Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

puted to the non-elect indeed, as well as to the elect; and to devils as well as men, and to vipers and stones as readily as to devils. If the fact of its being a righteousness rendered for those to whom it is imputed is of no importance, then any perfect righteousness, rendered by an angel, may be the ground of the justification of sinners, and they may be saved as well without as by HIM, who is pronounced to be the only Mediator between God and men. If God can save the non-elect as well as the elect, the whole scheme of redemption by Christ seems to be superfluous; and it is no matter of moment that Christ has laid down his life for his sheep.

Finally, it does not follow, because his premises in the case have not been established, that Christ can save some who are not saved, by the adequacy of his righteousness for their justification; that the righteousness of Jesus Christ, in its penal part, does not consist of an amount of suffering, exactly proportioned to the guilt of the elect. If it does not, Dr. G. has not proved the contrary; nor have we found any one, however the doctrine is disliked, who has done it.

The sufferings of Christ were either infinite or not infinite. One or the other of these propositions must be true, and its converse must be false, as every one may learn from intuition. They were, we rejoice to say, the sufferings of an infinite being; and so are all the minutest works of creation the product of an infinite agent: and none but an infinite being could have rendered any active obedience, or penal suffering for another, to the law of God; for every finite being is bound to do, for himself, every thing in his power, which will honour the law, and glorify God. But it will not follow, that every act, or product, is in itself infinite, because its author is infinite.

Now if the sufferings of Christ were in themselves absolutely with

out bounds in any respect or dimension, that is, infinite; then Christ has not yet ceased from his sufferings, and never can cease from them; for then they would be bounded in their duration, they would be finite in their continuance. But it will be admitted by all, that Christ has ceased from his sufferings, and that they had both a beginning and an end in time. They were not, then, infinite, absolutely; and if they were not infinite, they were, by the very definition of the words, finite, for not infinite, and finite mean one and the same thing.

We shall consider it as undeniable, therefore, that the sufferings of Christ were finite, at least in respect to their duration. Being finite, they were of a measurable duration: the continuance of them might have been longer or shorter: the time of them was actually definite; and amounted to a little more than thirty-three years. This duration must have been fixed in the counsels of eternity, because known unto God are all his works from the beginning; and by his providence, those with whom we reason allow, that he reasonably and certainly foreordains all events. There must have been some adequate reason for predestinating the definite period of our Saviour's sufferings; for our God never decrees capriciously. What the nature of that reason was, is the question. God decreed that Christ should be in a state of suffering so long as he was, and no longer. Why? We answer, because justice required it. But justice in relation to whom? Surely justice required no suffering from Christ, for those who should suffer, in their own persons, all which their sins have deserved. It must have been justice, in relation to those who shall be delivered from the suffering due to their sins, by the sufferings of the Son of God. For these he suffered a definite time, because it was necessary to the satisfaction of divine justice. But why did he not suffer

of his humiliation. Had he suffered less, it would have been because justice required less, or else because it was a matter of perfect indifference to himself and his Father, how much or how little he suffered; in which case, all suffering in the work of redemption might have been readily dispensed with.

a longer time for these? Surely, No other plausible reason can be had it been necessary, it would have assigned why he did not suffer more been so decreed, and so accomplish-intensely, during the whole period ed. It was unnecessary we conclude, from reason, scripture, and the fact that he endured precisely such a continuance of humiliation as he did, when it might have been longer or shorter. Had he suffered a longer or a shorter time than was indispensable to the accomplishment of the whole object for which he humbled himself, it would have been an impeachment of the divine character, and would have proved the decrees of heaven to be unjust. It appears to us requisite, therefore, to judge, that the sufferings of Christ could have been, granting the inherent weight of them to have remained the same, neither of a longer, nor of a shorter duration than they were, unless we would charge the Deity either with inflicting needless pain on the Son of his love, or with requiring less of the Redeemer than justice demanded.

In relation to the actual amount of suffering which Christ endured, it is obvious, that it must have been finite or infinite, as well as to duration either bounded or boundless. If in amount Christ suffered infinitely, he must have endured all that he could have endured, so that we can conceive of no possible addition to it. If we can conceive of any addition to it, then it answers not to our conceptions of infinite; and we can write and speak, only of things of which we conceive, unless we write and speak what to us is nonsense. We have never found an opponent, who would maintain, that he could have suffered no greater amount of pain than he did; or that the sufferings of Christ were subjectively infinite; and we must think, therefore, that in the judgment of all Christians, the sufferings of the Redeemer were definite and finite. If he could have suffered more than he did, and did not, the reason must have been, that infinite wisdom did not deem it necessary that he should.

