for an illustration of this distinction, in 
 reference to our faith in the work of creation—which, liowever, is easily and 
 obviously applicable to our faith in the work of redemption—to the first cliupter 
 of “ Contributions towards tlie Exposition of tho Book of Genesis." 
 
310 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 Reason¬ 
 able evi¬ 
 dence of 
 its being 
 tlie word 
 of God that 
 we are 
 asked to 
 believe. 
 
 The con¬ 
 descension 
 of God in 
 explain¬ 
 ing his 
 procedure 
 to our rea¬ 
 son. 
 
 It is true, indeed, on the one hand, that as an 
 element, and a very importtint element, in deter¬ 
 mining the question whether it he the Lord that 
 speaks or not, we are entitled to take into account 
 the substance and manner of the communication 
 made to us ; to weigh well its bearing on what 
 we otherwise know of God and of ourselves ; and 
 to gather from its high tone of holy sovereignty, 
 so worthy of the speaker, as well as from its deep 
 breathings of mercy, so suited to the parties to 
 whom it appeals, many precious and delightful con- 
 fii'mations of the fact, that it is in very deed a 
 message from heaven that has reached us, and a 
 message addressed to us, and meant for us, poor, 
 guilty sinners upon earth. It is true, also, on the 
 other hand, that, in gracious condescension, God 
 does not merely announce to us peremptorily his 
 will and our duty—abruptly intimating that so it 
 is, and so it must be. He is at pains to explain 
 how it is so, and how it must be so. He lets us 
 into the rationale of his own procedure. He 
 shows us what he is doing, and why and how he 
 is doing it. He not merely' proclaims the general 
 result, that his justice is satisfied on behalf of all 
 who choose, or become willing, to embrace the 
 righteousness of his Son—to embrace his Son as 
 the Lord their righteousness ;—He goes into the 
 details of the mysterious tran.saction, and makes 
 it plain and palpable, even to our limited powder 
 
“ THUS SAITH THE LOKU.” 311 
 
 of comprehension, that this satisfaction to his jus¬ 
 tice is real, and cannot but be sufficient. He not 
 merely summons authoritatively the rebels against 
 his government to submit and be reconciled ; he 
 argues, and expostulates, and })leads with them— 
 unfolding the whole plan and purpose of wise, 
 righteous, and holy benevolence, in virtue of which 
 he is enabled to receive them graciously and to 
 love them freely. All this he does that they may 
 have the less difficulty or scruple in believing, or 
 else that they may have no excuse for their unbe¬ 
 lief,—no pretence for not being intelligently and 
 thoroughly satisfied. 
 
 Still it is ultimately, or rather immediately, 
 on the ij)se dixit of God—his “ Thus saith the 
 Lord” —that our foith must rest. For then only 
 am I really exercising this blessed grace, and 
 honouring God in the exercise of it, when I am 
 not merely canvassing the contents of the revela¬ 
 tion, with a view to settle my mind as to whence 
 it conies—nor even meditating on tlie wondrous 
 wisdom with which all is so arranged as to har¬ 
 monize all the attributes of God, and meet all the 
 exigencies of man’s case ; but when, like the child 
 Samuel, I say from the heart, “ Speak, Lord, for 
 thy servant heareth” (1 Sam. iii. 9, 10); or, like 
 the docile and grateful virgin mother, reposing her 
 trust, not on the explanation given of the marvel¬ 
 lous announcement made to her, but on the truth 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VII. 
 
 Ultimate¬ 
 ly, how¬ 
 ever, it is 
 His sim¬ 
 ple ipse 
 dixit that 
 faith rests 
 on. 
 
312 
 
 THE WAEEANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PAKT of Him from whom it came—“ Behold the hand- 
 —h maid of the Lord : be it unto me according to thy 
 word ” (Luke i. 38). 
 
 Faithmiist It is plain, however, that as regards the nature 
 proceed on faith wliicli I exercise, and still more as 
 
 God,^ regards its fitness for the function or office assigned 
 to it, much will depend, not merely on the precise 
 literal amount of what is said, but also on the view' 
 wdiich I take of Him whose word or testimony is 
 my warrant for believing. Thus, generally, it is 
 obvious enough that, in order to make his testi¬ 
 mony a foundation of that faith which is needed, 
 Tlie vera- the veracit}^, the faithfulness, the sincerity and 
 
 citv of 
 
 God must truth of God, must be owned and appreciated. 
 ^eo"ned- Otheiwvise there can be no credit given to him, 
 and no confidence reposed in him, at all. But, 
 more particularly, it would seem that other attri¬ 
 butes of his character must be apprehended, in 
 order that his te.stimony may be a good ground 
 of the sort of faith which is desiderated and sought. 
 Theun- For example, in addition to his veracity, the 
 abkrfes's unchangeableiie.ss of God must be recognised. How 
 alsomust indispensable this is, will appear if we inquire 
 be owned, commoii source of the scepticism, 
 
 whether of presumption or of fear and doubt, 
 wdiich lies and lurks at the bottom of the unbe¬ 
 lieving heart. It is not so much the veracity, or 
 general truthfulness of God, that is called in ques¬ 
 tion, as his unchangeableness, or the immutabi- 
 
THE IMMUTABILITY OF COD. 
 
 313 
 
 lity of his counsels and his commands. Men foruet chapter 
 that it is not only said of him, ‘‘ He is not a man, —i- 
 that he should lie;” but it is added, " neither the 
 son of man, that he should repent” (Num. xxiv. 
 
 19). Hence, in reference to threatened judgment, 
 that reliance which sinners are so prone to place 
 on the imagined placability of God, and the ready 
 heed which they give to the argument or sug¬ 
 gestion of the tempter, “ Ye shall not surely die.” 
 
 Thus, in a similar case,—alas! too much a case 
 of ordinary experience in the government of human 
 families,—when I warn my child of my deter¬ 
 mination to “ visit his iniquities with stripes, and 
 his transgressions with the rod,” why does he run 
 away from me careless and unconcerned? Not 
 so much because he doubts my honesty, as because 
 he doubts my firmness and inflexibility of pur¬ 
 pose. He is quite aware that I am in earnest in 
 straitly forbidding the offence, and loudly inti¬ 
 mating my resolution to punish it. But he sees 
 a relenting fondness in the glance of the very eye 
 that would sternly frown on him. Experience 
 also has taught him that I may change my mind. 
 
 And he has' a vague notion that if the worst, as 
 the saying is, come to the worst, my parental ten¬ 
 derness will get the better of me, or something 
 will happen to appease me, and somehow he will 
 get off. He cherishes this notion, even when I 
 tell him of the general principles according to which 
 
314 
 
 TUE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Unbelief 
 liopes or 
 fears a 
 change of 
 mind. 
 
 liis conduct in youth must exert an influence on his 
 welfare in after years, and early profligacy must 
 entail upon him either early death or an old age 
 of vain remorse and premature decay. He admits 
 my veracity. He admits also the average proba¬ 
 bility of the testimony which I bear. But he 
 lays hold of the doubt that may be cast on the 
 inflexibility of the law, or the invariableness of 
 the providence, which I seek to announce to him. 
 And he can find many plausible reasons for anti¬ 
 cipating a relaxation of the rule or piuctice in his 
 own especial favour. For it is soon found to be 
 but too easy and natural an extension of his fond 
 reliance on impunity, that he should carry his 
 scepticism and his calculation of chances from the 
 parental government to the divine. The case is 
 precisely the same with respect to my dealings of 
 kindness with him. How is it that, when I 
 fondle and caress my child most warmly, I may 
 very possibly detect, under all his wild gaiety, a 
 shrinking and half-avowed sense of insecurity? It 
 is not that he doubts my sincerity at the time. 
 By no means. But, alas! like the school-boys in 
 the ‘‘ Deserted Yillage,” the “ boding trembler,” 
 having found that I may be swayed by pas.sion 
 or warped by prejudice, has— 
 
 “ Learned to trace 
 
 The day’s disasters in my morning face." 
 
 Even so it is with the threatenings and promises 
 
PERFECTION OF THE DIVINE NATURE. 
 
 315 
 
 of God. They are too generally received by men chapter 
 
 as if they came from one “altogether such as them- __1 
 
 selves.” And, in fact, the unbelief of the evil heart 
 manifests itself in this very disposition to regard 
 the denunciations of God’s law as mere ebullitions of 
 personal, and therefore placable, resentment; and 
 the assurances of his gospel as the relentings of a 
 merely pitiful, and therefore precarious, indulgence. 
 
 On both sides, in reference both to the severity Ood un- 
 and to the goodness of God, what is chiefly needed aWy as 
 is, to have men convinced, not only that God is Teaiiy^in 
 reall}'- in earnest, but that he is unchangeably so. 
 
 Nor is this all. There must be not merely a 
 conviction of the unchangeableness of God,—there 
 must be a conviction, also, that this unchangeable¬ 
 ness is necessary, reasonable, and right; that it is un- 
 
 not to be confounded with the perseverance of 
 mere obstinac}? or caprice, but is the result of the 
 absolute perfection and infiiiite excellence of the 
 divine character and nature. Among men, one 
 often holds on in the course, whether of favouritism 
 or of vindictiveness, which he has resolved upon 
 and announced, merely because he has committed 
 himself, and has not courage, or is ashamed, 
 to draw back. Such a one is essentially of a 
 weak temper and frame of mind, and never can 
 be tlie object either of sincere respect or of cordial 
 faith. He may be feared or flattered as a tyrant, 
 but he can never be loved and trusted as a gracious 
 
 change¬ 
 ableness 
 must be 
 seen in 
 him as the 
 result of 
 his perfec¬ 
 tion. 
 
316 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The name 
 01' charac¬ 
 ter of God 
 the 
 
 ground of 
 faith. 
 
 father, or reverenced as a just master and lord. 
 The unchangeableness of Jehovah is not of such 
 a sort. It must be viewed in connection with the 
 glorious attributes of his character, and the ever¬ 
 lasting principles of his administration, as the 
 moral governor of the universe. Thus viewed, 
 his unchangeableness must so commend itself to 
 the intelligence, the conscience, and the whole 
 moral nature of the individual to whom it is 
 rightly manifested, as to make him feel, not only 
 that God is, and must be, unchangeable, but that, 
 for his part, even if it were possible, he would not 
 wish him to be otherwise. 
 
 ,/Tt is here, particularly, that we may see the 
 necessity of an acquaintance with the character of 
 God, as preliminary, if not in the order of time, 
 at least in the order of causation, to that saving 
 faith which rests upon his word or testimony. 
 This is what wmuld seem to be meant by such a 
 siOTificant statement as that of the Psalmist: 
 
 O 
 
 “They that know thy name will put their trust in 
 tbee” (Ps. ix. 10). Apiart^qm this knowledge oi 
 his name, or nature,—this acquaintance with his 
 diaracter,—the most explicit assurances, whether 
 qf judgment on the one hand, or of mercy on the 
 other, must fail to bring home either real convic¬ 
 tion or real contentment to my soul. I might be 
 jlbreed to admit the reality of his commands and 
 Jirohibitions—his threatenings and promises. I 
 
god’s name the geound of faith. 317 
 
 might also be most unequivocally told, and most chapter 
 
 VII. 
 
 emphatically assured, of their irrevocable steadfast- —^ 
 ness, and of the impossibility of any change of his 
 mind with regard to them. Still, if I continued 
 to be ignorant of his real character, and blind or 
 insensible to all its glorious excellences and per¬ 
 fections, there would be no acquiescence on my 
 part. On the contrary, there could only be either 
 impatience, sullen resentment, and defiance, on the 
 one hand, or a reckless sort of desperate careless¬ 
 ness and presumption on the other. 
 
 Beyond all question, therefore, the faith of which The know- i 
 we are in search, whatever word of God it is td cors ! 
 
 be based and built on, — whether his word ofnXre°'^ ' 
 
 wrath or his word ol grace,—presupposes an en- imply ccn- 
 lightened knowledge of his nature; and such a comp*iL^ 
 knowledge, too, as carries consent, and even a 
 measure of complacency, along with it. No true 
 sense of sin, or right apprehension of the holy dis- ' 
 
 pleasure and just judgment of God, could ever be 
 wrought in my conscience, by the mere announce¬ 
 ment of the sentence of death under which I lie— 
 let that sentence be ever so terribly thundered in 
 my ears, and let the withering conviction of its 
 irrevocable and endless endurance be rivetted ever 
 so deeply in my heart. Like the devils, I might 
 believe and tremble. But this extorted belief, 
 forced on me by the mere word of God, if it is not 
 founded upon an intelligent spiritual acquaintance 
 
318 
 
 THE WAEEANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART with his name or nature, has notiiing in common 
 with the faith which we seek. To realize my con¬ 
 demnation aright, I must not merely apprehend it 
 as a fact: I must have an insight also into its 
 reasonableness—its righteousness—its inevitable 
 necessity. I must not mei’cly believe that I am 
 condemned; but there must enter into the ground 
 and reason of my belief such a view of God as 
 makes me feel that I am condemned, not merely 
 because God has said that it must be so, but be¬ 
 cause God is what he is; and makes me feel, 
 moreover, that even if it were to effect my own 
 escape from condemnation, I would not have him 
 to be other than he is. In like manner, in regard 
 to any word of God conveying a promise of mercy, 
 it is not that mere word, taken by itself, that be¬ 
 comes the ground or warrant of my faith, but that 
 word as the word of Him who is no longer an 
 unknown God to me,—whose name and character, 
 whose attributes and perfections, are now recog¬ 
 nised, apprehended, or, in short, intelligently and 
 spiritually perceived and seen. 
 
 Faith an I assuiiie HOW that faith is an act of the soul; 
 
 rtctivc 
 
 movement^ that it is not merely a state of mind and heart pro- 
 
 souh* duced by certain impressions made from without 
 and from above, but also an active movement from 
 within, outwards and upwards, upon the object 
 presented to it. In believing, I have sometliing 
 to do. I am not simply acted upon, I act. Con- 
 
FAITH AN ACTIVE MOVEMENT. 
 
 319 
 
 viction of sin, however reasonable and spiritual, is chapter 
 
 VII. 
 
 not faith. A sight and sense of Christ, and of the /- 
 
 mercy of God in Christ, even when accompanied 
 with a large measure of emotional relenting, may 
 not be faith. In faith, I personally transact with 
 Christ as the gift of God, the Son of the Father, 
 and with God the Father in Christ. I close with 
 Christ, I embrace Christ, as he is freely offered to 
 me in the gospel. This, I repeat, is an act. It 
 is not the belief merely of an old fact—a fact true j 
 antecedently to my believing, and independently 
 of my believing. It originates a new fact, a new 
 thing ; a new state of things, as regards my God 
 and myself. Moved by the Holy Spirit, I really 
 and personally perform an action or deed,—the 
 deed or action of taking Christ to be mine, and 
 giving myself to be Christ’s. What emboldens and 
 encourages me to do this ? The word of God; 
 his gracious assurance that I am free to do it if I 
 will, and that if I do it I shall find that I do it 
 not in vain. “ He has never said to the seed of 
 Jacob, Seek ye my face in vain.” But what, I ask 
 again, emboldens and encourages me to put that 
 word of God to the proof, and to proceed upon its 
 infallible certainty ? It is conditional. It is con¬ 
 tingent on a step which I personally have to take, 
 
 —a leap, as it were, from the tottering pinnacle of 
 a burning ruin into unseen arms below, that I per¬ 
 sonally have to venture ujion. What gives me re->^ 
 
320 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 What 
 pi ves bold¬ 
 ness to act 
 upon 
 God’s 
 word is the 
 know¬ 
 ledge of 
 his name 
 or nature. 
 
 This 
 know¬ 
 ledge is 
 through 
 the cross 
 of Christ. 
 
 solution to make the venture ? What but the dis¬ 
 covery wdiich He who calls me to make it,—and 
 swears to me that I shall not suffer, but be saved 
 in making it,—has made to me such a discovery 
 of himself, has given me such an insight into his 
 nature, as makes me feel that I may trust him ; 
 and that, trusting him, I may with trembling hope 
 comply with his invitation, and taste and see that 
 he is good, and that they are blessed who trust in 
 him ? I know his name, and therefore I commit 
 myself to him. 
 
 Here, therefore, we may perceive the value of 
 the cross, considered in an aspect of it 'which is 
 plainly universal and unrestricted ; considered, I 
 mean, as making known the name of God, or his 
 essential character and nature ; in which aspect, 
 chiefly, it enters as an element into the ground or 
 reason of saving faith. 
 
 The importance of the cross, and the preaching 
 of the cross, is, in this view, unspeakably great; 
 when it is regarded simply as a manifestation of 
 the nature of God, or of Avhat God is; and espe¬ 
 cially of what God is in those acts or exercises of 
 his administration in which he is peculiarly the 
 God with whom in believing we have to do,—in 
 dealing, that is, with sin, whether to punish or to 
 pardon. Apart from all the verbal assurances con¬ 
 nected with it,—apart from all the promises and 
 threatenings of the divine word that may be 
 
WHY THE CROSS IS REVEALED. 
 
