In the conclusion of the preceding discourse when delivered from the pulpit. I just mentioned a hypothesis respecting the limitation of our Lord's Atonement, which I will now take the liberty by way of an Appendix to examine.
Extremely adverse and irreconcilable as to the necessary consequences of maintaining on the one part that Christ by his death made an atonement for all mankind, and on the other that he made an atonement for the elect only, are usually thought; a reconciling, expedient, or compromise between them has been invented. This expedient, if I mistake not, may be justly represented in the following position: The PARTICULARITY of the atonement consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to its APPLICATION. By viewing the subject in this light, it is an imagined that provision is made for the satisfaction of all reasonable demands on each side of the question. It is necessary to be observed, before we enter into the merits of this position, that the application of the atonement is here to be understood as including not only what the New Testament denominates receiving the atonement, the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, and faith in his blood. But also, the absolute intention of Christ in his death to save all those who shall be finally happy. But notwithstanding the unauthorized latitude of meaning, which is here claimed for a particular term to render the position more plausible, various, and cogent reasons may be urged against it; among which the following solicit my
reader's candid consideration.
This reconciling expedient confounds the atonement itself with its application to the sinner. Whereas, though this former completely ascertained the latter, yet not being the same fruit of divine favor, they must not be identified. This will appear by considering that the term application always opposes the existence of whatever is applied. The atonement therefore must be considered as existing, either actually or in the divine decree. The expiation must be viewed as made for sin before it can be applied to the sinner. Nor ought the application of a thing to any person or for any purpose to be confounded with the thing itself. Hence, in former times, hardly any distinction was more common among theological writers than that between what they denominated, the imputation, and the application of redemption by Jesus Christ.
To represent the intention of Christ in his death, to save Paul, for instance, and not Judas, under the notion of APPLYING the atonement of Gamaliel's pupil and not to the traitor, is, to me at least, a perfectly novel sense of the word application, respecting the death of our Lord, and was, I presume, adapted to meet the necessities of this hypothesis. Brute animals, indeed, when falling victims to the sacrificing knife of a Jewish priest, could have no intention to expiate the offenses of one or another on whose behalf they were offered. But with regard to Jesus Christ, it was absolutely otherwise, for this language was A body have you prepared for me? “Lo! I come to do thy will oh God.” “Christ loved us and has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to god for a sweet smell savor. To be voluntary and suffering, to bear imputed sin, and to intend in dying to make reconciliation; were essential to his death as a sacrifice and an atonement. Because his death, detached from these considerations, was neither an atonement for transgressors, nor a sacrifice of God, but merely making his exit like one of the martyrs. Otherwise, it might be maintained that he made an atonement for multitudes of sinners, without knowing whom and without intending it. Whereas the language of Jesus is I am the Good Shepherd and know my sheep, The Good Shepherd gives his life for the sheep.
Besides, did this novel sense of the word application give a just view of the fact? Why might not be said, “As for eternity, the son of God intended by his own atoning death, the save Paul. So, from eternity the apostle had the atonement of Christ applied to him? Thus, confounding an imminent act of the divine will with a transient act of divine power, or in other words, the intention with the execution. Nay, why may we not on the same principle, maintain that the Holy Spirit, having an immutable intention to deliver Paul, by the word of truth and and his own sacred energy, from ignorance, from unbelief, and from the dominion of sin, the intended illumination of his mind and glow renewal of his heart? Were applied to him long before the glorified Messiah? Exclaimed Saul! Saul! why persecute you me?
That our Lord had a completely wise and most serious intention in laying down his life to make an atonement for sinners. Neither the perfection of his character nor the nature of the case will suffer us to doubt. But this very consideration forbids our supposing that he made an atonement with his own blood for any to whom he did not intend it should be applied, or that he died as a sponsor for any of those whom he did not intend should live through him. Deliberately and voluntarily to die for another is an affair so extremely serious that it requires the very highest degree of love to be exercised, and the kindest possible intention respecting the object beloved. For otherwise it might be well be demanded to what purpose this waste of love?
With regard to what has been commonly improperly called the application of the atonement, the following thoughts perhaps may deserve notice.