There is but one question about which there is really much difference of opinion among those divines who hold to the absolute necessity of a penal satisfaction to divine justice by the Saviour, in order that remission of sins might take place; and that is this; were the sufferings of Christ, which were finite in duration and in amount of pain, infinite in their inherent merits; so that God could, had it pleased him, have saved every sinner, in consequence of them? Most Calvinistic divines assert such an infinity of inherent merit; while they agree, that these sufferings, infinitely meritorious in their own nature, were designed only for the salvation of the elect. We differ from them, on this point; for we are persuaded that Jesus paid precisely such a meritorious price of redemption as law and justice required for those who shall be saved; and that the righteous moral Governor of the universe accepted the atonement not only for all for which it was designed in the counsels of eternity, but for all, which in the judgment.of the Godhead it was worth. We believe, that our Saviour's meritorious sufferings, were in every respect what immutable justice, and the requirements of the infinitely holy God demanded that they should be, to effect deliverance from the punishment of sin, for all who were given to Christ; for all who will ever accept of redemption through his blood.

The discussion of this point, however, we are willing to leave, in this

place, and pursue the track of our eccentric author. In argument VI. he repeats what he has before stated; that Christ has authorized the offer of salvation to all men ; that it would be immoral in Christ to authorize such an offer, if he was not able to save all men, and that "therefore Jesus Christ is capable of saving all

men."

He intended, that he is able to save all men, for he evidently considers, very erroneously, that capability and ability are the same thing. To this argument we have already answered, that Christ is able to fulfil all the promises, and all the offers which he has ever made or authorized, on the very terms according to which he has made them. We come to

"ARGUMENT VII.-1. Jesus Christ is able to save all mankind.

"2. But his ability to save all mankind depends on this, that the merit of his righteousness is adequate to the salvation of all.

"3. Therefore the righteousness of Jesus is of universal merit, and capable of securing the salvation of all mankind.

"The first proposition I have demonstrated in the foregoing arguments. The second proposition needs no proof. No body interested in this discussion will question it. In fact the whole doctrine of salvation taught in the Bible, rests on this principle, that in him have we redemption in his blood;' that it is by his blood that he takes away sin and purges the conscience.

"Therefore there is merit enough in the blood, the atonement, the satisfaction, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ to save all mankind. q. e. d." p. 89.

The first of these premises is false, unless by ability is here intended, what some call a natural ability in opposition to a moral ability; for Christ is morally unable to do what he chooses not to do, and what his Father has not decreed that he shall do. He is as unable to save every individual of mankind, as he is to frustrate the counsels of Jehovah and rebel against the decrees of God.

Well might our author ask; if Jesus Christ is absolutely able and willing to save every sinner without

exception, whether he shall believe or not, "Why then are any of mankind lost?" He replies,

"1. Some of them are ignorant of this salvation, and perish in their sins because they do not know, and therefore do not apply the remedy.

2. Some of them perish because, though they have this salvation taught them, they trample the precious blood of Christ under their feet." p. 90.

But why still should they perish, if Christ is able and willing to save them, whether they shall believe or not? Their ignorance and trampling the blood of Christ under feet, can, in this case, be no hindrance. Then of course they will be saved, and none will be lost.

Take another view of the subject. If Christ is able and willing, absolutely, and unqualifiedly, to save all mankind, then he is able to remove the impeding ignorance, and excite penitence for the sin of having trampled the precious blood of Christ under their feet; and so all will be saved. He is willing to do these things, if he is willing to save them, whether they believe or not, because these things are a part of the scriptural salvation, essential to it. If he is not willing to remove their ignorance, and them repentance give for any despite done to his spirit and grace, then he is not willing to save them; unless there can be salvation without any knowledge and belief of the truth as it is in Jesus, and without any repentance for sins.

"ARGUMENT VIII.-1. The sin of Adam, was a violation of the law of works, and entails the penalty of death on every human being who comes under that law.

"2. The mediatorial righteousness of Jesus Christ is the righteousness of that law in its violated state-and we have demonstrated that it is capable of saving all who shall ever come under the condemning power of the law.

"3. Therefore the remedial righteousness of Jesus Christ, has the same extent, bounds and limits with the covenant transgression of Adam; the latter has destroyed all mankind, the former is capable of saving all mankind." p. 91.

If this reasoning is good for any

thing it ought to prove, that as the unrighteousness of Adam destroyed all mankind, so the righteousness of Christ actually saves all mankind. It is not enough that it is capable of doing it. If it is able to do it, then it is able to remove every obstruction arising from the want of faith and repentance, and the work of salvation will be completed in the case of every individual. To this doctrine we should have no objection, were it true, but it is the first doctrine of devils which was taught mankind.

There can be no actual righteousness without some actual subject of law, for whom that righteousness is rendered, and of whom it was demanded.

Now Adam violated the covenant of works, not only for himself, but for all whom he represented in that covenant, even all his posterity; and Christ obeyed that law, "in its violated state," as Dr. Gray has learned to say, since he wrote the FIEND: but for whom did Christ obey; for his obedience must have been the conformity to the violated law demanded of some one under that law. It is agreed, that it was not for himself that Christ obeyed the violated law, given to creatures, and binding all of Adam's race. Did he then render a perfect righteousness to the satisfaction of the violated law, for every individual of the human race? If he did, then he obeyed the precept, and suffered the penalty of the law required of every individual, for that individual; and justice has no further claim upon any man for a perfect justifying righteousness, or for any sufferings as a penalty for transgression. All then must be justified by the just Lawgiver and Judge, and none can be subjected to the endless curse of a broken law.