 321 
 
 associated with it,—the cross, in itself, as an 
 actual transaction and fact in the history of the 
 divine government,, exhibits and reveals, not what 
 God says, but what God is ; and what, in all his 
 dealings with sin and with sinners, he necessarily 
 must be. And they who are sphitually enlightened 
 to behold “ the glory of God in the face of Jesus 
 Chiist ” (2 Cor. iv. 6), now see both the severity 
 and the goodness of God in a very different point 
 of view from that in which they once regarded 
 them. Thus,—without reference, for the present, 
 or in the first instance, to the question of my per¬ 
 sonal interest in it, or its ultimate bearing on my 
 personal destiny,—there the cross stands as a fact, 
 significantly revealing to me, if my eyes are opened 
 to take it in, the real character of that God with 
 whom I have to do, as well as the manner in which, 
 being what be is, bis essential nature must move 
 him to deal with sinners ; and with me, “ of sin¬ 
 ners the chief.” 
 
 For this very end, indeed, is the great fact of 
 the atonement made matter of revelation at all. 
 It is simply in order that the view thus given of 
 the name, or nature, or character of God, may 
 enter as a constituent element, or a determining- 
 cause, into the assent which I give to tbe word of 
 God, in the assurances and promises which that 
 word connects with it. Were it not for that con¬ 
 sideration, the transaction might have taken place 
 
 CEAPTER 
 
 VH. 
 
 Why the 
 atonement 
 is revealed 
 on earth. 
 
322 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Might 
 have been 
 transacted 
 elsewhere. 
 
 God seeks 
 to he be¬ 
 lieved for 
 his name's 
 sake. 
 
 in another part of the creation, and the knowledge 
 of it might have been confined to another race of 
 beings. In so far as it is an expedient or device 
 in the divine government for getting over, as it 
 were, a difficulty, and meeting an exigency, and 
 enabling God, as the holy one and the just, con¬ 
 sistently to dispense amnesty and peace—it might 
 have equally well served the end contemplated to 
 have had it hid altogether from the eyes of men. 
 It might have been enough to proclaim to them, 
 wdthout explanation,—or at least without further 
 explanation than that in a certain undiscovered 
 way the exigency of the divine administration had 
 been met and provided for;—it might have been 
 enough to proclaim to men the mere general mes¬ 
 sage of reconciliation which God had thereby been 
 warranted to announce. Nay, this might even have 
 seemed a more thorough trial of men’s dispositions, 
 as well as a simpler appeal to their sense of present 
 jdanger, and their natural desire of safety. But 
 God sought to be believed, not merely for his 
 word’s sake, but also for his name’s sake; not 
 I only on the ground of what he might say, but 
 \on the ground of what he is, and must necessarily 
 lever be. No faith based upon his mere word, 
 apart from an intelligent and satisfying acquaint¬ 
 ance with his nature, could effect the end in view'; 
 for no such faith could insure that falling in with 
 what he is doing—that acquiescence and willing 
 
god’s kame manifested in the cross. 
 
 323 
 
 subjection—which is the very thing that he seeks chapter 
 and cares for, 
 
 Hence the cross is revealed. And it is revealed That name 
 as a real transaction. God, in Christ, is seen atonement 
 dealing with sin. And how does he deal with it ? triinsac- 
 He is seen indicting its full penal and retributive eanu." 
 sentence ;—punishing, in tlie strictest sense, the 
 individual who, then and there, takes the sin as 
 his own. But that individual, thus bearing the 
 punishment of sin, is no other than his well-be¬ 
 loved Son. . What room is there here for the sus¬ 
 picion of anything like either malign vindictive¬ 
 ness on the one hand, or, on the other hand, the 
 mere obstinacy of perseverance in a course to 
 which one is committed ? It cannot be merely on 
 account of what he has said, in the sentence pro¬ 
 nounced,—it must be on account of what he is in 
 his own nature, irrespective of any word that has 
 gone forth out of his mouth,—that even when his 
 own Son appears before liim as the party to be 
 punished, there is no relenting or mitigation, but 
 the judgment is earned out to the uttermost. 
 
 Then, again, as he is revealed in the cross, how is How God 
 God seen to deal with the sins of those whom he ' 
 reconciles to himself ? Not in the way of pardon- 
 ing their sins, in the sense of remitting their legal 
 punishment, but rather in the Avay of making pro¬ 
 vision for the punishment being endured by hi.s 
 own Son in their stead ; so that they are now 
 
324 
 
 TEE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 U. s, 
 
 God's na¬ 
 ture as 
 detennin- 
 ing his 
 mode of 
 dealing 
 with sin ; 
 and with i 
 rigliteous-j 
 ness. 
 
 legally free. Thus, in dispensing to all his people 
 his grace and favour in Christ, as well as in in¬ 
 flicting judgment on his own Son as their surety, 
 God appears as justifying the ungodly who believe 
 in Jesus, not merely on the ground of what he 
 has said, but on the ground also of his very nature ; 
 insomuch that, before he can withhold these bless¬ 
 ings from those, the punishment of whose sins has 
 been borne by his own Son—on whose behalf also 
 that Son has brouo'ht in an everlasting righteous- 
 ness—not only must God fail to fulfil what he has 
 spoken, but he must cease to be the God he now 
 is—the I AM, the same yesterda}", to-day, and for 
 ever. Hence the peculiar force of such an assur¬ 
 ance as this : “ I am the Lord Jehovah, I change 
 not; tlierefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.” 
 It is an appeal to his name, as confirming his word, 
 and making it absolute and iirevocable 
 
 On the whole, the cross, or rather the trans¬ 
 action there completed, reveals God as never 
 pardoning, in the strict and proper sense of the 
 word, but always punishing sin ; and never pun¬ 
 ishing, but ahvays rewarding righteousness ; and, 
 moreover, as dealing thus with sin and with 
 righteousness, for his great name’s sake. Let me 
 be really enlightened to see the real meaning of 
 this great event, and I have an entirely new ap¬ 
 prehension of the character of God, especially in 
 reference not only to what he tells me of the way 
 
Christ’s heath penal. 
 
 in whicli he deals with sin, bnt to what I now see 
 to be the only way in which he can possibl}^ deal 
 with sin. My eyes are opened to perceive that 
 he does not punish vindictively, or pardon capri¬ 
 ciously, as I once fondly imagined ; that he does 
 not act, as I see men of so-called firmness often 
 do, out of a mere determination to keep his word. 
 I see that, both m punishing sm and in accepting 
 righteousness, he acts according to the perfection 
 of his own blessed and glorious nature ; which 
 same nature, blessed and glorious, I dare not now 
 expect, nor would I now wish, even for my own 
 salvation, to have in any respect different from 
 what, taught by the Spirit, I now perceive it to be. 
 
 Before leaving this part of my argument, iP 
 maj^ be proper to interpose an explanation. It 
 is an explanation rendered necessary by the con¬ 
 tinual proneness of adversaries to misrepresent the 
 doctrine whicli I have been asserting of the 
 literally and strictly legal character of Christ’s 
 righteousness, and in particular the literally and 
 strictly penal character of his death. 
 
 nightly understood, this doctrine does not raise 
 the question either of the precise nature or of the 
 exact amount of the sufferings which Christ endured 
 on the cross ; but only of the character which he 
 sustained when he endured them, whatever they 
 were, and the corresponding character which is to 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VI!. 
 
 The strict¬ 
 ly legal 
 character 
 of Christ’s 
 atoning 
 work. 
 
326 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAIITI. 
 
 PART 
 
 n. 
 
 /Ils un¬ 
 known 
 sufferings. 
 
 be assigned and ascribed to them. It was in the 
 character of one “ made under the law ” (Gal. iv. 
 4), and “made sin for us” (2 Cor. v. 21), that 
 he endured these sufierings ; and therefore they 
 were, in the strictest sense, penal and retributive. 
 And as borne by one, the chvinity of whose per¬ 
 son and the merit of whose obedience imparted 
 an infinite value to his offering of himself, they 
 exhausted the full penal and retributive sentence 
 lying upon the guilty sinners whose place he took. 
 As to the exact nature of these sufferings, beyond 
 what is revealed respecting his bodily anguish and 
 mental agony, it must ever be presumptuous to 
 inquire.! It was a good form that was employed 
 in the old litanies ; “ By thine unknown suffer¬ 
 ings, good Lord, deliver us.” The sweat in the 
 garden—the cry on the cross—speak volumes. 
 Nor, as to the amount of these sufierings, need 
 we at all incline to the idea of the striking of a 
 balance, or the settling of an exact proportion or 
 account, between the number of sins to be ex¬ 
 piated, or of sinners to be redeemed, and the 
 stripes inflicted on the Surety ; as if his sufferings, 
 weighed and measured to the value of each sifdi 
 
 O O 
 
 and each drop of blood, were exactly adequate to 
 the guilt of the transgressions of his people— 
 neither more nor less ; so that, if fewer sinners, or 
 sinners with fewer sins, had been concerned, his pain 
 would have been less—while, if it had been the v/ill 
 
CHRIST THE SURETY. 
 
 327 
 
 of God to save more, he must have had additional chapter 
 pangs to hear. Any such calculation is to be 
 utterly rejiudiated, as dishonouring to God, and 
 savouring of a “ carnal mind.’' So far as we can Not wliat 
 
 lie Stlf— 
 
 judge, such is the heinousness of sin, and such the fered, so 
 inflexibility of the righteous and holy law ofT^whaT 
 God, that had there been but one individual he^guf!^ 
 sinner for whom atonement was to be m.ade, it 
 would still have been as necessaiy as now that 
 the eternal Son of God should become incarnate, 
 and assume that individual’s nature, and take his 
 place under the law, and under the curse of the 
 law; for even then, nothing short of the Surety’s 
 jierfect obedience in his stead could have justified 
 that one transgressor, and nothing short of his 
 endurance of the cross, with all its woe, could 
 liave procured remission of his sins. And so, on 
 the other hand, such is the Surety appointed by 
 the Father, and such the merit of his voluntary 
 obedience and propitiatory sufferings and death, 
 that had the number of those whom he repre¬ 
 sented been increased a hundredfold, it does not 
 appear that it would have been needful for him 
 to do more, or to endure more, than he has 
 actually done and endured for his elect. The 
 real question is. Did he obey, and did he suffer, in 
 a representative character ? Was he “ under the 
 law ?” In fulfilling all righteousness, did he meet 
 the positive demands of the law which his people 
 
THE WAERANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART bad failed to meet ? In enduring^ all his sufFerino;s 
 
 II O O 
 
 ■- and submitting to the cross, did he receive the 
 
 punishment due to his people ? Was his right¬ 
 eousness a legal righteousness, and were his suffer¬ 
 ings penal sufferings ? 
 
 The cross If so, then the cross is a discovery of the name 
 covery of and nature of God such as may well be the ground 
 name, and and warrant of a sort of fixith altogether different 
 ranTo7'^'^' from ally mere assent which I might otherwise be 
 inclined to give to any word that proceeds out 
 of the mouth of God^ The atonement for sin 
 effected on. the cross, viewed as a real transaction^ 
 —no mere coup de theatre, or august spectacle, 
 exhibited for the purpose of impressing onlookers 
 —no mere coup cV etat, or general device for get¬ 
 ting over an administrative knot or difficulty in 
 the divine government—but the literal and actual 
 / endurance by Christ, the substitute, of the legal 
 punishment due for sin to sinners,—comes home to 
 me personally with the power of a new and fresh 
 discovery of the nature of that God with whom 
 I have to do. This now I perceive to be his 
 name, proclaimed, not in words, Jbut in ac t, by 
 himself,—“ The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and 
 gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness 
 and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving 
 iniquity, transgres.sion, and sin,—and that will by 
 no means clear the guilty” (Exod. xxxiv. 6, 7). 
 
 The nature of the connection between the divine 
 
THE CROSS A GROUND OF CERTAINTY. 
 
 329 
 
 testimoD}^ which is to be credited and tlie divine chapter 
 name which is interposed as the guarantee of its —1 
 credibility—as well as the bearing of both on tliat 
 appropriating faith whose office it is to unite every 
 one who exercises it, in the very exercise of it, 
 to Christ—are topics which, in a theoretical or 
 systematic point of view, may fall to be afterwards 
 more fully considered. Meanwdiile, some impor¬ 
 tant consequences of a practical sort would seem to 
 follow from the views which have been suo’o-ested. 
 
 In the first place, when the appeal is made to An eie- 
 
 ment of 
 
 the name, or nature of God, and to the atonement necessity 
 as declaring it, there is introduced an element of dticed inta 
 certainty—nay, of necessity—which is altogether de°aungs. 
 independent of what we hear him say to us, or 
 see him do, or think him likely to do, to us. It 
 is not now with what he says to us, or with what 
 he does or may do to us, that we are chiefly con¬ 
 cerned, but with what he is in himself. What 
 he says to us ma}^ be, in some respects, incom¬ 
 plete and fragmentary. Over Avhat he does, or 
 may do, to us, darkness and doubt may hang as 
 a cloud. That it must be so, indeed, will appear 
 evident if we consider the infinitely vast extent 
 and infinitely complicated interests of the universal 
 empire which he has to wield, and the impossibility 
 of any explanation being given which can be fully 
 comprehended by our limited faculties. His word 
 must necessarily be but a partial and imperfect 
 
330 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 Tart discoveiy of his counsels ; and “ his way is often 
 — in the sea, and his path in the deep waters ; and 
 lus footsteps are not known ” (Ps. Ixxvii. 19). 
 The restless and impatient spirit may not be satis¬ 
 fied by what he tells of his plans and what he 
 unfolds of his proceedings. But he reveals his 
 name, his nature, his essential character,—and 
 that not in mere verbal utterances and the on¬ 
 goings of his ordinary providence, but in a great 
 fact—in one stupendous work—which makes 
 clear and certain, beyond the possibility of mis¬ 
 take or question, what sort of God and Father he 
 is. It is a transaction which opens to us his 
 whole mind and heart. It supersedes all specu¬ 
 lation as to what, in any conceivable circumstances 
 we choose to put, may be his actual course of 
 conduct. It brings home to us a deep conviction 
 of what, being such as he is, must be his feelings 
 toward us, and his will as regards us, in the actual 
 circumstances in which we are placed. Conjecture 
 on our part gives place to certainty—resting 
 now not on anything that might seem to us con¬ 
 tingent in the unkno'svn purpose of God, but on 
 the necessity of his very nature, his essential 
 character and name. 
 
 The neces- p This necessity, however, it is to be observed in 
 fate, but of the second place, is not by any means of a blind 
 chaiactei fatal soi’t; nor is it such as to supersede the 
 
 free exercise of grace in God and the free play of 
 
GOD ENTITLED TO ASK CREDIT. 
 
 331 
 
 gratitude in us. The cross shows us the open chapter 
 
 VII. 
 
 heart of God our Father. We see how, being —1 
 such as he is there apprehended to be, he must 
 necessarily feel and act in reference to sin and to 
 sinners. He cannot but visit guilt witli its doom 
 of death. He cannot but yearn over the guilty, 
 desiring their return to himself. He cannot but 
 pardon, justify, and save all who are in Christ— 
 redeemed in him—found in him—believing. Here 
 is absolute necessity, about whicli there is no room 
 whatever for any hesitation or surmise of doulit. 
 
 But it is not a necessity that fetters God, any 
 more than a true, and righteous, and good man is 
 fettered by its being certain that he always will, 
 and indeed being a matter of necessity that he 
 always must, feel and act in accordance with his 
 own truthful, and righteous, and benevolent nature. 
 
 We rely on such a man on account of wliat he is, 
 and what we know him to be. We have confi¬ 
 dence in what must necessarily be, in any cir¬ 
 cumstances, his mind and heart towards us—such 
 confidence as will overbear a whole host of adverse 
 simfjestions and misnivinfjs. 
 
 oO o O 
 
 And the confidence, let it in the third place be The rea- 
 
 1 • 1 1 ITT- sonable- 
 
 noted, IS altogether reasonable. It is no more ness of 
 than He whom we trust is entitled to ask and and got 
 expect. What! when one comes to me, all beam- Noting!** 
 ing with love in his eye.s,—and when, pointing to 
 the cross on which his own beloved Son hangs 
 
332 
 
 THE WARUANT OF FAITH. 
 
 TART 
 
 II. 
 
 pierced and dying, lie bids me see there what he 
 is, as a just God and a Saviour,—shall I refuse 
 to look,—and looking, to acquiesce, and trust, and 
 love,—unless he shall first satisfy me as to how, 
 in his character of Governor and Judge of all, he 
 is to determine certain points of difficulty in his 
 universal, imperial rule ;—points of difficulty, 
 moreover, which can only affect me, to any prac¬ 
 tical end, upon the supposition of my continuing 
 rebellious and unbelieving ? 
 
 An earthly friend may warrantably put to the 
 test, in some such way as this, my capacity of 
 confiding in him implicitly; he may be so situated 
 that he cannot help thus putting it to the test. 
 1 know his name, his nature, his character. By 
 some actual, unequivocal proof and instance, in a 
 manner most affectino; as well as most convincinof, 
 he has made himself known to me,—his whole 
 mind—his whole heart—what he is—and how he 
 must needs, being such as he is, feel and act in 
 any matter which is at issue between him and me, 
 whatever that may be. On the ground of this 
 knowledge which I have of his name, he invites and 
 solicits my faith. He tells me frankly that he can¬ 
 not make all plain to me. He warns me that I must 
 often hear objections urged and questions raised, 
 as to many things about him and about his wa^^s, 
 that I cannot answer or solve. He jirepares me 
 for misgivings and suspicions ready to haunt my 
 
TAKING UPON TRUST. 
 