The position against which I militate, confounds that work which is peculiar to Christ in the execution of his priestly office, with the work of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of sacrificial blood, with the effect of a sacred energy. For nothing is more plainly revealed in Scripture than that the only atonement for moral guilt was made by Jesus Christ, by his blood, by laying down his life in the stead of sinners, and by being made a curse for them, whereas the application of the atonement is by the Holy Spirit enlightening the mind. Awakening the conscience and converting the heart. Or it is by the Holy Spirit, through the gracious gospel, practically convincing a Sinner of the all-sufficiency, suitableness, and freeness of the atonement, by which the blood of sprinkling is brought home to the soul, the heart is purified from an evil conscience, and the conscience is purged from dead works to serve the living God.[1]
Again, the atonement was made without us. The application of it is by a work within us. By the atonement the objects of our Divine Mercy were reconciled to God when they were enemies. By the application of it, their hearts are conciliated to his character. They become his friends.[2] They cry ABBA Father and enjoy communing with him. In making the atonement, Christ sustained the curse of the law for us; and making the application of it the Holy Spirit writes the law in our hearts. Finally, by the atonement we are secured from the wrath to come. By the application of it. Our hearts are in some degree prepared for the heavenly state. Thus, evidently does it appear that the application of the atonement, though essentially necessary to our salvation, should be carefully distinguished from the atonement itself. Let the application in question be called, if you please, believing in Jesus receiving the reconciliation – or, the conversion of a Sinner to Christ and to holiness, but let it not be identified with the atonement.
But is it not strange and unnatural to connect the idea of peculiarity with an application of the atonement; while implicitly denying that any such limitation attaches to the work of atonement? As it is natural to suppose that our Lord’s atonement, whatever limits may attend to its application, should virtually prescribe those limits, it seems unreasonable to imagine that its application should impose limits which would not otherwise have existed. Besides, as in the order of nature and of operation, the atonement must precede its application, so whatever peculiarity there is in the latter must be included in the former, or else the atonement by blood and the application of it by power must wear different aspects and be at variance. The one for aught appears to the contrary, is general and unconfined except by the limited extent of the human species, and the other is particular, and it should seem peculiar to God's elect.
Now this has very much the appearance of the Dutch remonstrant. Or Arminian redemption. For thus Arminius himself: “I affirm that redemption is obtained for the whole world; and for all and every man but applied to believers in the elect only.”[3] Thus also Grevinchovius: Quote God intended the end impetration of redemption by the death of his own Son for all and everyone. After that redemption was obtained and finished, it remained entirely with God to apply or not to apply it according to his own will. Nor was the application of it properly the end of its in impretation, but a right and authority to supply it according to his own most free determination, to whomsoever he pleased. I must not, however, be understood as insinuating that the persons of to whom I advert are to be considered as Arminians. By no means. For the Arminian system contains a great variety of articles which day detest. None, however, except a Universalist will deny that the application of our Lord's Atonement, or of redemption by his blood, is limited to a part of mankind.
Further: if as disposition supposes, the atonement made by our Lord for sinners, and its application to sinners be not commensurate; and if the particularity of the atonement consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to its application, we are necessarily led to conclude that the love of God to miserable sinners is more fully manifested in applying the atonement. Dinner Lord, Lord making the atonement. Or, in other words, that we have more abundant reason to admire the Father's love in the gift and work of the Holy Spirit than in the gift of his own son and in delivering him up to the death of the cross. Because on the hypothesis opposed, there is nothing in the atonement of Christ that infallibly ascertains its application to all those for whom it was made. And because in the sovereign application of the atonement, a restriction of the benefit is expressly admitted. Millions of those for whom our Lord, by the sacrifice of himself, made expiation for want of the necessary application, must finally perish under the curse.
On this principle, consequently, the love of God and applying the atonement or in the work of the Holy Spirit, affecting our conversion to Christ, is incomparably more interesting to us, and abundantly more to be admired than in the delivering up his Son. To make an atonement for us by his precious blood. Divine love in the atonement appears under the character of general benevolence to our apostate species. But that benevolence leaves vast multitudes of them to their native impenitence and to final perdition. Whereas in the application of our Lord's atonement, the love of God must be considered as peculiar, as unchangeable, as never failing completely to secure the everlasting happiness of all its objects.