The second of the premises in this eighth argument is not true; and the conclusion is false. "The mediatorial righteousness of Jesus Christ is the righteousness of that

law in its violated state," for all those persons, and those alone, in whose stead it was rendered; and for whose benefit the surety of the better covenant which was established upon better promises than the covenant of works, endured the curse. It is able to save these, and no other persons, unless it can accomplish what neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Ghost, intended it should: it is able to save all that shall ever have precious faith, either in principle or in actual exercise. Therefore the remedial righteousness of Jesus Christ has NOT the same extent, bounds and limits with the covenant transgression of Adam; but as the latter destroyed all whom Adam represented in the covenant of works, so the former will save all for whom it was rendered by their covenant head, acting under the covenant of redemption. "For as by

one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righte

ous.

." Rom. v. xix. Having submitted these eight arguments "to the most rigorous examination of the reasoning class of society," and declared his belief that his demonstrations are as sound as any in Euclid's Elements, from "no partial or overweening opinion" of his own ingenuity; our brother assumes one of our fundamental principles, that Christ is not morally able to grant salvation to the unelected, and attempts to demonstrate from it, that the gospel cannot be preached to any person. This wholly arises from his wrong notions of the preaching of the gospel. If preaching the gospel means a proclamation, that Jesus Christ is perfectly able and willing, without any qualification of the terms, to save the unelected; then, we allow, that the gospel cannot be preached to the unelected, or even unconverted, unless Christ is actually and absolutely able and willing to save the unelected. But if preaching the gospel means the proclamation of the fact, that God

has determined to save "a great multitude" of sinners; that Christ has made a full atonement for "a great multitude" of sinners; that he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved, according to this eternal determination, by this full atonement; that whosoever will, may come to God through Christ; and that the sinner who cometh, thirsty to drink, hungry to be fed, guilty to be pardoned, polluted to be made holy, unjust to be justified, and miserably poor to be made unspeakably rich through eternity, he will in nowise cast out; then the gospel can be preached without the least degree of impropriety to every child of Adam.

This we consider as a satisfactory refutation of his first and third arguments, which are designed to prove, that Christ can neither offer, nor command his ministers to offer salvation to the unelected, without being chargeable with immorality, on the supposition that he is unable to save them, consistently with his own divine counsels of eternity. We copy

“ARGUMENT III.-1. The gospel minister ought not to offer, and cannot offer, salvation in Christ's name, to those whom Christ is not able to save; nor ought he, nor can he, command those to trust in Christ for salvation, whom he is unable to

save.

"2. And since the gospel minister is entirely ignorant whether any of the sinners who are before him be elected, and therefore is ignorant whether Jesus Christ be able to save any of them, it follows that he cannot assure any of them, that Jesus is able to save him.

"3. Therefore the gospel minister cannot invite any sinner to come to Jesus for salvation, he cannot command any sinner to come to Jesus; he cannot enforce faith as a duty, he cannot charge unbelief as a sin, upon any unconverted person.

"What conclusions! What tremendous conclusions! Yet assuredly they are not the figments of my fancy; they have been drawn by others, whose names I will tell you before I have done; and they have been represented as the only pure unadulterated gospel of salvation. And I will do these theorists the justice to say, that they are sound and irrefragable logicians. If

their first principle be granted, their argument is invulnerable. But their conclusions give the lie direct to God, and to his Christ, and to all the prophets, and to all the apostles. And therefore they ought to have added to each conclusion, quod absurdum est; and to infer the falsehood of the assumption from which such conclusions flow.

"But reader perhaps thou art no great clerk, no trained logician; but one of Christ's little ones, a babe who desires earnestly the sincere milk of the word, that thou mayest grow thereby. Then I shall leave this chapter with the logicians; the next chapter shall be thy own; in which I shall prove from the pure and simple declaration of the Holy Ghost speaking in the scripture, every position which in the present chapter has been proved by argument." p. 93.

Now let us try our hand a little at syllogisms.

1. It cannot be a duty to believe what is not true:

2. But that Jesus Christ is able to save the unelected is not true:

3. Therefore, it cannot be a duty to believe that Jesus Christ is able to save the unelected.

This is a demonstration of which we may as confidently boast as Dr. G. concerning any contained in his book. Again,

1. A man ought not to believe a proposition, of the truth of which he has no evidence:

2. A man to whom God has made no revelation on the subject, has no evidence that he is unelected:

3. Therefore a man to whom God has made no revelation on the subject, ought not to believe that he is unelected. Again,

1. No man ought to believe a proposition, of the truth of which he has no evidence:

2. But no man has any evidence that Jesus Christ is able and willing to save him if he continues in unbelief:

3. Therefore, no man ought to believe that Jesus Christ is able and willing to save him if he continues in unbelief. Yet again,

1. Every one ought to believe a proposition, of the truth of which he has sufficient evidence:

« PoprzedniaDalej »