 333 
 
 own bosom. But lie bids me alwaj^s fall back on 
 the insight I have so wonderfully got into the 
 utmost depths of his soul—into his very nature 
 and essential name—and ask myself this question, 
 —Can I refuse to take upon trust whatever may 
 •yet seem hard or strange about some of his say¬ 
 ings and doings in some lofty region of thought 
 into which I am not yet able, or not yet allowed, 
 to enter ? May I not be content meanwhile to 
 stay and steady my agitated spirit on the assur¬ 
 ance that such an one as he is, will never mock, 
 or deceive, or fail me ? 
 
 The eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus 
 Christ, makes a similar demand upon me. He 
 gives me his name to be my strong tower. His 
 people of old found it to be a strong tower, though 
 they knew it but imperfectly, through the redemp¬ 
 tion out of Egypt, and the dim anticipation of some¬ 
 thing better. I know it, through and in the cross 
 of Christ. Much that is connected with that cross 
 I^cnow not. But God’s name, his nature, what 
 he is, what is in his heart, as seen in that cross, 
 I know. And that, to me, will overbear ten 
 thousand scruples and fears of ignorance. For 
 his name’s sake I will trust him. For his name’s 
 sake he will save me. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 VII. 
 
334 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The divine 
 
 testimony 
 
 resting 
 
 on the 
 
 divine 
 
 name. 
 
 God's tes¬ 
 timony 
 concern- 
 ingsin and 
 vviatli. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 THE AVARRANT OP FAITH—THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OP THE 
 DIVINE TESTIMONY IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXHIBITION OP 
 THE DIVINE NAME IN THE ATONEMENT — HYPOTHESIS OP A 
 POSTPONED ATONEMENT. 
 
 Assuming, now, this acquaintance with God, and 
 this new insight into his glorious character and 
 name, which the atonement, viewed as a real 
 transaction, imparts, let ns return to his word 
 or testimony, which is more directly the ground 
 and foundation—or the guide and warrant—of 
 that laith of which we speak. 
 
 Here I might enumerate all the commands, 
 and invitations, and promises of the gospel, and 
 I might show how full and free a title these 
 afford to eveiy individual sinner of the human 
 race to lay hold of Christ, and to appropriate 
 liim as his own Saviour. But for my present 
 jmrpose, which is to illustrate the hearing of a 
 right knowledge of God’s name on the kind of 
 credit or assent which we give to his testimonj^, it 
 may be sufficient to consider that testimony as 
 threefold. 
 
 I. God testifies, in his word, to my guilt, 
 depravity, and condemnation. This testimony, 
 did it stand apart from the manifestation wliich 
 
THE CONVICTION THAT MELTS. 
 
 335 
 
 he makes to me of his character, might irritate ciiAPn':R 
 
 V T11. 
 
 and provoke me, or simply drive me to angry —! 
 and dogged despair. But now, if I am spiritually 
 enlightened to know God, how differently does it 
 affect me ! I can suspect nothing arbitrary or 
 harsh in his sentence that condemns me ; I can 
 expect nothing weak or capricious in any deal¬ 
 ing on his part that is to relieve me. I learn 
 that I am condemned ; I perceive that it must 
 be so ; I have no excuse—my mouth is stopped. 
 
 Nor has God himself any alternative. Looking 
 to the cross, I see the principle on which God 
 punishes such sin as mine—not vindictively, nor j 
 merely because he has said the word—but ne¬ 
 cessarily, from his very nature being such as it 
 is. I believe, therefore, God’s testimony concern¬ 
 ing my own condemnation, in a sense and spirit 
 in which I never before—never otherwise— 
 could apprehend it. My belief of it now is 
 connected with a relenting and softened frame 
 of mind, arising out of m}'' being enabled to see, 
 and seeing to appreciate rightly, the real character 
 of God, and the obligation I am under to love and 
 serve him, because he is what he is. Such be¬ 
 lief is very different from the sort of conviction 
 compounded of mortified pride and insolent de¬ 
 fiance, which might be forced on me by the mere 
 thunder of wrath. I see my sin now in the light 
 of that pure nature of God to which it must 
 
336 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART needs be so offensive. I see my guilt and con- 
 . damnation in the light of that perfect justice of 
 his to which even his own Son, when bearing 
 guilt and condemnation, must needs submit. I 
 see and feel my utter impotency and inborn, 
 indwelling corruption, in the light of that glory 
 of holiness before which I fall down and cry. 
 Unclean! undone ! “ Against thee, thee only, 
 
 have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight ; 
 that thou mightest be justified wlien thou speak- 
 est, and be clear when thou judgest. Behold, I 
 was sliapen in iniquity; and in sin did my 
 mother conceive me ” (Ps. li. 4, 5). 
 
 God’s tes- II. God testifies to me, in his word, of the 
 concein- Complete safety and blessedness of all who are 
 tionin once in Christ. And here, also, the importance 
 
 Christ 
 
 of an acquaintance with his character, with a 
 view to its bearing on my belief of his testimony, 
 becomes veiy apparent. He tells me how he 
 
 i treats sinners in Christ Jesus—what favours he 
 
 ) 
 
 bestows upon them—’What perfect blessedness he 
 secures to them. Well, but I might hear aU 
 this v’ith a feeling of envy, or of mere wonder— 
 or with an idle, indefinite hope, that somehow I 
 might, perhaps, one day, have a share in these 
 benefits. There might seem to me to be in all 
 this gracious treatment of his people, nothing 
 more, on the part of God, than great kindness 
 and indulgence ; or, at the best, a sort of inflexible 
 
GOD JUST IN JUSTIFYING. 337 
 
 favouritism towards his chosen ones, and a deter¬ 
 mination to stand true to what he may once 
 have said of them, or to them. But let me 
 acquaint myself with God ;—let me know his 
 name. Then, when he testifies to me of the grace 
 which he dispenses to them that are in Christ, 
 I not only admit that it ma}:' he so, or that it is 
 so, but I perceive that it must be so. I see the 
 principle on which he deals with them so gra¬ 
 ciously. I apprehend, not only the certainty, but 
 the reasonableness of their joyous security. The 
 thing approves itself to me as right. For such is 
 the inherent efficacy of the atonement, as a real 
 transaction, a real infliction of the sentence of judg¬ 
 ment on the Surety, instead of its infliction on the 
 actual offenders, that God cannot but justify those 
 who are in Christ. If he did not justify them, he 
 must falsify his name, his nature—he must cease 
 to be what he is. There is, therefore, no room or 
 place now in my soul, if I perceive all this aright, 
 either for grudging and suspicious envy as re¬ 
 gards others, or for mere vague wishes as regards 
 mvself, in the view of that state in which the 
 word of God assures me that all those who be¬ 
 lieve in Jesus necessarily are. There is wrought 
 in me the single, solitary, deep, and overwhelming 
 conviction, that in the whole of his gracious 
 procedure towards them, God is strictly right¬ 
 eous, and simply righteous—that his ways are 
 
 22 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VIII. 
 
338 the warrant of faith. 
 
 TAET just and true ;—tlie conviction, above all, that 
 ■ as there cannot possibly be salvation out of 
 Christ, so in Christ there can be no condemnation. 
 
 It may be necessary here to explain, that 
 throughout the whole of the present argument, 
 in speaking of Christ’s, work of atonement as 
 a real transaction, and as, on that account, by 
 its own inherent efficacy, rendering infallibly 
 and necessarily certain the justification of all 
 that are in him — I have been considering it 
 as a manifestation of the character of God to 
 men, and not simply 4is a ground or reason of 
 A twofold his own procedure. For there are two distinct 
 necessity. wlficli that work of Cliiist, vicwcd in its 
 
 connection with the name, or character, of God, 
 may be said to secure the salvation of those 
 whom, as their covenant head, Christ represents. 
 For his name’s sake, God, being such as he is, 
 must necessarily provide for all the seed of Christ 
 being in due time brought to him, and savingly 
 All for made one with him. Otherwise, were any of 
 cSdied them to be finally lost—the punishment of tlieir 
 to'hiin”™^ sins having been actually borne by Christ—there 
 wmuld be injustice and inconsistency with God. 
 That they should be lost is, in fact, an impos¬ 
 sibility—so long as the character of God remains 
 what it is. This is a precious truth, making it 
 certain that “ all whom the Father giveth Christ 
 shall come unto him.” But it is not to our 
 
COD WAITING TO BE GKACIOUS. 
 
 339 
 
 present purpose, tliougli it may afterwards appear 
 to have an important bearing on another part of 
 oiir subject. What I insist upon, as here in point, 
 is the consideration that, for his name’s sake, 
 God, being such as he is, cannot but justify all 
 who are in Christ. This is the open and re¬ 
 vealed side of the pillar of God’s testimony to 
 man ; and as such, it becomes the warrant of the 
 sinner’s hiith. In the cross, he sees not only 
 how God may, but—with reverence be it said— 
 how God must, his nature being such as it is, 
 receive graciously, and wuth rejoicing over them, 
 all who come unto him through Christ,—all who, 
 by faith, become one with his own beloved Son. 
 
 III. God testifjung to me, in his word, first of 
 my own guilt and ruin out of Christ, and se¬ 
 condly, of the benefits infallibly secured to all 
 who are in Christ, further testifies to me of his 
 willingness to make me a partaker of these same 
 benefits, on those very terms which I now see 
 to be so reasonable and necessary. It is at this 
 stage, especially, that my knowledge of the name, 
 or character, of God, obtained through a clear and 
 spiritually enlightened insight into the meaning 
 of the transaction completed on the cross, comes 
 in as a most material element to determine the 
 sort of credit which I give to the divine testi¬ 
 mony, and the sort of confidence which I repose 
 in it. In particular, it has the effect at once of 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 VIII. 
 
 All who 
 come to 
 Christ 
 must be 
 saved in 
 him. 
 
 God's tes¬ 
 timony 
 concern¬ 
 ing him¬ 
 self as, in 
 Christ, 
 waiting to 
 be gra¬ 
 cious. 
 
340 
 
 TEE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Presump¬ 
 tion si¬ 
 lenced. 
 
 silencing and of satisfying me. It silences my in¬ 
 quisitive presumption, in the first place. And 
 secondly, it satisfies my spiritual anxiety, in so 
 far as it is the genuine anxiety of a truly meek 
 and contrite heart. 
 
 In the fimt place, it silences presumptuous 
 questions. I am disposed, perhaps, to call in 
 question the sufficiency of the mere word of God, 
 addressed generally to sinners,—and therefore to 
 me, a sinner,—on the alleged ground or pretence 
 that, after all, I may not turn out to be one 
 of the chosen. I am tempted to demand an 
 explanation of that difficulty, or of some other 
 similar difficulty, as a preliminary to my believing 
 the Father’s testimony, and receiving his free gift 
 of eternal life in his Son (1 John. v. 11). In such 
 a mood of mind I am met at once with the 
 a-ppeal to his name. For I find that what I am 
 to believe is not an arbitrary rule or law, which 
 becomes true and certain because God has said it, 
 but a fact or principle that is, in its veiy nature, 
 unchangeably sure, and must be so as long as 
 God is what he is. It is not by a simple act of 
 his will, or a simple utterance of his voice, that 
 God constitutes the whole world, out of Chri.st, 
 guilty before him, and accepts believers in Christ, 
 and them alone, as righteous in his sight. His 
 character, or name, being what it is, God could 
 not do otherwise. The atoning death—the meri- 
 
VAIN QUESTIONING SILENCED, 
 
 341 
 
 torious obedience unto death—of his own Son, 
 in the character of a surety and substitute, being 
 once admitted as a fact, there is no more room for 
 discretion, on the part of God, in this matter. 
 With exact and literal truth, and with perfect 
 propriety, it may be said that he has no choice 
 now—no alternative. Those who are out of 
 Christ he cannot but condemn, being sucli as he 
 is, or because he is what lie is. Those Avho are 
 in Christ he cannot but justify, accept, and save. 
 It is thus simply impossible that, coming unto 
 him through Christ, I should be cast out. This, 
 and nothino; more—nothing else than this,—is 
 
 O O ^ j 
 
 precisely what I have to believe, on the assurancel 
 of the word or testimony of God. He explicitly 
 and unequivocally declares that, coming unto him 
 through Christ, I shall not be cast out. Can I 
 hesitate to believe the declaration ? Surely not 
 now, when I find that it is a declanition on the 
 part of God, not only of what shall be, but of 
 what must be. For he has so revealed his name, 
 or character, or nature, as to make me see it to 
 be absolutely certain, that if I will but come 
 unto him, through Christ, I shall be, and neces¬ 
 sarily must be, saved. I have now not only God’s 
 word for it, but God’s nature. And what more 
 would I ask ? But this is not all. For,— 
 
 In the second place, to satisfy real anxiety, 
 as well as to silence idle questioning, God ap- 
 
 CHAPTEH 
 
 VIII. 
 
 Real 
 
 anxiety 
 
 met. 
 
342 
 
 THE WAEEANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 XI. 
 
 peals to his name, in this transaction, and gives 
 it, as it were, in pledge and pawn, to the hesi¬ 
 tating and trembling soul. Have I endless mis¬ 
 givings as to whether, vile as I am, I may venture 
 to come to God, through Christ; or as to whether, 
 even coming through Christ, I may not be too 
 vile to be accepted ? God assures me, most em¬ 
 phatically, that I may freely come, and that, 
 coming, I shall surely be received most graciously. 
 Is this to me too good news to be true ? Am 
 I incredulous from the very greatness of the glad 
 surprise, like the disciples of whom it is said, 
 that they “believed not for joy?” (Luke xxiv. 
 41.) Such is the condescension of God, that 
 when I would even question his word, he is ready 
 to give me the assurance of his name. Am I 
 apprehensive that I may miss my aim, and be 
 disappointed in my timid and trembling expecta¬ 
 tion of finding rest, and peace, and all saving 
 blessings in Christ ? It cannot be. For his 
 word’s sake he will not suffer it; for his name’s 
 sake he cannot. He cannot deny himself. It 
 would be not merely a breach of the promise that 
 has gone out of his mouth, but an outrage on his 
 very nature, were he to suffer any poor sinner to 
 perish M'hen he would fain cling to Christ,—or 
 any anxious soul to seek his face in vain. 
 
 The passages of Scripture are innumerable in 
 which this use is made of the name of God. It 
 
REAL ANXIETY MET. 
 
 313 
 
 is thus used by God himself when he pledges it, chapter 
 and swears by it, as the confirmation of his pro- l-Li 
 niises to his believing people. It is thus used oorf ' 
 also by poor and perishing sinners, helpless'and 
 hopeless, when they plead it, and appeal to it, in of 
 their cries to him. This name, or nature, of God, 
 furnishes a good reason why God should extend 
 mercy to me, the chief of sinners, and I should 
 reckon on that mercy as both sm’e and gracious— 
 infallibly certain, and altogether gratuitous and 
 free. So the Apostle Paul reasons, with reference 
 to his own case: “ Howbeit, for this cause I 
 
 obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ 
 might show forth all long-suffering, for a pattern 
 to them which should hereafter believe on him to 
 life everlasting'" (1 Tim. i. 16). Evidently Paul 
 connects his obtaining mercy, when he believed, 
 with tlie name of God. He represents his thus 
 “ obtaining mercy” as identical with God’s “ show¬ 
 ing forth all long-suftering ; ” and he explains the 
 treatment he received upon the principle, that God’s 
 name or character for “ all long-suffering”—or 
 for waiting to bo gracious—is to be the great en- 
 couras:ement to all sinners such as he was, to taste 
 and see that the Lord is good. His name—his 
 holy and blessed name—is also alleged by God 
 himself as his motive for imparting sanctification 
 as well as justification—a new heart as well as 
 newness of life—and so completing the salvation 
 
344 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 of all that come unto him ; “ Thus saith the Lord 
 God ; I do not this for your sakes, 0 house of Israel, 
 but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have pro¬ 
 faned among the heathen, whither ye went. 
 
 For I will take you from among the heathen, and 
 gather you out of all countries, and will bring 
 you into your own land. Then will I 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 ]iut within jmu: and I 
 will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, 
 and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will 
 put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk 
 in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, 
 and do them” (Ezek. xxxvi. 21-38). And finally, 
 this great name of Jehovah is the security or guar¬ 
 antee implied in God’s swearing by himself, that 
 his blessing, once bestowed, is irrevocable; as when 
 he. gives to those who might be discouraged by 
 the fear of falling awa}^, the pledge of “ two im¬ 
 mutable things—wherein it is impossible for him 
 to lie”—that is, his immutable word and his im¬ 
 mutable miture—to prove the impossibility of his 
 casting off his people, and to ” show unto the heirs 
 of promise the immutability of his counsel, that 
 they might have strong consolation who have fled 
 for refuge to the hope set before them” (Heb. vi. 
 9-20). In all these instances, men are asked and 
 
THE DIVINE OATH. 
 