But though we learn from Holy Scriptures that divine love is richly manifested in applying the atonement of Jesus to miserable sinners. Yet the same scripture has taught us to consider the gift of the son of God, and is expiation sin by falling a sacrifice to eternal justice, as much more emphatically expressing the fervor of that love than any other divine worker blessing upon which we can conceive. Witnessed the following declarations. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. It was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him here in his love. Not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his own son to be the propitiation for our sins. God commends his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. He that spared not his own son, but declared him up for his us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Now I appeal to my reader. Where at least passages be not fool proof that the love of God is much more wonderfully displayed in the atoning death of Christ than the application of that atonement by the Holy Spirit. In the last of these admirably gracious declarations we are taught. That incomparably the greatest benefit and the highest possible evidence of the Father's love consist in giving his only begotten son, and in delivering him up to make an atonement for sinners by his own death. Such a death as by divine law was marked with a curse. Nay, the words very strongly imply that on whomsoever this gift is bestowed, it ascertains the grant of every favor that is necessary to everlasting happiness. And that Paul considered the aggregate of all other blessings as unworthy that can be compared with it. Consequently, instead of representing a general benevolence of the Most High. Toward mankind at large, as appearing in the atonement made by the death of Jesus and the special favor of God as manifested in his imposing a peculiarity or limitation upon that atonement in its application to the elect only.
But though we learn from Holy Scriptures that divine love is richly manifested in applying the atonement of Jesus to miserable sinners. Yet the same scripture has taught us to consider the gift of the son of God, and is expiation sin by falling a sacrifice to eternal justice, as much more emphatically expressing the fervor of that love than any other divine worker blessing upon which we can conceive. Witnessed the following declarations. “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” “Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us. It was manifested the love of God towards us, because that God sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him here in his love. Not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his own son to be the propitiation for our sins. God commends his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us, the son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. He that spared not his own son, but declared him up for his us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Now I appeal to my reader. Where at least passages be not fool proof that the love of God is much more wonderfully displayed in the atoning death of Christ than the application of that atonement by the Holy Spirit. In the last of these admirably gracious declarations we are taught. That incomparably the greatest benefit and the highest possible evidence of the Father's love consist in giving his only begotten son, and in delivering him up to make an atonement for sinners by his own death. Such a death as by divine law was marked with a curse. Nay, the words very strongly imply that on whomsoever this gift is bestowed, it ascertains the grant of every favor that is necessary to everlasting happiness. And that Paul considered the aggregate of all other blessings as unworthy that can be compared with it. Consequently, instead of representing a general benevolence of the Most High. Toward mankind at large, as appearing in the atonement made by the death of Jesus and the special favor of God as manifested in his imposing a peculiarity or limitation upon that atonement in its application to the elect only.
We should rather say there is no reason at all to wonder that he that spared not his own son, but delivered him up to the curse of the law and the death of the cross, to make atonement for sinners, should take effectual care that the all-sufficient atonement should be applied to every individual for whom it so vast and expense it was made. Because the propitiatory death of God's own Incarnate Son is incomparably more expressive of special, peculiar, divine love, and infinitely more to be admired than either the application of the atonement or the giving of heaven to Saints. In the expressive language of Paul, with a little alteration of his phraseology, we may therefore say. If, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more shall we have that reconciliation applied and be saved by his life.[4] But how contradictory is this to the following extraordinary position? The peculiarity of the atonement consists in the sovereign pleasure of God with regard to its application. For though according to this position, the application of our gracious mediators, atonement is peculiar to a part only of the human race. Yet it leads us to consider the atonement itself as indiscriminate and common to all mankind. On this principle, therefore, myriads and millions, for whom divine benevolence provided an atonement. Must everlastingly perish for want of that atonement being applied.
Must we then consider Jesus Christ as intending to make, and is actually making a real atonement for mankind in general? But how or in what way was atonement made for those who, in consequence of not having applied it to them sink into perdition. Was it by the death of Jesus? If so, he must have died for them, which in the estimation of Paul was perfectly good security against final condemnation.[5] Because that denotes is dying as their substitute or in their stead. Agreeable to those remarkable words, “scarcely for a righteous one will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commends his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”[6] Now it being only as accursed that they are punished with death, so Christ cannot be viewed as dying as their substitute in their stead. To make an atonement, without considering him as made both sin and a curse for them[7]. On the principle, therefore, to which I advert though the final state of men, be so extremely different, yet Jesus Christ is to be considered as making atonement for all mankind, by shedding the same blood, by undergoing the same sufferings, and precisely at the same time, equally for one as for another.
Must we then consider Jesus Christ as intending to make, and is actually making a real atonement for mankind in general? But how or in what way was atonement made for those who, in consequence of not having applied it to them sink into perdition. Was it by the death of Jesus? If so, he must have died for them, which in the estimation of Paul was perfectly good security against final condemnation.[5] Because that denotes is dying as their substitute or in their stead. Agreeable to those remarkable words, “scarcely for a righteous one will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commends his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”[6] Now it being only as accursed that they are punished with death, so Christ cannot be viewed as dying as their substitute in their stead. To make an atonement, without considering him as made both sin and a curse for them[7]. On the principle, therefore, to which I advert though the final state of men, be so extremely different, yet Jesus Christ is to be considered as making atonement for all mankind, by shedding the same blood, by undergoing the same sufferings, and precisely at the same time, equally for one as for another.
Nay, on the same principle, the Divine Father, maintaining the rights of eternal justice and the great Economy of Redemption, must be considered when raising Christ from the dead, as emphatically declaring his cordial acceptance of our Lord’s atonement on behalf of all those for whom it was made. Agreeable to that saying, Christ was delivered up to justice and to death for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification. By which we are taught that as the atonement for sin depended on the death of our Substitute; so, the justification of our persons depended on the discharge of our Substitute in his resurrection from the dead by the Divine Father. Which two grand blessings, perfect atonement and complete justification have been usually considered in the churches of Christ as inseparable. But according to the sentiment here opposed, there is no certain connection between atonement for sin by the death of Jesus and justification before God. For with regard to the atonement simply considered, Peter and Judas were on a perfect level. The whole of the important difference in favor of Peter arising from the application.
To support the position under consideration, it is pleaded that the principal design of our Lord's Atonement was the manifestation of God's hatred to sin; in order to render the exercise of mercy consistent with justice. This I recollect that Dutch Arminians told us long ago.[8] But before we adopt the sentiment, it should be observed that though the atonement made by Jesus, the son of God and the Lord of Glory both plainly supposes and strongly implies the divine abhorrence of sin. Yet this is far from being the first, the most prominent to characteristic idea of our Lord's death on the cross. Or that on which Jesus and his Apostles, when Speaking of the atonement, principally dwell. No, the grand idea suggested to an enlightened mind by the atonement of Christ, and to which the New Testament abundantly directs our attention, is not God's hatred to sin, but his love to sinners. Not the purity of his nature, but the compassion of his heart. Not his inclination to punish, but his determination to pardon.
On the same principle, and with equal reason, it might be said, the chief design of the gospel is not to reveal an all-sufficient savior for enormous offenders, nor to announce the pardon of all sin and perfect peace with God to the death of Jesus to those who are under the sentence of condemnation for breaking the law. But to express the high displeasure and the unchangeable hatred of God against sin. Yet everyone sees how absurd it would be thus to represent the glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. No more absurd, however, than to represent the atonement. For without that there is no gospel for the guilty, no glad tidings for any whom the law condemns. According to this position, the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ in the gracious gospel unites with the broken law in denouncing vengeance, in working a sense of wrath in the conscience, and therefore an exciting apprehensions of eternal ruin. Nay were proved that the capital design of our Lord's atonement was the manifestation of God's hatred to sin. We might venture to assert the same respecting a grant of complete pardon and the enjoyment of perfect salvation and the ultimate happiness. Because it will always be true and always acknowledged by saints as a fact; that God and the whole work of salvation expressed his abhorrence of sin.