 345 
 
 VIII. 
 
 expected to believe, not merely on the ground of chapter 
 what God says, but on the ground, also, of what 
 God is; and God is seen to challenge their credit 
 and confidence, not by the authority of his word 
 exclusively, but in respect of the necessity arising 
 out of the very immutability of his nature, and 
 the absolute perfection of his glorious character 
 and name. 
 
 The view now given of the warrant of saving 
 faith may be rendered still more clear, when we 
 go on to consider the remaining particular em¬ 
 braced in this inquiry, namely, the source and 
 origin of that faith. But, even as I have now 
 endeavoured to present it, I cannot but think 
 that it has an important practical bearing on 
 the general question of the extent and efficacy of 
 Christ’s work of atonement. For it is of con.se- 
 quence to observe, that, according to this view, 
 much less than is usually imagined depends on 
 the explicitne.ss and preciseness of any verbal state¬ 
 ment regarding the comprehensiveness of the atone¬ 
 ment,—such as might be applicable to a sinner, 
 even before he believes ; and much more depends 
 on the exhibition of the divine character whicli it 
 gives. Now that, surely, is what a sinner, even 
 before he appropriates the Saviour and his salva¬ 
 tion, may apprehend. He may apprehend it, in 
 fact, as his chief encouragement to appropriate tlie 
 
 Bearinfj 
 of these, 
 views on 
 file ques¬ 
 tion of the 
 extent and 
 efHcacy of 
 the atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
S46 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 TART 
 
 II. 
 
 The cross 
 reveals 
 God to all. 
 
 Saviour and liis salvation. It is not so much 
 what God says, as what Gtjd is, that really gives 
 me boldness to confide in him. At least, what 
 he says, were it ever so articulate, would go but 
 a little Avay to assure my heart, were it not for 
 my apprehension of what he is. Were the war¬ 
 rant of my fiiith the simple ipse dixit of God, or 
 his bare word, I might have some reason for 
 requiring very express information as to my actual 
 and ultimate interest in the Saviour and the sal¬ 
 vation of which he speaks to me, before believing, 
 before taking the Saviour and the salvation to be 
 mine. But the ground on which I am to believe, 
 being not so much that he says so and so, as that 
 He who says so and so is of such and such a char¬ 
 acter, and cannot but act in such and such a way 
 ■—I am less concerned about knowing beforehand 
 what I am to be to him, and more occupied with 
 the thought of what, if I make the trial, I shall 
 assuredly find him to be to me. 
 
 And here let me sum up, in a few brief state¬ 
 ments, the information which, as it seems to me, 
 the cross gives concerning God ; the information 
 which, when it is rightly and spiritually appre¬ 
 hended, becomes the ground and foundation of ap¬ 
 propriating faith :— 
 
 ■ ]. The objective revelation or discovery which 
 the cross gives of God, and of the name, or nature, 
 or character of God, is evidently general and uni- 
 
THE CHOSS EEVEALING GOD. 
 
 347 
 
 versal. It is a manifestation of the divine per- chapter 
 
 VIII. 
 
 fections, and the divine manner of dealing with - 
 
 sill and with sinful men, to all alike and indiscrimi¬ 
 nately. Hence it is a warrant of faith to all. 
 
 2. That it may serve this purpose, however, of The atone- 
 a universal manifestation of God's real character revelation 
 and actual mode of procedure, the transaction name only 
 accomplished on tlie cross must be a real trans- rea? traL- 
 action. It must be the real infliction of judicial 
 
 and retributive punishment on Him who suffers 
 there. Otherwise it is no manifestation of the 
 principle on which God, being what he is, must 
 necessarily deal with sin and with sinners. That 
 principle must be actually carried out in the death 
 of Christ. His death itself, as a great fact, is to 
 jn-ove that, being such as he is, God can acquit or 
 justify the guilty only when their punishment is 
 vicariously borne by an infinitely worthy Substi¬ 
 tute in their stead; while, on the other hand, he 
 cannot but acquit and justify them, when they 
 are thus represented and redeemed. Evidently 
 this implies a limitation of the efficacy of Christ’s 
 death to those ultimately saved. And it is im¬ 
 portant to observe, that this very limitation of it 
 to those in reference to whom alone it can be a 
 real transaction, is essential to its being a mani¬ 
 festation of God’s real character, universally and 
 alike, to all. 
 
 3. For this real and actual, and therefore par- 
 
PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Tlie atone¬ 
 ment, as a 
 revelation 
 of God’s 
 name, a 
 universal 
 warrant of 
 faith. 
 
 348 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 ticular and personal, work of sub.stitution, becomes 
 a sufficient warrant of faith to all, through the 
 discovery which it makes of what God is, and 
 must necessarily be, as an avenging Judge, to all 
 who are out of Christ ; a-nd of what he is, and 
 must necessarily be, as a gracious Father and justi¬ 
 fying Lord, to all wdio are in Christ. It reveals the 
 impossibility, from the very nature of God,—from 
 his being what he is,— of pardon out of Christ, 
 and of condemnation in Christ. Not by any arbi¬ 
 trary arrangement, or mere sovereign act of will, 
 do I find God acquitting some for Christ's sake, 
 and rejecting others. By the very necessity of 
 his nature, I perceive him (with reverence, I re¬ 
 peat, be it said) shut up to the acceptance of all 
 who are in Christ—because their punishment has 
 been actually endured, and all righteousness on their 
 behalf has been fulfilled, by him ; shut up, I say, to 
 the acceptance of them, and of them alone. It is 
 this perception of the inevitable sentence under 
 which every sinner out of Christ lies, and of the 
 absolute certainty and necessity of its removal 
 from all who are in Clirist, which shuts me up to 
 the belief of the testimony of God, when he assures 
 me that, lost sinner as I am, I have but to come 
 unto him, through Christ, and that so coming, I 
 cannot fail to be saved. 
 
 4. Nor can it reasonably be any practical hin- 
 derance, that Christ’s death is a real atonement 
 
HYPOTHESIS OF A POSTPONED ATONEMENT. 349 
 
 only for those who come to him, and not for all chapter 
 mankind. A hypothetical case may make this - 
 
 llypothe- 
 
 ClGfir. sis of a 
 
 Let us suppose ourselves to have lived before atone-"'^^ 
 Jesus suffered on the cross. Or, which is the 
 same thing in the argument, let us suppose his 
 blessed work to have been postponed till the end 
 of time. Let us regard him as, from the begin¬ 
 ning, waiting to receive accessions of individuals, 
 from age to age, made willing, by the Spirit, to 
 take him as their surety, covenant-head, and repre¬ 
 sentative. Let us conceive of him as thus waitinri- to 
 
 O 
 
 have the number of his seed actually made up, and 
 all who are to receive salvation at his hands effectu¬ 
 ally called and united to him. The fulness of that 
 time comes at last. The last soul is gathered in. The 
 entire multitude of the elect race who are to stand 
 to him, as the second Adam, in the same relation 
 in which the fallen family of mankind stands to the 
 first Adam, is ascertained;—not only in the eter¬ 
 nal counsels of the Godhead, and the covenant 
 in heaven between the Father and the Son, but 
 in the actual result accomplished by the Holy 
 Spirit on the earth. Then at last, the Son, on 
 their behalf and in their stead, performs the woik, 
 in which, by anticipation, they have all been 
 enabled to believe, and satisfies divine justice, and 
 makes reconciliation for them all. 
 
 Where, in such circumstances, would bo the 
 
350 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 TAUT necessity of a general or unlimited reference in his 
 —atonement ? No one called to believe, with the 
 knowledge that Christ was to be the suret}’' of 
 believers alone, and that as the surety of believers 
 alone he was to be ultimately nailed to the cross, 
 could have any embarrassment on that account. 
 There might still be difficulties in his way, arising 
 out of the decree of election, or out of the doctrine 
 of the special grace of the Holy Ghost. But at 
 all events, the limitation of the work which Christ 
 had yet to do, to those who, before he did it, 
 should be found to be all that would ever consent 
 to take him as their Saviour, could not, in such a 
 case, occasion any hesitation. 
 
 Is the case really altered, in this respect, when 
 we contemplate the cross as erected in the middle, 
 rather than at the end, of time ? On the supposi¬ 
 tion which I have ventured to make, there would 
 be the same absolute certainty, as to the parties 
 ill whose stead Christ should ultimately make 
 atonement, that there is now, as to those for whom 
 he has made it. And yet it would be enough for 
 every sinner to be assured, that he might freely 
 believe on him for the remission of sins; and that, 
 so believing, he would undoubtedly find himself 
 among the number of those for whom, in due time, 
 atonement would be made, and whom, for his own 
 name’s sake, God must needs justify, on that all- 
 sufficient ground. Is it really any assurance less 
 
A POSTrONED ATONEMENT LIMITED. 
 
 351 
 
 tlian this that we can give to the sinner now ? 
 Surely there is a strange fallacy here. The es¬ 
 sential nature of this great transaction of the 
 atonement does not depend on the time of its 
 accomplishment. It would be a real propitiation 
 for the sins of all who should ever take him as 
 their surety, were it yet to be accomplished. It 
 is all that, and nothing more, now that it is ac¬ 
 complished, eighteen hundred years ago. Nor is 
 it practically more difficult to reconcile a limited 
 a ton ement with a universal offer, in the one view 
 than in the other. It is enough, in either view, 
 to proclaim, that whosoever believeth in Jesus 
 wall assuredly find an efficacy in his blood to 
 cleanse from all sin—an infinite merit in liis 
 righteousness, and an infinite fulness in his grace. 
 
 cnAPTF.a 
 
 VIIT. 
 
352 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 It. 
 
 The hypo¬ 
 thesis of a 
 postponed 
 atonement 
 fitted to 
 settle the 
 question. 
 
 Not in it¬ 
 self pre¬ 
 sumptuous 
 or irre¬ 
 verent. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 THE HYPOTHESIS OF A POSTPONED ATONEMENT FURTHER CON¬ 
 SIDERED. 
 
 The supposition whicli I have ventured to make as 
 to a postponed atonement, is one which I am in¬ 
 clined to follow out a little into its consequences. 
 It is a supposition ■which, unless I am mistaken, 
 may he found to carry in its bosom, or in its train, 
 not a few of the elementary truths needed for a 
 settlement of this whole dispute. 
 
 Let it be assumed, then, that instead of being 
 accomplished during the fifth millennium of man’s 
 existence in the world, the incarnation, obedience, 
 death, and resurrection of Christ, stood postjioned 
 till the end of all; and that now, with a fuller 
 revelation, perhaps, than the Old Testament saints 
 had, of the precise nature of the ordained and ap¬ 
 pointed salvation, we were, like them, in the posi¬ 
 tion of expectation, looking forward to the work 
 of atonement, as still to come. This cannot be re¬ 
 garded as a presumptuous or irreverent supposition. 
 For certain purposes, and in a certain view, the 
 death of Christ is ante-dated in Scripture, and he 
 is spoken of as “ the Lamb slain from the founda¬ 
 tion of the world ” (Rev. xiii. 8). It is no bold 
 
THE ATONEMENT PROPERLY WITHOUT DATE. 353 
 
 fiction, or mere figure of speech, that thus assigns cHArrr 
 an era to this event, so remote from that of history, 2^ 
 The truth is, the event itself, like the Godhead 
 concerned in it—the everlasting Father ordaining 
 and accepting it, the only begotten Son undertak¬ 
 ing and accomplishing it, and the eternal Spirit 
 sealing and applying it—is “ the same yesterday, 
 to-day, and for ever.” It has properly, there¬ 
 fore, no date. And if, on this principle, it may 
 be held to have taken place “from before the 
 foundation of the world,” it is not doing any 
 violence to its reality, or taking any undue 
 liberty with its sacredness, to concek^e of it as 
 delayed till the world’s close. In fact, we may 
 probably thus test, to speak with reverence, in the 
 best possible manner, the precise import of the 
 cross; by planting it, in imagination, at different 
 epochs in the lapse of ages, and observing what 
 one aspect it invariably presents—what one voice 
 or utterance it uniformly gives forth. 
 
 We are to conceive, therefore, of the atonement 
 as still future; and we are to inquire how far, 
 and in what way, this conception of it may seem 
 at all to throw light on some of the various ques¬ 
 tions which have been raised regarding it,—espe¬ 
 cially on those which relate to the ofi'er of salvation, 
 on the part of God, and the acceptance of it, on the 
 part of the sinner, in the exercise of that appropriat¬ 
 ing faith by which the Spirit unites him to Christ. 
 
354 
 
 tup: avaekant of faith. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 The call of 
 the Kospel, 
 upon thU 
 hypothe¬ 
 sis. 
 
 The free¬ 
 ness of the 
 call. 
 
 Apparent 
 
 contin¬ 
 
 gency. 
 
 No uni¬ 
 versal 
 atonement 
 after all. 
 
 Let me speak here, in the first instance, for God, 
 and in vindication of his truth and faithfulness. 
 Let the gospel ofter or call be vieAved in connection 
 Avith an atonement yet to be made. Let it be con¬ 
 sidered as preceding, instead of folloAving, the actual 
 accomplishment of redemption. And let us see if, 
 either in its freeness or in its fulness, it is at all 
 affected by the transposition. 
 
 The freeness of the offer, as an offer made in 
 good faith, unreservedly and unconditionally, to all, 
 might seem at first sight to be, in this Avay, more 
 clearly, intelligibly, and satisfactorily brought out 
 than on the present footing. An air or aspect of 
 greater contingency is imparted to the Avhole trans¬ 
 action. Room is left, as it were, and opportunity 
 is reserved, to use a Scottish legal phrase, to “ add 
 and eke.” The promised and still future atone¬ 
 ment, beheld afar off, bulks in the sinner’s eye as 
 a provision or scheme of grace capable of expan¬ 
 sion and of adjustment; so that if a larger number 
 should ultimately be found willing to be embraced 
 in it than Avas from the first anticipated, it may 
 yet, AAdien the time comes, be made so much Avider 
 as to take them in. In short, it appears pos¬ 
 sessed of an elastic capacity of enlargement, in.stead 
 of being fixed, stereotyped, and confined. 
 
 But, even on this theory,—on a theory thus 
 open to contingencies,—it Avould be no general or 
 universal atonement after all. It Avould not be 
 
ATONEMENT NOT UNIVERSAL. 
 
 355 
 
 any general or universal reference in the atone¬ 
 ment, that the sinner would he encouraged heliev- 
 ingly to anticipate, or that he would feel, in the 
 believing anticijiation of it, to be suitable to his 
 case. On the contrary, to preserve the integTity 
 and good faith of the offer, in respect of its fulness 
 as well as its freeness,—to give it, in fact, any 
 worth or value,—it must even then be an offer 
 connected with a limited atonement. For what, 
 in the case supposed, must be the actual benefit 
 freely presented to all ? What must be the assur¬ 
 ance given ? How must the tenor of the gospel 
 message run ? Surely it must be somewhat to this 
 effect: that whosoever, understanding and approv¬ 
 ing of the divine plan, yet to be accomplished, 
 gave his consent and avowed his willingness to 
 acquiesce in it, might rely on finding himself com¬ 
 prehended at last in a work of propitiation and 
 substitution adequate to the expiation of all his 
 sins, and the complete fulfilment of all righteous¬ 
 ness on his behalf; and that on the fiiith of such 
 an atonement, yet in prospect, he might, by anti¬ 
 cipation, be presently accepted in the Beloved, and 
 have peace in believing, and joy in the Holy 
 Ghost. Still, most manifestly, the offer made to 
 him must be the offer of an interest in a limited 
 atonement. Explaining to such a one, in such 
 circumstances, the principle of this method of sal¬ 
 vation, its bearing on the honour of the divine 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IX. 
 
 Gospel 
 preached 
 on the hy¬ 
 pothesis of 
 a post¬ 
 poned 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
366 
 
 THE WARRANT OP FAITK. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The atone¬ 
 ment in 
 prospect 
 necessari¬ 
 ly restrict¬ 
 ed. 
 
 cliaractcr, anti its adaptation to the necessities of 
 the sinner’s condition, you would set before him 
 the Saviour hereafter to be revealed. You would 
 enlarge on the dignity and wondrous mystery of 
 his person, on the dej)th of his humiliation, on the 
 merit of his voluntary obedience, on the infinite 
 value of his penal sufferings and death—all as yet 
 future. And what would you say next ? Or how 
 would you seek to apply all this to the hearer or 
 the inquirer himself? Would you tell him of any 
 general references and aspects in this vast media¬ 
 torial undertaking? Would you speak of any 
 universal, or vague, or indefinite relation which, in 
 all this work, the Saviour was appointed to sustain, 
 or might be held to sustain, to mankind at large? 
 Nay, would you not be prompt and eager to dis¬ 
 avow all such generalities, and to fix and fasten on 
 the very limitation of the work, as the precise 
 feature in it to which it was most important that 
 he should give heed ? It is to be all, you would 
 say, a work of suretiship, in the strictest sense, 
 and of suretyship exclusively. He who is to finish 
 it is, in the undertaking and accomplishing of it, 
 to sustain no saving relation whatever to any but 
 his own people. He is so literally to identify him¬ 
 self with them, and to identify them with himself, 
 that all their sin is to be his, and all his righteous¬ 
 ness is to be theirs. It is in no other character than 
 that of their representative, and with no reference 
 
SOURCE OF FALLACY. 
 