But of what crime has that benevolent and merciful term ATONEMENT, been convicted, that it must be compelled to speak what it never thought? Does it not naturally and immediately suggest the idea of expiation or reconciliation of something that speaks peace to an offender's conscience with reference to faults or crimes committed? If the principal intention of our Lord's penal sufferings and the curse of exit had been to exhibit the divine opposition to sin. Why should this unexampled sufferings and infamous death be called THE ATONEMENT? A name doubtless extremely inappropriate and in such a connection absolutely unparalleled. Nay, instead of being called the atonement for sin. Why were they not determined penal justice, divine vengeance, or fiery indignation against apostasy and rebellion. Predilection for hypothesis must surely be very strong in sensible and pious persons before they can be induced to associate such heterogeneous conceptions as are connected in position!
Did I ask of what crime that benevolent and merciful term atonement had been convicted? That it must be compelled to speak what it never thought. It seems, alas! To have been found guilty of implicitly but strongly maintaining that the substitutionary and penal death of the Incarnate Son actually reconciled to the Divine Father a great number of our apostate species, even when they were enemies to him. And ascertains its own application to the consciousness of all those for whom it was made. Now, such being the genuine import of our Lord's atoning death. We are allowed to consider it not merely as the medium by which mercy may be exercised consistently with justice.
To support the position under consideration, it is pleaded that the principal design of our Lord's Atonement was the manifestation of God's hatred to sin; in order to render the exercise of mercy consistent with justice. This I recollect that Dutch Arminians told us long ago.[8] But before we adopt the sentiment, it should be observed that though the atonement made by Jesus, the son of God and the Lord of Glory both plainly supposes and strongly implies the divine abhorrence of sin. Yet this is far from being the first, the most prominent to characteristic idea of our Lord's death on the cross. Or that on which Jesus and his Apostles, when Speaking of the atonement, principally dwell. No, the grand idea suggested to an enlightened mind by the atonement of Christ, and to which the New Testament abundantly directs our attention, is not God's hatred to sin, but his love to sinners. Not the purity of his nature, but the compassion of his heart. Not his inclination to punish, but his determination to pardon.
On the same principle, and with equal reason, it might be said, the chief design of the gospel is not to reveal an all-sufficient savior for enormous offenders, nor to announce the pardon of all sin and perfect peace with God to the death of Jesus to those who are under the sentence of condemnation for breaking the law. But to express the high displeasure and the unchangeable hatred of God against sin. Yet everyone sees how absurd it would be thus to represent the glad tidings of salvation by Jesus Christ. No more absurd, however, than to represent the atonement. For without that there is no gospel for the guilty, no glad tidings for any whom the law condemns. According to this position, the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ in the gracious gospel unites with the broken law in denouncing vengeance, in working a sense of wrath in the conscience, and therefore an exciting apprehensions of eternal ruin. Nay were proved that the capital design of our Lord's atonement was the manifestation of God's hatred to sin. We might venture to assert the same respecting a grant of complete pardon and the enjoyment of perfect salvation and the ultimate happiness. Because it will always be true and always acknowledged by saints as a fact; that God and the whole work of salvation expressed his abhorrence of sin.
But of what crime has that benevolent and merciful term ATONEMENT, been convicted, that it must be compelled to speak what it never thought? Does it not naturally and immediately suggest the idea of expiation or reconciliation of something that speaks peace to an offender's conscience with reference to faults or crimes committed? If the principal intention of our Lord's penal sufferings and the curse of exit had been to exhibit the divine opposition to sin. Why should this unexampled sufferings and infamous death be called THE ATONEMENT? A name doubtless extremely inappropriate and in such a connection absolutely unparalleled. Nay, instead of being called the atonement for sin. Why were they not determined penal justice, divine vengeance, or fiery indignation against apostasy and rebellion. Predilection for hypothesis must surely be very strong in sensible and pious persons before they can be induced to associate such heterogeneous conceptions as are connected in position!