 357 
 
 to any but them, that he is to pour out his soul 
 as an offering for sin. If you held the doctrine of 
 the atonement at all,—in any sense implying real 
 personal substitution and a really vicarious work 
 of propitiation,—you could not fail, in the circum¬ 
 stances which I have supposed, to announce it to 
 sinners of mankind in some such terms as I liave 
 indicated. You would do so, moreover, without 
 embarrassment. You would feel no difficulty in 
 preaching such a gospel, then. And in preaching 
 such a gospel, you would hold it to be the freest 
 and fullest of all possibk offers or proclamations 
 that you were commissioned to make,—when, 
 pointing to this atonement, which you confessed, 
 or rather boasted, would be a restricted atone¬ 
 ment,—from its very nature a restricted, because 
 a real and effectual atonement,—you summoned 
 all men everywhere to believe and live, to come 
 to the Saviour and be saved. 
 
 Now, how is this to be accounted for? How is 
 it that, on the supposition of the atonement being 
 yet future, it would seem so much easier to recon¬ 
 cile the universality of the gospel offer with the 
 restriction or limitation of Christ’s work, than on 
 the other supposition, which has now been realized, 
 and become matter of historical fact,—‘that of its 
 being a ti-ansaction already past ? I cannot but 
 think that this is a question very well deseiwing of 
 being seriously ])ondered. I have a deep persua- 
 
 CnAPTKR 
 
 IX. 
 
 The re¬ 
 striction of 
 it not felt 
 to embar¬ 
 rass tlie 
 freeness of 
 the gospel 
 call. 
 
 Source of 
 
 dangerous 
 
 fallacy. 
 
358 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART sion that, if seriously and devoutly pondered, it 
 “l- might arrest not a few earnest and inquisitive 
 minds, who, having got entangled in the difficulties 
 in which this subject is confessedly involved, as in 
 one direction it touches the throne of God—whose 
 throne clouds and darkness must ever surround 
 —are seeking relief and a door of escape, in an¬ 
 other direction, by taking liberties with it at the 
 point at which it touches the hearts and con¬ 
 sciences of men. This inquiry which I have now 
 suggested might show them whither they are tend¬ 
 ing, and what is but too likely to be the issue of 
 that state of mind which they are cherishing. 
 
 For, what makes the difference between tlie two 
 cases, as I have put them—the hypothetical and 
 the actual ? Or, is there any real difference ? 
 
 introchic- None whatever, unless you introduce the element 
 
 tion of the _ * 
 
 clement of of Contingency. I have already observed that 
 
 contin- 1 • 1 
 
 gency. there IS the appearance of this contingency in the 
 view of a postponed, more than in the view of a 
 past, atonement. The former—a postponed atone¬ 
 
 ment—seems to leave more scope and room than 
 the latter—a past atonement—for the discretion¬ 
 ary exercise of divine grace, and the free jilay of 
 the human will. But unless there be the reality, 
 as well as the appearance, of this greater contin¬ 
 gency, under the economy of a postjioned, as con¬ 
 trasted with that of a past atonement, the ease or 
 relief which one feels in pa.ssing, in imagination. 
 
“ IIKRETICAL TEAVITY.” 
 
 359 
 
 from tlie one to the other, is wliolly delusive. 
 Nay more, it is such as to indicate a very dan¬ 
 gerous turn of thought,—a turn of thouglit which 
 onr opponents as well as we, in the controversy 
 as I. have been all along conducting it, will admit 
 to be dangerous. They, as well as we, hold fast 
 the great truths of the divine sovereignty, the 
 election of grace, the fixed purpose of God in the 
 plan of salvation, and the efficacious work of the 
 Spiiit in conversion and regeneration. It is for 
 them, therefore, as much as for us, to consider if 
 the sort of enlargement which one is apt at first 
 to feel when a future is substituted for a past 
 atonement, does not really indicate a disposition 
 or incipient tendency towards what I may venture 
 to call ‘djeretical pravity,” or latent unsoundness, 
 on the essential doctrines of the common faith. 
 
 For let me here question and interrogate my¬ 
 self. Am I conscious that I find it a simpler 
 thing, and less revolting to my natural under¬ 
 standing, to conceive of Christ’s work as under¬ 
 taken and accomplished for his people alone, when 
 I try to view it prospectively, than when I look 
 upon it in the way of retrospect ? Wliat makes 
 it so ? It must be some lurking idea, that, under 
 the former system, matters are not quite so fixed 
 as under the latter. Ah ! then, it is really elect¬ 
 ing love, and sovereign, efficacious grace that I 
 must get rid of For, if the eternal decree of elec- 
 
 CUAPTER 
 
 IX. 
 
 Tendency 
 tovvai'ds 
 “ heretical 
 pravity.” 
 
360 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 rrncrcss 
 of error. 
 
 tioii, and the utter impotency of man without a 
 sovereign operation of grace within him, be held 
 equally under both systems, there is really no more 
 uncertainty, or capability of enlargement, under the 
 one than under the other. It is high time for me, 
 on seeing the treacherous nature of the ground on 
 which my foot is set, to call a halt, and stop short 
 —lest I find myself carried on, as so many have 
 been, along this fatally inclined plane, from less to 
 more, to a denial of special grace altogether. 
 
 For it is thus that men, leaning to unsound 
 views, improve one upon another. Following out, 
 more and more fearlesslv, the legitimate conse- 
 quences of incipient error, they come boldly to 
 proclaim an extent of aberration from the truth, 
 from which they, or their masters, would once 
 have recoiled. Hence, what germinates as an 
 isolated and imcongenial anomaly, on the surface of 
 some otherwise \vell-cultivated mind—springing 
 out of some peculiar influence that does not, per¬ 
 haps, materially affect the general crop of good 
 giTiin and abundant spiritual fruit—gTOws, in 
 course of time,—most probably in other and less 
 cultured minds into wdiich it is transplanted and 
 transferred,—and spreads and swells out, till all 
 the fair foliage is choked, and the sound seed is 
 well-nigh expelled altogether from the soil. So it 
 may be in the case before us. A man of a specu¬ 
 lative or inquisitive turn, seeking relief from the 
 
PROGKLSS OF ERROR. 3C1 
 
 perplexity of the one great insoluble problem, 
 thinks he has found it in denying or explaining 
 away the limited extent of the atonement. He 
 soon discovers,—or his disciple, bettering his ex- 
 amjde, soon discovers,—that the relief, so long as 
 he stops short there, is but delusive and apparent. 
 Then, the same impatience of m^’stery or difficulty 
 which unsettled his views at first, carries him on 
 a step further. And so on, step after step, 
 until nearly all that is peculiar and precious, either 
 in God’s love, or in Christ’s work, or in the Spirit’s 
 grace, is sacrificed to the demand which men vainly 
 make for a gospel that may enable them to save 
 themselves, instead of that which amiounces for 
 their acceptance the salvation of God. 
 
 This, perhaps, is a digression, although the ob¬ 
 servation is both im])ortant in itself, and not irre¬ 
 levant to the present discussion. Resuming, or 
 continuing my illustration of the hypothesis of a 
 postponed atonement, I would now bring it to bear 
 upon the experience of anxious inquirers, whose 
 difiiculties are not so much of a speculative as of 
 a practical nature. May not the supposition which 
 I am making be available for the removal of their 
 conscientious scruples about the doctrine of a limited 
 atonement, arising out of its apparent inconsistency 
 with the good faith of a uniyersal gospel ofier ? 
 IMay it not tend to satisfy them that this incon¬ 
 sistency is in reality only apparent; and, at all 
 
 CHAPTKR 
 
 IX. 
 
 Beai'ing 
 of tills 
 Itypothe- 
 sis on tlie 
 scruples 
 of a tender 
 con¬ 
 science. 
 
3G2 
 
 THE WAREANT OF FAITH. 
 
 events, that there is nothing in the essential cha¬ 
 racter of the transaction, thus viewed, that should 
 occasion any difficulty in tlie way of their comply¬ 
 ing with the invitation wliich they receive, to ap- 
 propi'iate to themselves all its saving efficacy ? 
 For thus I would be inclined to address them. 
 
 You perceive that, if the work of Christ were 
 yet to be accomplished, it would fail to be an¬ 
 nounced as a work restricted to those who should 
 ultimately be found to constitute tlie entire num¬ 
 ber of his believing people. That number being 
 supposed to be made up, previous to his coming in 
 the flesh, you would never dream of his death 
 being anything more than an atonement exclu¬ 
 sively for their sins, and the bringing in of a per¬ 
 fect rio’hteousness on their behalf alone. You 
 
 O 
 
 might say, indeed, that meanwhile, the flxct of that 
 death being due, if I may so speak, was one in 
 which not only those utimately saved, but the 
 wo]-ld at large, had an interest; inasmuch as it 
 procured for all that season of providential for¬ 
 bearance, together with those universal calls, and 
 influences, and opportunities of grace, which other¬ 
 wise would not have been vouchsafed to any. This 
 however, as you must at once see, on the supposi¬ 
 tion now made, would appear to be plainly a con¬ 
 sequence, not of his death on the cross, but of his 
 being destined to die. Or, in other words, it 
 would be cvidcnFy connected, not with the [U'opcr 
 
CHRIST PREACHING A POSTPONED CROSS. 
 
 363 
 
 virtue or efficacy of liis atoiieinent at all, but 
 simply witli its certainty, as an event yet to occur. 
 Even if it Avere to turn out, at last, that only a 
 single individual had been persuaded and enabled 
 to become a believer in the promised Saviour, so 
 that ho needed to lay down his life for none, saA’c 
 for that single individual alone, still the ap|)oint- 
 ment of his death, though restricted, in its refer¬ 
 ence, to one solitary soul, Avould be a sufficient 
 explanation of the forbearance granted to all, ai^d 
 the offer made to all. For still, all along, and even 
 at the very instant of his ascending the cross, all 
 might be most honestly assured, that if they 
 woidd but consent, if they were but willing, their 
 sins also would be expiated on the tree. 
 
 We might thus conceive of the Redeemer as 
 standing from generation to generation, among the 
 successive millions of the children of men, testi- 
 fj'ing to them all that he has been ordained to 
 become the substitute of all sinners, without excep¬ 
 tion, who choose to accept of him in that capacity, 
 and that he delays the execution of the work he 
 has to do till the end of all things, for the express 
 purpose of allowing full time to all to make their 
 choice, ildie announcement which he has to pro¬ 
 claim is, from the veiy nature of the case, the an¬ 
 nouncement of a limited atonement. The decease 
 which he is to accomplish, as he must in faithful¬ 
 ness warn them all, is to have no general reference 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 IX. 
 
 Christ 
 preaching 
 a post¬ 
 poned 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
364 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The (late 
 uccUlental. 
 
 whatever. He is not in any true and proper sense 
 'to obey, or suffer, or die, for any but his own 
 people. The efficacy of his propitiation, as w^ell 
 as its design, is to be strictly and exclusively theirs. 
 And still, as age after age rolls on, he may be 
 seen, down to the last moment, plying each one of 
 the mighty multitude of the guilty,—almost lin¬ 
 gering as he takes his appointed place, at last, 
 under the broken law and the impending curse: 
 Thy surety, also, would I gladly be, if thou wouldst 
 but suffer me ; thine, as well as this thy neigh¬ 
 bour’s, Avho has not been less guilty than thou ! 
 Thy sins would I willingly bear, as well as his! Yet 
 once more consider, 0 thou lost one, ere I go on 
 my heavy and bloody ‘work! Shall I go in thy 
 stead, as well as in his ? Wilt thou have me to 
 go as substitute for thee, as well as for him ? 
 Cljoose before it be too late ! 
 
 Would that be a free gospel? Would that be an 
 honest universal offer ? It is connected, you per¬ 
 ceive, with a limited atonement. Would it be of 
 any value if it were not 1 
 
 And does the accident of date so alter the essen¬ 
 tial nature of this great transaction—in which 
 the parties are that eternal Father, who seeth the 
 end from the beginning, and that well beloved Son, 
 who is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever, 
 and that blessed Spirit, who coineth forth ever¬ 
 more from the Fathei' and the Son;—does the acci- 
 
THE CROSS EVER THE SAME. 3G5 
 
 dent of date, I ask, so alter the essential nature of chapter 
 this great transaction, as to make the restriction —L 
 of it to the Lord’s own people less consistent with action 
 a universal offer when it is set forth as past, than 
 it would be, if announced as still future ? Surely, 
 if such an impression at any time prevail, one may 
 say, in all humility, with the Psalmist: “ This is 
 
 my infirmity ; but I will remember the years of 
 the right hand of the most High” (Ps. Ixxvii. 1 0). 
 
 Yes !—the earnest soul may be ready now to The offer 
 exclaim—it is my infirmity if I raise any scruple terest'ui 
 about my right and warrant to claim an interest 
 in a past atonement, that I would never feel if I 
 had to deal with an atonement yet to come. The 
 fact is the same. The gi’eat transaction is unal¬ 
 tered. The cross stands before my eyes, as Avide 
 and free, in its revelation of saving mercy, as it 
 could ever be, however fixr adjourned. I bless God 
 that it stands, not in promise or in picture, but in 
 vivid actual reality. Christ has come—he has' 
 lived—he has died—he has risen again,—an all- 
 sufficient surety and saviour for all who will have 
 him to be surety and saviour for them. I am^ 
 thankful—I may well be thankful—that all this 
 is past, and not future. Shall I, then, now turn 
 the inestimable advantages of its being past— 
 givino- me a sight I never otherwise could have 
 
 O O O 
 
 had of holiness and love divine—into a reason 
 for hesitating and hanging back when I am called 
 
3G6 
 
 THE WARRANT OF FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 to embrace the crucified One and consent to be 
 crucified with him ? What is there in tlie differ¬ 
 ence of some hundreds or thousands of years to 
 affect the assurance which I have that this Christ 
 is mine, by the Father’s free gift, if I will but have 
 liiin to be mine, and that in him I have eternal 
 life ? May I not rely on Him who is from ever- 
 lastino’ to everlasting God, without variableness or 
 shadow of turning,—so far rely upon him,—as to 
 be fully persuaded that what was finished on Cal¬ 
 vary, eighteen hundred years ago, meets my case 
 as thoroughly, and is as unreservedly available on 
 my behalf, as if eighteen hundred years had yet 
 to run before shepherds wnre to hear tlie song of 
 angels in the starlit plain of Bethlehem ? 
 
THE SOURCE AND ORIGIN OF FAITH. 
 
 3G7 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 THE SOURCE AND ORIGIN OP FAITH —THE SPIRIT GIVING LIFE— 
 THE LIFE IN CHRIST—A FRUIT OP HIS COMPLETE ATONEMENT. 
 
 In prosecuting what remains of the present in¬ 
 quiry, T shall continue to avail myself of the sup¬ 
 position which I have ventured to make—the 
 hypothesis or supposition of a postponed atone¬ 
 ment. In the light of that hypothesis, without 
 any further discussion of the three particulars 
 already disposed of,—the office or function, the 
 nature, and the warrant of that faith which is 
 required for the appropriation of the gift of God 
 —or, rather, which is that very appropriation,— 
 for these particulars are not very directly affected 
 by this test,—I shall proceed to offer a few re¬ 
 marks on the only other topic which it seems 
 important, in a practical point of view, to consider. 
 
 The question I have now to deal with has respect 
 to the source and origin of that faith by which 
 sinners become interested in the work of Christ. 
 
 And here, at the very outset, let the precise 
 point upon which our imaginary, but yet potent, 
 criterion is to be brought to bear, be clearly 
 and exactl}’ determined. 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 X. 
 
 The liypo- 
 tliesis of a 
 postponed 
 atonement 
 continued. 
 
3G8 
 
 OiUGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Tlie pre¬ 
 sent 
 
 preaching 
 of a post¬ 
 poned 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
 Christ, then, is presented to us, not as having 
 accomplished the work of redemption, hut as set 
 apart, appointed, and ordained to accomplish it. 
 He is to do so, whenever the names and the number 
 of those willing to have it undertaken and accom¬ 
 plished by him, on their behalf, shall have been 
 historically ascertained. It is to be assumed, in 
 fairness, that as the case is thus put, we have all 
 the knowledge that we at present possess of the 
 person of Christ and the nature of his work. 
 Christ himself, it may be supposed, is revealed, in 
 all the glory and grace of his united Godhead 
 and manhood—as Emmanuel, God with us, the 
 Word made flesh. Son of God and Son of man, 
 Jehovah-Jesus. And it is understood, or rather 
 proclaimed, that the work for which this divine 
 person, the man Christ Jesus, is manifested, is to 
 be a work implying the substitution of himself in 
 the room and stead of “ a peculiar people'’—con¬ 
 sisting of, or comprehending, all everywhere who, 
 at the set era, shall be found to have consented, or 
 to be consenting, to have him as their representa¬ 
 tive and head. When that era comes, he is to 
 identify himself with this willing people, then 
 known and registered, not in any book of fate, 
 nor in the book of the eternal divine decree 
 merely, but in the book of the annals of time. 
 He is to identify this willing people with, himself, 
 and “ to bear their sins, in his own body, on the 
 
APPARENT CONTINGENCY. 
 
 369 
 
 cross,” on which, as their substitute, he is at last chapter 
 to be lifted up. On their behalf exclusively he -11. 
 is to expiate guilt, and “ bring in an everlasting 
 righteousness,” and secure a full and final triumph 
 over every form of evil and every formidable 
 foe. The atonement is to be for them alone. 
 
 Such, according to the supposition or hypothesis 
 fairly put, and applied fiiirly as a test of truth in 
 this matter,—such is the state of the case, as it is 
 now, in anticipation of that closing act of the 
 divine administration, to be explained and 
 announced to all and sundry in this guilty world. 
 
 Such is the gospel to be universally preached. It 
 points ultimately to an atonement definite in its 
 efficacy, and limited in its purpose and extent. 
 
 But, in the meanwhile, an apparent contingency Apparent 
 is allowed to rest, so far as man’s judgment goes, gency. 
 on the precise number and actual names of the 
 parties who are to be the “ peculiar people,” and 
 as such, to be thus favourably dealt with. It 
 may be true, that in the foreknowledge and pre- | 
 determination of God all is fixed. But as regards 
 the actual making of the atonement, the matter 
 seems to be simplified by the work, while yet 
 unaccomplished, being thus thrown loose on man¬ 
 kind at large and indiscriminately. It looks like 
 leaving the door more open. In the view of its 
 being still future, and therefore capable of adjust¬ 
 ment, and sure of adjustment, to whatever case may 
 
 24 
 
370 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Removing 
 difficulty 
 as regards 
 the office, 
 the na¬ 
 ture, and 
 tile war¬ 
 rant of 
 faith. 
 
 Remain¬ 
 ing ques¬ 
 tion as to 
 the source 
 and origin 
 ot faith. 
 
 emerge,—scarcely any difficulty can be imagined 
 likely to arise on any of the questions regarding 
 faith which we have already had before us. For 
 if Christ is thus set forth as havino; the work of 
 obedience and atonement yet to do; then evidentl}^, 
 in the firs t place, as to the office or function of 
 faith,—unless he is to save me against my will, 
 he must have my consent or acquiescence. Secondly, 
 as to the nature of faith, there must evidently 
 also be not only a conviction of the understanding 
 or intellect,—recognising his sufficiency,—but a 
 movement, moreover, of the will or of the afiec- 
 tions; there must be the choice of the heart,—an 
 active movement on my part to avail myself of 
 his all-sufficient mediation. And thirdly, as to the 
 ground or warrant of faith, what more can be 
 needed beyond the assurance, that if I choose to 
 accept of him as my substitute, he will undertake, 
 when the proper, the appointed time comes, to 
 satisfy all claims, and meet all demands on my 
 behalf? So far all is clear. 
 
 But now, in the fourth place, comes the all-im¬ 
 portant and most vital question as to the source 
 and origin of faith. That question must neces¬ 
 sarily be raised, upon the hypothesis or supposition 
 of a postponed atonement, quite as much as upon 
 the fact of the atonement being already accom- 
 jilished. In one point of view', indeed, it might 
 seem that the question is best raised in this wniy 
 
STATE OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 371 
 
 X. 
 
 and upon this footing. We have it pure and chapter 
 simple, disembarrassed of all the perplexities and 
 complications which the vexed controversies on 
 tlie subject must always more or less occasion. 
 
 We have a guilty sinner brought face to face with 
 a Saviour, able and willing to save him to the 
 uttermost. And the question is. How shall that 
 sinner be moved to accept that Saviour ? Will 
 his doinof so be a self-originated act of his own 
 
 O O 
 
 mind and will ? Or is it altogether the result of 
 his being acted upon ? 
 
 The question turns upon the causal priority, if state of 
 
 . ’ the ques- 
 
 I may so speak, in the language of the schools, — tion. 
 or upon the priority and precedency, in respect of 
 logical order and the relation of cause and effect, 
 
 —of faitli to the new spiritual life, or of the new 
 spiritual life,—at least in its beginning,—to faith. 
 
 It is not any sequence in pomt of time that is 
 involved in the issue; the two, faith and life, 
 may be admitted to be contemporaneous ; the one 
 cannot be conceived of as existing- for a moment 
 without the other. Still, the question as to the 
 Sequence of causation is most material. In the 
 initial motion of the soul, obeying the divine call / 
 —believe and live—is the life from faith, or is 
 the faith from life ? 
 
 Let it be observed that, in the view which I 
 am now taking, the object of fliith is not a jiast, 
 but a futui-e work of salvation. It is a jiresent 
 
372 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 In the 
 view of a 
 still future 
 atone¬ 
 ment, the 
 consent of 
 the will 
 must de¬ 
 termine 
 tliefinding 
 of the 
 under¬ 
 standing. 
 
 Saviour, indeed, but one whose actual and effectual 
 redemption of his people is still in prospect, and 
 is necessarily, therefore, set before men under what 
 may seem a contingent, and in a sense, a condi¬ 
 tional aspect. It is my faith, however it may be 
 wrought in me, that must, so far as I am person¬ 
 ally concerned, turn the contingent and conditional 
 into the categorical and certain. It cannot, there¬ 
 fore, in such a case, be the understanding that 
 commands the will, in this determining and decisive 
 act of faith. It must, on the contrary, be the 
 will that furnishes a miide or index to the ultimate 
 
 o 
 
 findino; of the understanding For, so far as the con- 
 viction of the understanding is concerned, the pro¬ 
 position which I am to believe, if it is to be reduced 
 to exact form, and expressed with intellectual 
 precision, is not that my sins are expiated, but 
 that they will be expiated, in consequence of my 
 being; now embraced and included amoii" those 
 wdiom, in his yet future work of propitiatioii, 
 Christ is to represent. Evidently, however, the 
 truth of this proposition depends on my consent 
 to be thus represented by him ; and my assurance 
 of its truth must turn upon my conscidusness of 
 the consent which I give. Thus, on the theory 
 which I am now imamnincj, for the sake of illus- 
 tration, to be realized,—there is no room for any 
 intellectual conviction, implying tlic recognition 
 of an appropriating interest in tlie work of Christ, 
 
SCRIPTURAL SIMRLICITY. 
 
 373 
 
 except upon the footing of a previous act of the 
 will, consenting to his suretiship, with all it.‘3 
 consequences. But such consent, it will scarcely 
 he denied by any intelligent advocate of the 
 doctrines of grace, is the result of a divine opera¬ 
 tion, and is an exercise of the new spiritual life. 
 
 For the real question, it is to be carefully noted, 
 on this closing branch of the subject of faith, 
 respects the precise nature of that state of mind 
 in which appropriating faith originates, and out of 
 wliich it arises. Some, indeed, might think it 
 enough to have it acknowledged, in general terms, 
 that ‘‘faith is the gift of God”—tliat “no man 
 can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy 
 Ghost”—that salvation is “ through sanctification 
 of the Spirit and belief of the truth ” (Eph. ii. 8 ; 
 1 Cor. xii. 3 ; 2 Thess. ii. 1 3). 
 
 Doubtless to plain minds such plain statements 
 as these sufiice. And, but for the subtle refining 
 which has been resorted to, on this as on other 
 points, for the covering of an ambiguous position, 
 nothing more in the way of explanation would 
 ever have been necessary. 
 
 It is thus, in fact, for the most part, that the 
 defence of the truth becomes complicated, and a 
 prejudice is created against it, as if it turned upon 
 mere woi'd-catching and hair-splitting. The reason 
 is, that persons verging, perhaps unconsciously, 
 towards dangerous error, shrink from realizing, 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 X. 
 
 The con¬ 
 senting 
 will the 
 result of 
 lilt). 
 
 Simplicity 
 of Scrip¬ 
 ture state¬ 
 ments on 
 this sub¬ 
 ject. 
 
 TIow the 
 defence 
 of the 
 truth be¬ 
 comes 
 compli¬ 
 cated. 
 
374 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 A vagae 
 acknow¬ 
 ledgment 
 of depend¬ 
 ence on 
 God not 
 enough. 
 
 even to themselves, tlie full extent and actual 
 tendency of tlieir aberrations and peculiarities. 
 They cling, with a sort of desperate tenacity, to 
 the familiar formulas and expressions of a sound 
 scriptural creed ; with the sort of infatuation witli 
 which one struggling in the river’s treacherous 
 calm, above the rapids, might convulsively gTasp 
 some landmark as he is drifted past, fancyingdiim- 
 self thereupon to be stationary and safe. All the 
 while, he is only carrying the sign-post, which he 
 has embraced, along with him into the perilous 
 and eddying navigation of the torrent. Hence it 
 Viecomes necessary to follow such ingenious specula¬ 
 tors or dreamers in their windings, and to recover, 
 out of their hands, those simple statements of Holy 
 'Writ, which they contrive so ingeniously to perplex 
 and pervert. 
 
 In the present instance, a mere admission of 
 the necessity of the Spirit’s agency in order to the 
 production and exercise of saving faith, may be 
 very far from coming up to the full meaning of 
 what, to persons inexperienced in the arts of 
 controversy, the words would seem to imply. 
 
 The truth of this observation, and the con¬ 
 sequent necessity of more particular definition, 
 will appear evident if we attend for a little to 
 what I cannot but regard as a very common 
 propensity of the human mind or heart. 
 
 W"e may desire to take advantage of the comfort 
 
COMPLICATION OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 arising from the belief of some supernatural pov/er cn.vpTER 
 and wisdom being somehow available on our behalf; 
 while at the same time there may be no inclina¬ 
 tion to part with that feeling of self-determining 
 liberty, which the idea of having the matter still 
 in our own hands inspires. Hence it happens 
 that men will go a long way in professing, and 
 sincerely too, their persuasion that without God 
 they can do nothing ; and j^et, when you come to 
 pre.ss them closely, it is plain that they consider 
 themselves entitled as well as able to undertake 
 whatever they please, and to undertake it at 
 whatever time and in whatever manner they 
 please, with the complacent assurance of being 
 sufficiently helped at any crisis at which help may 
 be desirable. 
 
 Let us con,sider, in this connection, how very 
 dilferently different men may understand that 
 acknowledgment of dependence upon God, as the 
 source alike of every good gift and of every good 
 work, which they may all be ready, with a 
 measure of honesty, to make. 
 
 TIuls, that God is not far from every one of us, iiiustra- 
 
 . . , . ,, T 1 T , tions from 
 
 Since in him we live, and move, and have our natural 
 being,” is what even a heathen poet could feel 
 and own, when he said, “ For we are all his off¬ 
 spring ” (Acts xvii. 28). Every common func¬ 
 tion of the natural life may thus be said to be 
 performed by the help of God. But a devout 
 
37G 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 TAKT 
 
 II. 
 
 Theist, having an intelligent belief in a particular 
 providence, will regard this as meaning far more 
 than an Epicurean philosopher, with his notions 
 of the retirement and repose of the great Creator, 
 could admit. This last—the Epicurean sage or 
 sophist—ascribes to God the original contrivance of 
 the curiously-wrought organ, or the subtle mental 
 power, by which the function is to be performed, 
 as well as the adjustment of those general laws of 
 matter and of mind, under which all its operations 
 are carried on. In that sense, and in that sense 
 alone, he will recognise God as enabling him to 
 draw in every fresh breath of air that swells his 
 chest, and to eat every morsel that is to revive 
 his exhausted frame. So far, he may believe and 
 be grateful. But the other goes much further. 
 Believing in the direct and immediate interposi¬ 
 tion of God, upholding all things and regulating 
 all things, he believes literally that he can do no¬ 
 thing without God. Hence he is thankful to God, 
 not merely for having made liim, such as he is, 
 and placed him under natural laws, such as they 
 are, but for his concurrence in the very act by 
 which, at any given moment, he puts forth his 
 hand to touch, and opens his mouth to taste ; feel¬ 
 ing and being persuaded that without such con¬ 
 currence, present and real, he could do neither— 
 he could no nothing. 
 
 Again, in the department of [)ractical morality, 
 
MAN RELYING ON COD’s IIELR. 
 
 377 
 
 there are many who hold that without God they 
 can do nothing good, ddiey hold this in a sense, 
 too, more special than is implied in the acknow¬ 
 ledgment that, without God they can do nothing 
 at all. For here, some weakness or derangement 
 of the natural faculty is admitted ; and there is a 
 sincere persuasion, that in every instance in which 
 it is to be exercised, there must be the presence 
 and concurrence of God, not merely that it may 
 be enabled to act at all, but that it may be helped 
 to act rightly. A pious moralist may thus main¬ 
 tain that man, left to himself, cannot form, or re¬ 
 form, his own character aright ; nay, that he can¬ 
 not, without the help of God, think a good 
 thought or speak a good woi’d. So far, therefore, 
 he will be ready to trace every good disposition 
 and every good act to God, and to do so frankly 
 and gratefully. But in all this there may be 
 great vagueness and obscurity. It may be rather 
 an indefinite impression with him, than an intelli¬ 
 gent article of belief Were he questioned parti¬ 
 cularly, he might be unable to explain very clearly 
 what he meant ; although generally, his notion 
 would seem to be somewhat like this : that God 
 is, as it were, to second or back the efforts of man, 
 by some supplementary influence or aid from on 
 high ; that man, straining himself to the utter¬ 
 most in the exercise of his moral faculties of 
 reason, conscience, and will, is helped on and 
 
 CIIAPTEK 
 
 X. 
 
 And from 
 the prac¬ 
 tical mo¬ 
 rality of 
 common 
 hte. 
 
378 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART helped out by some divine communication of ad- 
 •—i- ditional light or power. Thus, when I am blind¬ 
 ing myself with intense looking into the depths of 
 a vast cave, I am relieved by a friend putting a 
 torch into my hand, or applying his glass to my 
 eye. Or when I am toiling up a steep ascent, 
 breathless and read}^ to give way, I find a strong 
 arm linked in mine, by the help of which I start 
 afresh and mount swiftly and pleasantly up the 
 hill. Or when I am suffering my resolution to be 
 overborne by the flattery or tlie taunts of false 
 friends, I am recalled to myself, and assisted in 
 recollecting and recovering myself, by the timely 
 warning and kind sympathy of a faithful brother. 
 Divine Now, is it anything more than this that some 
 produc-''^ mean, who seem to admit that faith is the gift of 
 God? They hold strongly, as they tell us, that no 
 man can believe but by the special grace and 
 operation of the Holy Spirit. But yet, at the 
 same time, they sensitively shrink from any explicit 
 recognition of faith as being one of the fruits of 
 the new birth, or the new creation, or the new 
 spiritual life. Nay, they will have it that faith 
 is itself the cause of the new spiritual life ; or the 
 antecedent state of mind out of which the new 
 life springs. They must therefore hold it to be 
 an act or exercise of which the soul is capable, 
 with divine help, in its natural condition, and by 
 means of which it reaches the higher position of 
 
FAITH THE GIFT OF GOD. 
 
 379 
 
 the completed new birth or new creation. Ac- chapter 
 cording to that wn.y of representing the matter, it —- 
 is not easy to see how the acknowledgment of 
 divine help can amount to much more than the 
 sort of general admission of dependence which I 
 have been describing. 
 
 For there is, and can be, but one other sense in FnUhtiie 
 whicli the acknowledgment oi divine help, or of a r.ew man. 
 divine interposition, in the act or exercise of any 
 faculty, can be understood. That sense is plainly 
 and unequivocally this : that the faculty itself 
 is renewed—that it becomes, in fact, in a true 
 and proper sense, a new feculty. 
 
 Now, can anything short of this exhaust the 
 meaning of the scriptural testimonies on the sub¬ 
 ject of the source and origin of faith ? “ Faith is 
 
 the gift of God ” (Eph. ii. 8).* Does that state- 
 
 * I am aware, of course, that tliis passage oilmits of a different interpretation. 
 But in spite of tlie high authority of recent critics, including Alford, I incline 
 to the old exposition. The reasoning of Dr. Hodge seems to me conclusive: 
 “ The only point in the intei^pretation of these verses of any doubt relates to the 
 second clause. What is said to be the gift of God? Is it salvation or faith? 
 The words—‘and that,’ only serve to render more prominent the matter referred 
 to. Comp. Rom. xiii. 11; 1 Cor. vi. 6 ; Phil, i 28 ; Ileb. xi. 12. They may relate 
 to ‘faith,’or to the salvation spoken of. Beza, following the fathers, prefers 
 the former reference; Calvin, with most of the modern commentators, the latter. 
 The reasons in favour of the former interpretation are,—1. It best suits the 
 design of the passage. The object of the apostle is to show the gratuitous 
 nature of salvation. This is most effectually done by saying, ‘ Ye are not only 
 saved by faith in opposition to works, but yourvery faith is not of yourselves, it 
 is the gift of God.’ 2. The other interpretation makes the passage tautological. 
 To say, ‘Ye are saved by faith, not of yourselves; your salvation is the gift of 
 God, it is not of works,’ is saying the same thing over and over without any 
 progress. Whereas to say, ‘Ye are saved through faith (and that not of your¬ 
 selves, it is the gift of God), not of works,’ is not repetition; the parenthetical 
 clause instead of being redundant does good service, and greatly increases the 
 force of the passage. 3. According to this interpretation, the antithesis be¬ 
 tween faith and works, so common in Paul's writings, is preserved: ‘Ye are 
 
380 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 ment mean nothino; more than that God concurs 
 with man, and is an auxiliary or helper to him, in 
 believing ? How does the passage run 1 “ By 
 
 grace are ye saved, through faith ; and that not of 
 yourselves.” How not of yourselves ? Because 
 God influences and assists you to believe ? No ; 
 that is not all. “ It,”—this faith,—“ is the gift 
 of God.” What can this mean, if it be not that 
 God directly bestows the faculty or capacity of be¬ 
 lieving ?—and that, too, as a new foculty—a new 
 capacity ? He does not merely co-operate with 
 man in this exercise or act of faith. He does 
 more. He gives it. 
 