Did I ask of what crime that benevolent and merciful term atonement had been convicted? That it must be compelled to speak what it never thought. It seems, alas! To have been found guilty of implicitly but strongly maintaining that the substitutionary and penal death of the Incarnate Son actually reconciled to the Divine Father a great number of our apostate species, even when they were enemies to him. And ascertains its own application to the consciousness of all those for whom it was made. Now, such being the genuine import of our Lord's atoning death. We are allowed to consider it not merely as the medium by which mercy may be exercised consistently with justice.
But as a being in itself the most wonderful of all facts, that the greatest of all favors, as being the exercise and evidence of that mercy which comprehends and ascertains every necessary blessing.[9] Whereas, if we view the atonement of Christ as chiefly intended, to express the divine indignation against sin, and that expression of God's displeasure, as the medium by which mercy may be exercised consistently with justice. Without considering either all of mankind or any select part of our guilty species as actually reconciled to God by it. We have little or nothing more than the name of atonement.
Besides, it is not merely a manifestation of divine displeasure against sin, however bright or terrible such manifestations may be, that renders the exercise of saving mercy consistent with the claims of justice. Because we have the highest authority for asserting. That the damned in hell experienced the most emphatical expressions of divine anger against sin, without the least shadow of tendency in those awful, impractical expressions of God's displeasure, to render the exercise of mercy consistent with the demands of justice. No, it is not personally sustaining the keenest sensations of God's displeasure against sin, though under the curse of divine law and the stroke of penal justice. But the vicariously suffering of that curse by an accepted substitute, which makes atonement for sin and harmonizes the displays of pardoning mercy with the demands of punishing justice. Such were the sufferings of Jesus Christ. And hence an apostle has taught us to consider the Divine Father.
Besides, it is not merely a manifestation of divine displeasure against sin, however bright or terrible such manifestations may be, that renders the exercise of saving mercy consistent with the claims of justice. Because we have the highest authority for asserting. That the damned in hell experienced the most emphatical expressions of divine anger against sin, without the least shadow of tendency in those awful, impractical expressions of God's displeasure, to render the exercise of mercy consistent with the demands of justice. No, it is not personally sustaining the keenest sensations of God's displeasure against sin, though under the curse of divine law and the stroke of penal justice. But the vicariously suffering of that curse by an accepted substitute, which makes atonement for sin and harmonizes the displays of pardoning mercy with the demands of punishing justice. Such were the sufferings of Jesus Christ. And hence an apostle has taught us to consider the Divine Father.
That's not only exercising mercy and faithfulness, but justice also, when he pardons those who are the subjects of real repentance, those for whom are adorable Sponsor sustained the curse.[10] For when the Eternal Father exhibited his Incarnate son as a propitiation to declare his righteousness in the remission of sins, he not only gave us the highest evidence, that without satisfaction our sin could not be fully remitted; but also that full satisfaction being made for sin by the sponsor, it could not be justly imputed to the principles. Because for the Supreme Governor to pardon sinners without satisfaction, and finally to punish those for whom plenary satisfaction has been made seem equally inconsistent with divine rectitude.
Once more, the hypothesis on which I am animadverting maintains that redemption is an effect of our Lord's Atonement, and that all the redeemed shall be finally happy, that all the redeem shall be everlastingly blessed. I firmly believe. But that redemption is an effect of the atonement, I am far from being convinced. Briefly to investigate this particular, it may be observed that our Sacred writers exhibit the vicarious death of our Lord in various points of light, according to that variety of situation and of want, by which they characterize mankind and the fallen state. Are we, for instance, described by those infallible writers as the objects of God's righteous anger and is excluded from all communion with him?
Once more, the hypothesis on which I am animadverting maintains that redemption is an effect of our Lord's Atonement, and that all the redeemed shall be finally happy, that all the redeem shall be everlastingly blessed. I firmly believe. But that redemption is an effect of the atonement, I am far from being convinced. Briefly to investigate this particular, it may be observed that our Sacred writers exhibit the vicarious death of our Lord in various points of light, according to that variety of situation and of want, by which they characterize mankind and the fallen state. Are we, for instance, described by those infallible writers as the objects of God's righteous anger and is excluded from all communion with him?