 And wdiy should we take alarm at the idea of 
 man receiving new fiiculties, that he may know 
 God, and believe God ? Why should we hesitate 
 to say that it is a new understanding that appre¬ 
 hends, and a new heart that embraces, “ the things 
 of God ”—“ the things which eye hath not seen, 
 nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart 
 of man”—the things “ which God hath prepared 
 for them that love him?” (1 Cor. ii. Id, and 9). 
 
 You say that in this new creation, there are 
 no new powers imparted to man, beyond what he 
 
 s.avcd by faitli, not by works, lest any man should boast.’ The middle clause iI 
 the verse is therefore parenthetical, and refers not to the main idea, ‘ Ye are 
 saved,' but to the subordinate one, ‘ through faith,’ and is designed to show how 
 entirely salvation is of grace, since even faith, by which we apprehend the 
 offered mercy, is the gift of God. 4. The analogy of Scripture is in favour of 
 this view of the passage, in so far that elsewhere faith is represented as tlio 
 gift of God (1 Cor. i. 20-31; Kph. i. 19; Col. ii. 12, ct passim ”). 1/odije's Ci>m- 
 mentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians in loi o. 
 
THE NEW CREATION. 
 
 381 
 
 naturally possesses, and that therefore no essential 
 change is wrought in his constitution. What is 
 it that you mean by these words to affirm or 
 assert ? Is it such propositions as the following : 
 —that the renewed man continues to have the 
 same number of powers that he had before, and 
 these of the same kind as before ;—that he is 
 still a man, and not an angel;—that he has under¬ 
 standing, conscience, will, affections, such as are 
 proper to a man, and such as he had before ;—that 
 he knows, in the same manner as he did before, 
 not for the most part intuitively, but through 
 reasoning and discourse ; and believes, in the same 
 manner as he did before, upon evidence and 
 motives presented to him ; and loves, in the same 
 manner that he did before, from the sight of what 
 is excellent and the sense of what is good ? Is 
 this really what is meant when the protest is 
 anxiously made against the new creation being 
 supposed to imply any essential change of man’s 
 constitution, or the imparting to him of any new 
 ffxculties ? Then, I rejoin,—it is true, but it is 
 little to the purpose. And I reassert and reaffirm 
 my own proposition, that the renewed man’s 
 faculties,—his sensibilities, susceptibilities, cajiaci- 
 ties, and powers—are in a real and proper sense to 
 be characterized as new. He has an eye, he has 
 a heart, as he had before. But it is a new eye 
 and a now heart. It is an eye and a heart as 
 
 CHAPTEK 
 
 X. 
 
 The new 
 creation- 
 renewal 
 of the 
 whole in¬ 
 ner man. 
 
3S2 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 Faith 
 springs 
 out of the| 
 new crea¬ 
 tion. 
 
 strictly new, as if the natural organs had "been 
 taken out and replaced by others entirely different. 
 Or it is as if, being taken out and thoroughly 
 renovated, they were again restored to the frame 
 to which they belonged. They are restored, but 
 it is after being so changed from what they were 
 before, as to make a new world all around, and a 
 new world within. 
 
 Now, it is out of this new creation that faith 
 springs. It is by this work or process that fixitli 
 is wrought in the mind and heart of the sinner. 
 Faith is the act of a renewed understanding, a 
 renewed will, and a renewed heart. If it he not 
 —if it be not the fruit of that new life which the 
 soul receives in the very commencement of the 
 new birth or new creation, but in some sense, or 
 in any sense, tlie cause or instrument of that life 
 —then it is idle to say that it is the gift of God, 
 or that no man can believe but by the Holy Ghost. 
 At the very utmost, your saying this can really 
 mean nothing more than that the Spirit must be 
 concurring and aiding in the act of faith, as he 
 might be held to concur and aid in any act for 
 which man has a certain measure of ability, that 
 needs only to be supplemented and helped out. 
 Is this the sense in which it is meant that the 
 Spirit is the author of faith ? If not—and they 
 with whom I care to conduct the present argu¬ 
 ment will probably feel that this is much too low 
 
man’s inability. 
 
 383 
 
 a sense—then what intermediate sense is there chapter 
 
 X. 
 
 between that, and the doctrine that the new crea- - 
 
 tion, or regeneration, originates faith ? Or, to 
 put the question different!}^, in Avhat other way 
 can the Spirit be conceived of as having a part 
 in the production of faith, excepting in one or 
 otlier of tliese two ways—either in the way of 
 helping, or in the Avay of causing man to believe ; 
 either in the way of mere auxiliary influence, or 
 in the way of creating anew, and imparting new 
 life ? 
 
 What is man’s natural state, apart from the Man’s na- 
 Spirit’s work, in reference to his ability to be- ability, 
 lieve ? Is he partly, but not quite, able to believe? 
 
 Has he some intellectual and moral power tending 
 in that direction—not, indeed, sufficient to carry 
 him on to the desired landing-place of faith, but 
 such as, with a certain concurrent and assisting 
 operation of tlie Spirit-—falling short of a new 
 creation, however, or the imparting of new life— 
 may be stretched out so as to reach that end? Or 
 is he wholly devoid of all that even tends in the 
 line of faith ? Is he altoofether “ without streno’th ?” 
 
 (Rom. V. 6.) And must faith be in him, not 
 merely an improvement on some natural act or 
 habit of his mind, but an act and habit entirely 
 and radically new ? Is it with him an old thing 
 amended, or a new thing, to believe God? 
 
 Need I say Avhat the scriptural re);)ly must be ? 
 
384 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The Spirit 
 imparts 
 life and 
 faith. 
 
 Objections 
 to the pre¬ 
 ceding 
 view. 
 
 If the Spirit is the source and author of faith at 
 all, it must be in his character of the (|uickening, 
 the regenerating, the creating Spirit. Otherwise, 
 if it be in any other character that he produces 
 faith, or by any other process than what his sus¬ 
 taining that character involves, there is no reason 
 why all other grace and goodness may not be im¬ 
 planted in the soul, and matured tliere, by the 
 mere co-operation of God with man, in the use of 
 his natural ability, without anything that can be 
 properly called a new birth, or a new creation, for 
 the imparting of new life at all. For if a man 
 can believe before the essential work or process 
 of regeneration, or his being made spiritually alive, 
 is begun and in full progress, he may equally well, 
 in that state, acquire any other good quality, or 
 perform any other good work. 
 
 Against this view of the source and origin of 
 faith, as being, not the c ause of the new spiritual 
 life, but the effect of it, certain objections of a 
 somewhat specious character may be urged. Some 
 of these it may be proper to notice before closing 
 the discussion of the subject; all the rather be¬ 
 cause they may be made to illustrate the bearing 
 of the view’ wdiich they call in question on the 
 controversy res})ecting the efficacy and extent of 
 the atonement. 
 
 I. Do we set aside Christ in this view which 
 
IS CHRIST SET ASIDE? 
 
 386 
 
 we take of the source and origin of faith? So it 
 Ijiay, perhaps, be alleged. We may be represented 
 as maintaining that the first germ, at least, of the 
 new spiritual life is imparted by a process irre¬ 
 spective of Christ’s work and Christ’s word ; or 
 that a man may be said to have life witliout 
 having Christ; whereas the Apostle John, it may 
 be truly said, bears an emphatic testimony to the 
 very contrary effect: “ He that hath the Son hath 
 life ; and he that hath not the Son of God hath 
 not life” (1 John v. 12). 
 
 There might be something in this objection if 
 the quickened soul had far to seek—or long to 
 wait for—Christ;—if, in miy new birth, opening 
 my new eyes to look, and my new and feeble 
 arms to grasp, I had still to say, “ Who shall 
 ascend into heaven ? (that is, to bring Chiist down 
 from above) ; or. Who shall descend into the deep? 
 (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead)” 
 (Rom. X. 6, 7). But it is not so. “ The word is 
 nigh me, even in my mouth and in my heart” 
 (ver. 8) ;—so nigh, that the very first cry of my 
 new and faltering tongue is to confess Christ ; 
 for he is “ in my mouth,” and I find him there 
 (ver. 9 ; Ps. viii. 2) ;—so nigh, that the very first 
 pulse of my new and trembling bosom beats against 
 my Saviour’s breast; for he is “in my heart,” and 
 there, too, I find him. In the very agony of my 
 birth-struggle I have Christ—very near, in close 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 X. 
 
 Is Christ 
 set aside? 
 
386 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART contact, givino' himself to me. And awaking from 
 
 II / o o o 
 
 —1 that long dream that has been my death,—I awake, 
 as Lazarus awoke, with Christ’s voice ringing in my 
 ear, Christ’s blessed image filling my eye, and 
 Christ’s word in my inmost soul. What separa¬ 
 tion is there here between the possession of 
 spiritual life and the possession of Christ ? I live, 
 not before having Christ, but in having Christ. 
 My new life is through him, and with him, and 
 in him. Yet it is the Spirit that quickeneth. It 
 is as being quickened by the Spirit that I have 
 Christ near, and have life in him. 
 
 Is faith II. Do we, by such teaching as to its source and 
 agTd? origin, disparage faith, as if we called in question 
 the great doctrine of salvation through faith ? 
 Undoubtedly we do, if it be held that salvation is 
 through faith in such a sense as to imply that this 
 faith is not itself a part of the salvation ; that it 
 is not included in the salvation of which redemp¬ 
 tion by the shedding of Christ’s blood, and rege- 
 ^ neration by the operation of the Holy Ghost, are 
 the sole causes ;—the one of its purchase, and the 
 other of its application. Any such imagination, 
 however, we set altogether aside. For Avhile faith 
 is ever to be magnified, as opposed to all works 
 of man, in the salvation of the sinner, it never can 
 be the antagonist of any work of God, whether 
 of God the Son, or of God the Holy Ghost. To 
 make it that, is to degrade faith itself, bringing 
 
IS FAITH DISPARAGED 'I 
 
 387 
 
 it down from its high position, as the link of 
 union between God and man, and putting it into 
 the class of those “ righteousnesses” of ours which 
 are all as “filthy rags.” 
 
 Thus, in the matter of justification;—make faith, 
 instead of obedience, the ground of acceptance; 
 and what worthiness has it? Or what stability? 
 None whatever, more than those other works 
 which it supersedes. But put the w'ork of Christ, 
 and the Avork of Christ alone, in that position. 
 Let faith take her proper place as a handmaid, 
 meekly waiting on Clnist, and taking his work as 
 her owm. Then she becomes omnipotent—she can 
 remove mountains. 
 
 So also it is in the matter of regeneration. If 
 you insist on faith being the cause or instrument 
 of the change, or being in any way antecedent to 
 the new life Avhicli the process of the new birth 
 gives, you establish, as the measure of that great 
 change and of that glorious life, something to 
 which man’s ability is competent—^something 
 which, with divine help, he can reach—before he 
 is changed or made alive. For the effect must 
 be proportioned, not to the agency alone, but to 
 the agency and the instrumentality taken together. 
 In that view, therefore, regeneration must really 
 be according to the measure of faith—not faith 
 according to the measure of regeneration. But 
 take it the other wvay. Then, in regeneration, on 
 
388 
 
 OrJGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PAr.T 
 
 II. 
 
 the imparting of the new life, you have an agency 
 that creates anew, and an instrumentality that 
 “ liveth and abideth for ever.” You have the 
 agency of the quickening Spirit, and the instru¬ 
 mentality of the unchanging word. And so the 
 fruit, or result, is faith ; a faith of high value 
 and potency; since it is faith proportioned to the 
 value and potency both of the agency and of the 
 instrumentality to which it owes its birth. It is 
 faith which, as an effect, is proportioned to its 
 own twofold cause—the efficient and the instru¬ 
 mental. It is faith whose measure is according 
 to the living energy of the Holy Ghost, and the 
 enduring steadfastness of the divine testimony. 
 
 What a principle of power and patience have 
 we now in the faith that is thus produced,—cor¬ 
 responding, as it must do, if real, to the might of 
 its heavenly cause and the massive strength of its 
 heavenly instrumentality! It is truly a divine 
 ! principle. Tliis faith is a divine act—implying 
 the inward communication of a divine capacity, 
 concurring with the instrumentality from without 
 of a divine testimony. Thus, literally, with the 
 Psalmist, may the believer say, “For with thee 
 is the fountain of life : in thy light shall we see 
 light” (Ps. xxxvi. 9). For, through his divine 
 power, working in me a divine faith, I see Christ 
 with the eye with which the Father sees him ; I 
 hold him as the Fatlier holds him ; and love him 
 
THE TWO MODES OF DIVINE IIELF. 
 
 389 
 
 as the Father loves him. He is mine, a work chapter 
 
 X. 
 
 of the Spirit in me, precisely similar to that by —b 
 which, in his mediatorial character, he is the 
 Father’s. For I am born of the Sjiirit,—as Christ 
 was himself 
 
 III. Do we, by the view which we thus advo- Are liu- 
 cate respecting faith, cast any slight or discourage- efforts dis- 
 ment on human efforts, or give any sanction to the 
 relaxation of diligence, or the diminution of anxiety, 
 on the part of the sinner, seeking the salvation of 
 his soul ? 
 
 Here let me face at once this imputation, by 
 comparing, as to their tendency in this respect, the 
 two different ways in which the interposition of 
 God, in tlie actings of his creatures, may be repre¬ 
 sented. For the sake of distinction, I may cha-Theauxi- 
 racterize them as the auxiliary and the creative the crea- 
 methods respectively^ According to the first, God thod™of 
 
 • IT I • ‘ii 1 * j divins in¬ 
 
 is regarded as co-operating with man; according to cei-posi- 
 
 the second, he is to be regarded as requiring man to 
 
 co-operate with him. 
 
 This, as it seems to me, is an important dis¬ 
 tinction, on which, indeed, turns the practical 
 question, whether man is to have the precedency, 
 or God is to have the precedency, in the work of 
 individual salvation. 
 
 The tyjies, if I may so speak, of the two oppo- iiiustra- 
 Site theories, may be found in the instance of the the ewe 
 impotent man beside the pool of Bethesda (JolmLaJ *' 
 
390 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 ir. 
 
 God’s 
 ways not 
 as man’s 
 ways. 
 
 V. 1—9). Consider liis OAvn complaint: “ I Lave 
 no man, when the water is troubled, to put me 
 into the pool.” Contrast this complaint witli the 
 Saviour’s command to him : “ Eise, take up thy 
 bed, and walk.” The Lord might have adopted 
 the plan which the man himself virtually sug¬ 
 gested. He might have rewarded his long wait¬ 
 ing and his many previous attempts, by helping 
 him to the side of the pool. And in this way, 
 supported ancl aided by so strong an arm, the tot- 
 terinix invalid mioflit have succeeded at last in 
 curing himself, or getting himself cured, by the 
 use of the mysteriously troubled waters. But 
 God’s ways are not as our ways. Jesus proceeds 
 otherwise in his work of healino;. He will not 
 merely fall in, and be a party, as an auxiliary, in 
 the carrying out of man’s plans and efforts. He 
 will take the lead, by assuming the whole matter 
 into his own hands. He issues his order, and the 
 man, believing, is healed. On both of these plans 
 there is co-operation. On the first plan, however, 
 I would say, the Lord is expected to co-operate 
 with the man. According to the second plan, the 
 Lord requires the man to co-o]ierate with him. 
 
 Need I ask which of these two arrangements is 
 the most becoming and the most blessed? Which 
 is the most becoming as regards God? Which is 
 tlie most blessed as regards man? 
 
 O 
 
 Now, the sum and substance of the whole sys- 
 
THE HUMAN METHOD. 
 
 391 
 
 tem for wliicli we contend may be reduced to this chapter 
 one comprehensive principle, founded upon the dis- . . 
 
 tinction to which I have been adverting. Through- 
 out, in the first step, and in the wdiole subsequent systOTi.”'^ 
 progress, of the life of God in the soul of man, the 
 ])Osition or attitude which man has to take is that 
 of acquiescence. He is to fall in with what God 
 proposes. He is to be a fellow-worker with God. 
 