They represent the death of Jesus under the notion of a sacrifice, making reconciliation, and as the medium of beautifying intercourse with Heaven.[11] Are we considered as in a state of subjection to the penal sanction of divine law and to the awful demands of eternal justice? The death of Emmanuel is represented under the notion of a ransom or price of redemption from that miserable condition.[12] Or are we considered more generally as disobedient and revolted subjects of the Most High - subjects that have despised his laws, trampled upon his authority, profaned his character, and committed innumerable outrages upon his honor? The death of our adorable substitute is represented as an awful punishment, making plenary satisfaction[13] to the high demands of Infinite Majesty for the complicated, enormous, boundless evil.
Such are the diversified wants of men considered as justly condemned creatures and such the varied yet ever-merciful aspect of our Lord's death! But whatever, the most wonderful and most interesting of all deaths, be viewed under the notion of a sacrifice. The proper effect of which is atonement; of a price, the happy effect of which is redemption or of a punishment, the genuine effect of which is plenary satisfaction. We have no more ground to consider the blessing of redemption as an effect of the atonement. Then we have to pronounce the atonement and effect of redemption, or to represent them as effects of satisfaction. Because they are all represented in the volume of revelation as proceeding IMMEDIATELY FROM THE DEATH of our all-sufficient Sponsor, or as flowing from the blood of the Lamb; being all procured for miserable sinners by the same penal sufferings and at the same time.
As therefore the only atonement for sin, the only redemption of sinners, and the only satisfaction made for our crimes, have the same Jesus for their author, suffering under the same character, affecting the whole by shedding the same blood. And precisely at the same time, we may safely conclude that in the design of our divinely merciful Substitute.
They are commensurate with regard to their application that the application of them all is made at the same instant; and that their efficacy and consequences must be commensurate.
Such are the diversified wants of men considered as justly condemned creatures and such the varied yet ever-merciful aspect of our Lord's death! But whatever, the most wonderful and most interesting of all deaths, be viewed under the notion of a sacrifice. The proper effect of which is atonement; of a price, the happy effect of which is redemption or of a punishment, the genuine effect of which is plenary satisfaction. We have no more ground to consider the blessing of redemption as an effect of the atonement. Then we have to pronounce the atonement and effect of redemption, or to represent them as effects of satisfaction. Because they are all represented in the volume of revelation as proceeding IMMEDIATELY FROM THE DEATH of our all-sufficient Sponsor, or as flowing from the blood of the Lamb; being all procured for miserable sinners by the same penal sufferings and at the same time.
As therefore the only atonement for sin, the only redemption of sinners, and the only satisfaction made for our crimes, have the same Jesus for their author, suffering under the same character, affecting the whole by shedding the same blood. And precisely at the same time, we may safely conclude that in the design of our divinely merciful Substitute.
They are commensurate with regard to their application that the application of them all is made at the same instant; and that their efficacy and consequences must be commensurate.
[1] Hebrews. 12.24; I Peter 1.2; Hebrews 10.22; 9.14
[2] Romans 5.10
[3] Affirme redepmtionem impertratum toti mundo, et omnibus singulisque homnibus ese, solis autem credentibus et elcttis applitam. Contra Perkins, pg. 197. Aput Peltium, Harmonia Remonstrantium et Socianorum, pg. 138, Lugdum, Batav, 1633.
[4] Romans 5.8
[5] Romans 8.34
[6] Romans 5/7-8
[7] II Corinthians 5.21
[8] Christus satisfaciendo justitae Dei tantum effecit, Deum sine laesione justitiae, homini, peccatori, januam adaperuisse ad gratiam. Remonst. Colloq. Hagi, pg,. 147. Apud Peltium, ut suprm pg. 125.
[9] Romans 5.10
[10] I John 1.9
[11] Romans 5.10; Hebrews 9.14; 10.19-22
[12] Matthew 20.22; Eph. 1.7; Col. 1.14; Rev. 5.9-10
[13] Isaiah 53.5-12; I Peter 2.24; 3.18; Gal. 3.12
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for commenting. If an answer is needed, we will respond.