 His own idea constantly is, that God is somehow 
 to concur with him;—so as to help him out where 
 there is any deficiency in his attainments, and to 
 help him on where there is any failure in his 
 strength. His hope is that, upon his doing liisTUehu- 
 best, God is to make up what may be wanting, thodof 
 and have a tender consideration for what may be 
 weak. Thus, the righteousness of Christ being 
 virtually supplemental to his own sincere yet im¬ 
 perfect obedience—and the assistance of the Spirit 
 seconding his own honest thoimii infirm resolution 
 —he is to be somehow, on an adjustment or balance 
 of accounts, and with a due allowance for human 
 frailty, justified and sanctified at last. Need I 
 say that, if the doctrines of grace are really to pre¬ 
 vail practically, the whole of this motley and 
 mongrel scheme must be overturned and reversed? 
 
 It is, indeed, a scheme, as every child of God who 
 has at one time tried it—and who has not?—-will 
 testify, which everywhere and always, in propor¬ 
 tion to its influence, proves itself to be the very 
 
392 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 The di¬ 
 vine me¬ 
 thod of 
 snlvatioii. 
 
 Tlie para¬ 
 dox of the 
 Clivistian 
 life. 
 
 The true 
 freedom of 
 tlie will. 
 
 Opiate of a drowsy spirit—deadening all energ}^, 
 and lulling asleep all spiritual life. 
 
 How different from this is the plan of God! 
 
 Take a believer in the middle of his course. 
 What is he domg ? Is he not, as the apostle Paul 
 describes him, “ working out his own salvation 
 with fear and trembling, because it is God that 
 worketh in him both to will and to do of his good 
 pleasure?” (Phil. ii. 12, 13.) He is not trying to 
 make himself holy, by the help of God, as another 
 man might va guely express it. He is apprehend- 
 iim, feeling;, realizing God himself within, makinu’ 
 him holy. And under that imjiression, he is fol¬ 
 lowing out what God is doing. It is the Chris- 
 tian paradox. I am to feel myself passive in the 
 hands of God, and yet on that very account the 
 more intensely active. I am to be moved unre¬ 
 sistingly by God, like the most inert instrument 
 or machine, yet for that very reason to be all the 
 more instinct with life and motion. My whole 
 moral frame and mechanism is to be possessed and 
 occupied by God, and worked by God; and yet, 
 through that very working of God in and upon 
 my inner man, I am to be made to apprehend 
 more than ever my own inward liberty and power. 
 This is the true freedom of the will of man; and 
 then only is my will truly free, when it becomes 
 the engine for working out the will of God. 
 
 Now, does not the same order hold in the be- 
 
THE DIVINE METHOD. 
 
 393 
 
 CfiiinitiH of the divine life? Here, too, is it not chaptek 
 & & ^ ^ ^ 
 through our being passive, that we reach and - 
 
 realize the only true activity ? 
 
 It is said that, by telling men that faith is the Tiietegin- 
 act of a living soul, and that they cannot believe Clivistiaii 
 but by the energy of a new life—a life such as 
 the creating and regenerating Spirit alone can im- 
 jiart—we encourage them to shut their eyes and 
 fold their hands, and sit down in listless and in¬ 
 dolent expectancy, waiting for they know not 
 what irresistible impulse to force them into peni¬ 
 tence and faith. It is a miserably shallow theo¬ 
 logy that prompts the allegation. And, if possible, 
 it is still more meagre metaphysics. Call a man 
 to believe ; and at the same time let him imagine 
 that his believing is some step which, with a little 
 supernatural help, he may reach, as a preliminary 
 to his new life with God. Then, is he not apt to 
 feel that he may take his ease, and, to a large ex¬ 
 tent, use his discretion, as to the time and manner 
 of obeying the call ? But let him know that this The 
 faith is the effect or fruit of an exercise of divine of the gos- 
 power, such as raises the dead and gives birth to 
 a new man. Tell him that his believing is seeing 
 Christ with a new eye, which God must give; and 
 grasping Christ with a new hand, which God must 
 nerve; and cleaving to Christ with a new heart, 
 which God must put within him. And let it be 
 thundered in his ear, that for all this work of God, 
 
. .PART 
 II. 
 
 Conclu¬ 
 
 sion. 
 
 The com¬ 
 pleteness 
 of the 
 atone¬ 
 ment. 
 
 304 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 ‘^now is the accepted time, and now is the day of 
 salvation.” Then, fairly startled, and made to 
 know what faith is, as the act of a living soul,—and 
 what is its source, even the present power of the 
 quickening Spirit,—will he not he moved to ear¬ 
 nestness and energy in “ seeking the Lord while he 
 may he found, and calling upon liim while he is 
 near?” (Isa. Iv. 6.) And is it not this urgent 
 impression, alike of the heavenly nature of faith 
 and of its heavenly origin, which jirompts hoth 
 the profession and the prayer—the profession, 
 “ Lord, I believe” —the prayer, “ help thou mine 
 uiihelief?” (Mark ix. 24'.) 
 
 This great theme of the Atonement is very far 
 indeed from being exhausted. In fact, I may say 
 with truth, it is little more than one single feature 
 in that divine transaction that I have attempted 
 to exhibit; only setting it in various points of 
 view. That feature is its completeness, as secur¬ 
 ing all blessings to those who embrace it. They 
 are “ complete in him” (Col. ii. 10). For this end 
 I have endeavoured to bring out the full meaning 
 of Christ’s work, as a real and literal substitution 
 of himself in the room and stead of his people;and 
 also the full meaning of tlie Spirit’s work, as that 
 which gives them a supernatural sight of Christ, 
 and a supernatural hold of Christ. Seeing Christ 
 with the new eye which the Spirit purges; gi’asp- 
 
THE GOSPEL OFFER. 
 
 395 
 
 ing Clirist witli the new hand which tlie Spirit 
 strencrthens: believinfj all the divine testimonies 
 ooncerninf; Christ, with that clear intelligence 
 which belongs to the renewed mind, and that 
 eager consent which the renewed heart hastens to 
 give;—I am Christ’s, and Christ is mine; I be¬ 
 come a partaker of the divine nature; for as Clirist 
 is, so am I. The completeness of the atonement, 
 as regards all who embrace it, I have sought also 
 to harmonize with the universality of the gospel 
 offer, as being the free offer of a full interest in 
 that complete atonement to every individual of the 
 human race. 
 
 For thus the matter stands. 
 
 A crowd of criminals, guilty and depraved, are 
 kept in prison, waiting for the day of doom. 
 What is my office, as a preacher of righteousness, 
 among them ? Is it to convey to them from my 
 Master any universal proclamation of pardon, or 
 any intimation whatever of anything purchased or 
 procured by him for them all indiscriminately? 
 Is it to carry a bundle of reprieves, indorsed with 
 his sign-manual, which I am to scatter over the 
 heads of the miscellaneous multitude, to be scram¬ 
 bled for at random, or picked up by Avhoever may 
 care to stoop for them? Tliat, certainly, is not my 
 message; that is not my gospel. These criminals 
 are not thus to be dealt with collectively and en 
 masse; nor are they to be fed with such mere 
 
 CHAPTER 
 
 X. 
 
 The nature 
 of the gos¬ 
 pel offer. 
 
390 
 
 ORIGIN OF SAVING FAITH. 
 
 PART 
 
 II. 
 
 crunib.s of comfort from the Lord’s table. The 
 Lord himself is at hand. And my business—I am 
 to say to them—is to introduce him to you, that 
 individually, and one by one, you may deal with 
 him, and suffer him to deal with you. It is now 
 as it was in the days before the flood. “ The ark 
 is a preparing” (1 Pet. iii. 20). For, though pre¬ 
 pared from all eternity in the counsels of the God¬ 
 head, and now also prepared, in point of fact, in 
 the history of time, it is, to all intents and pur¬ 
 poses, as if it were a preparing for you. Does it 
 seem too straitened ? Is it too small ? Doubt 
 not, 0 sinner, whoever thou art, that there will be 
 room enough in it for all that choose to enter ! 
 Have no fear but that there is room enough for 
 thee I For, to sum up all, in the words of an old 
 writer, take hold of this blessed assurance, “ that 
 there is mercy enough in God, and merit enough 
 in Christ, and power enough in the Spirit, and 
 scope enough in the promises, and room enough 
 in heaven, for thee !” Yes, brother, Jesus assures 
 thee, for thee! And, blessed be God, he assures 
 me, also for me! 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 Page 308. 
 
 I. The first of the two quotations -wliicli I have to give from Dr. 
 Anderson has reference to a part of Hervey’s “ Theron and 
 Aspasio” on which Bellamy is commenting. 
 
 “ i\Ir. Ilervey observes, that ‘ this appropriating persuasion is 
 comprehended in all tlie figurative descriptions of faith which 
 occur in holy writ. Faith is styled a looking unto Jesus. But if 
 we do not look unto Jesus as the propitiation for our sins, what 
 comfort or what benefit can we derive from the sight ? When the 
 Israelites looked unto the brazen serpent, they certainly regarded 
 it as a remedy, each particular person for himself. Faith is styled 
 a resting upon Christ, or a receiving of him. But when I rest 
 upon an object, I use it as my support. When I receive a gift, I 
 take it as my own property. Faith is a casting ourselves upon 
 Christ. This may receive some elucidation from an incident re¬ 
 corded in the Acts. When those who sailed with Paul saw their 
 vessel sliattered—saw the waves prevailing—saw no hope of safety 
 from continuing in the sliip, they cast themselves upon the float¬ 
 ing planks. They cast tliemselves upon the planks without any 
 scruple, not questioning their right to make use of them; and 
 they clave to these supporters Avith a cheerful confidence, not 
 doubting that, according to the apostle’s promise, they should 
 escape safe to l.and. So w'e are to cast ourselves upon the Lord 
 Jesus Christ, Avithout indulging a doubt concerning our right to 
 make use of him, or the impossibility of his failing us. Faith is 
 characterized by eating the bread of life. And can this be done 
 Avithout a personal application ? Faith is expressed by putting 
 on Christ as a commodious and beautiful garment. And can 
 any idea or any expression more strongly denote an actual appro¬ 
 priation 1 ’ 
 
 “The unprejudiced Avill allow these observations to be much 
 to IMr. Ilervey’s purpose; that is, they clearly prove that there is, 
 in the nature of saving faith, an application of Christ to ourselves 
 in particular. 
 
398 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 “ And what does Mr. Bellamy reply ? ‘ Why,’ says he, ‘ Christ 
 is to be acknowledged, received, and honoured, according to his 
 character, as the promised Messiah. Is he compared to the brazen 
 serpent ? We are not to believe that we are healed ; but to look 
 to him for healing. Is he compared to a city of refuge ? We are 
 not to believe ourselves safe; but to fly to him for safety. Is he 
 compared to bread and water? We are not to believe that our 
 hunger and thirst are assuaged; but to eat the living bread, and 
 to drink the living water, that they may be so.’ 
 
 “ In this reply we observe, first, that Mr. Bellamy misrepre¬ 
 sents the sentiments of his opponents. For they are so far from 
 saying that faith is a belief that we are healed, or that we are 
 akeady in a safe state, or that our hunger and thirst are assuaged, 
 that they will not allow that faith, properly speaking, believes 
 anything concerning the state we are already in, excepting that 
 w'e are miserable sinners of Adam’s family to whom the gospel is 
 preached. And Avhile they tell sinners that the gospel is directed 
 to them, in such a manner as to warrant their immediate recep¬ 
 tion of Christ as therein exhibited, tbey at the same time declare 
 that the gospel, witliout that reception of Christ, wall be unprofit¬ 
 able to them. In the next place, it is to be observed, that, in Mr. 
 Bellamy’s remark, there is no notice taken of IMr. llervey’s argu¬ 
 ment ; the force of wdiich lies in two things. One is, that it is 
 only true and saving faith Avhich is meant by these metaphorical 
 expressions. The other thing is, that each of them includes the 
 notion of a person’s application of something to his own use, or 
 for the benefit of bimself in particular. If these two things hold 
 true (and IMr. Bellamy says nothing against either of them), it 
 will necessarily follow, that there is such an application of Christ 
 to ourselves in the nature of saving faith.” 
 
 In further explanation, I must give the close of this letter of 
 Dr. Anderson’s:— 
 
 “ We conclude this letter with a caution, which may be of use 
 to remove a common prejudice against our doctrine concerning the 
 nature of saving faith. \Wien w'e say that a real persuasion that 
 Christ is mine, and that I shall have eternal salvation through 
 his name, belongs to the e.ssence of faith, it is not meant that a 
 person never acts faith but when he is sensible of such a persua¬ 
 sion. There are various degi’ees of faith; and its language is 
 sometimes more, sometimes less, distinct and explicit. The con¬ 
 fidence of faith is, in many, like a grain of mustard seed, or like a 
 siiark of heavenly fire amid.st the troubled sea of all manner of 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 399 
 
 corruptions and temptations ; wliich, were not tliis faith secretly 
 supported by the power of God, according to his promise, would 
 soon extinguish it. Hence this real persuasion may be rooted in 
 many a heart, in which for a time it cannot be distinctly dis¬ 
 cerned ; yet it in some measure discovers itself by secret wrestling 
 against unbelief, slavish fear, and all other corruptions.” 
 
 II. The other passage is one in which Hr. Anderson answers a 
 query of Bellamy; and it is fitted still more clearly to show at 
 once their difi'erence and their agi'eement;—• 
 
 “ ‘ Query 1. Did God ever require any of the sons of Adam to 
 believe any proposition to be true, unless it was in fact true before 
 he believed ? We are required to believe that there is a God— 
 that Christ is the Son of God—that he died for sinners—that he 
 that believeth shall be saved—that he that believeth not shall be 
 damned—that without holiness no man shall see the Lord. We 
 are required to believe all the truths taught in the Bible. But 
 they are all true before we believe them, and whether we believe 
 them or not.’ 
 
 “ Answer. .... It is gi’anted to Mr. Bellamy, that God never 
 requires us to believe any speculative proposition, such as those 
 recited in the query ; or any absolute prediction or historical fact, 
 but what is true, whether we believe it or not. But saving faith, 
 as it is distinguished from other sorts of faith, is not merely a belief 
 of such speculative truth ; because there is no such truth but what 
 
 may be known and assented to by wicked men and devils. 
 
 Ill this sense, it has been justly said, thattrue justifying faith is 
 not sim'ply the believing of any sentence that is written or can he 
 thought upon. So the persuasion, ilMt Christ is mine, which we 
 consider as belonging to the nature of saving faith, is not, properly 
 speaking, a belief of this proposition. That Christ is mine, as if it 
 Avere formally, or in so many words contained in Scripture; but 
 it is the necessary import of that receiving or taking of Christ to 
 myself, which is answerable to, and Avarranted by, the free grant 
 of him in the gospel, directed to sinners of mankind indefinitely. 
 In this believing, hoAvever, that Christ is my own Saviour, I am 
 no more chargeable with believing a lie than I am in believing 
 that, Avhen a friend gives me a book, or any other valuable article, 
 I have a right, by virtue of his gift, to consider it, to take and use 
 it, as my own ; though it be certain, that, if I finally despise and 
 reject his gift, it neither is, nor ever will be mine. Further: if 
 the gospel be considered as a free promise of Christ and his bene¬ 
 fits, then this persuasion, that Christ is mine, is undoubtedly the 
 
4(X) 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 import of my faith or belief of that promise as directed to mo. 
 And yet, though this promise be directed to all the hearers of the 
 word, none of them, in the event, will find Christ to be theirs, 
 excepting those that believe ; because faith is the only way or mean 
 by which God hath appointed them to attain a saving interest in, 
 or the actual possession of, what he hath promised in the gospel. 
 Hence the apostle warns those to whom this promise is left of the 
 danger of coming short of it (Hcb. iv. 1). It maybe useful to add 
 the words of some ministers of the gospel on this subject. ‘ There 
 is a full warrant,’ say they, ‘ to believe, or general right of access 
 to Christ by faith, which all the hearers of the gospel have before 
 they believe, and whether ever they believe or not; and, in this 
 respect, the provision of the new covenant is their mon uiercy ; 
 wliich warrant, or right, faith believes and improves. Yet faith 
 is not a mere believing of an interest which the person had before; 
 but it is also a believing of a new interest in Christ and his blood; 
 or a persuasion, by which a person appropriates to himself what 
 lies in common upon the field of the gospel. All the privileges 
 and blessings of the new covenant are generally and indefinitely 
 set forth by the gospel, upon this very design: That each person 
 who hears it may take it all to himself, in the way of believing ; 
 as there cannot otherwise be any proper entertainment given to 
 the gospel. An indefinite declaration is made of God’s name, as 
 The Loud our God, and of Christ’s name, as The Lord our 
 Righteousness ; and all covenant blessings are presented to us 
 in absolute promises; all which is certainly for being believed. 
 But every person is to believe for himself, not for another. It is 
 a mock faith, if a person believes only that some others have a 
 saving interest in God, and Christ, and the promises ; as he hath 
 no business about making this particular application to others. So 
 that he is still a rejecter of the whole, if he do not believe with an 
 appropriation of the whole to himself; whilst the revelation of 
 grace is made to him for this purpose, or for none at all.’ 
 
 “ ‘ Such is the wondeiful power and privilege which God 
 bestows on true faith, that he makes all to be personally and 
 savingly a man’s own ; just as the man is taking all to himself, 
 and making all his own, by an appropriating persuasion of 
 faith.’ ”