08.03.01. Chapter 1

Chapter 1: The relation of the Work of Christ to mankind at large—The universal obligation and encourgement of faith THE question being, in the first place, Was the death of Christ, or his work of obedience unto death, considered in the light of a satisfaction rendered to divine justice, and an atonement made for human guilt, undertaken and accomplished for any but the elect?—we answer, without qualification or reserve, in the negative. They for whom Christ died are infallibly saved.

If it be asked, secondly, Has the death of Christ any relation at all to mankind at large, whether elect or not?—we reply, that the condition of those at least to whom the knowledge of it comes, as regards their present obligation and ultimate responsibility, is most materially affected by the event or fact in question, or rather, by the publication of it. Assuredly the guilt and condemnation of those who have had the gospel among them, and have rejected it, cannot be put upon a level with the criminality of such as have never heard the joyful sound; and, in so far as God, in his providence, gives any information to the heathen, respecting his long-suffering patience and love, as connected with a mediatorial provision of grace, they are left the more without excuse. The third inquiry, having reference to the precise hearing of Christ’s death upon the world at large, including the unbelieving portion of it, is the very question which we declined, and must still decline, to answer, or, at least, to answer categorically, or so as to exhaust the inquiry; it being our opinion that Holy Scripture has not given materials for any very explicit deliverance upon that point. At the same time, there are some particulars, under this head, which may be ascertained. Thus:—

I. In point of fact, the death of Christ, or his work of obedience and atonement, has procured for the world at large, and for every individual—the impenitent and unbelieving as well as the chosen, and called, and faithful—certain definite, tangible, and ascertainable benefits (if we may use such words to designate their reality and their specific character), among which, in particular, may be noted these two: first, A season of forbearance—a respite of judgment—a period of grace (Romans 3:25); (See Appendix B.) and that, too, in subserviency, and with direct reference, to the plan of saving mercy (ibid., and Romans 2:4; and 2 Peter 3:15); and, secondly, A system of means and influences fitted to lead men to God, and sufficient to leave them without excuse. (Acts 14:15-17, and Acts 17:22-31; Romans 1:18, and Romans 2:15.) This, since the promulgation of the gospel, includes all the ordinances of God’s Word and worship, with the accompanying common operations of the Spirit in them. (See Appendix C.) Nor does it affect this statement, as to the actual obligation under which mankind at large, including the finally lost, lie to Christ and his work, for benefits, in point of fact, real and valuable, that this season of long-suffering, and this system of means, are extended to them all indiscriminately, mainly and chiefly for the sake of the elect who are among them. For, in the first place, 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, whose presence would procure a respite even for a Sodom; and when they are all gathered in, and not a soul remains to be converted, the end will come. 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, secondly, Whether directly or indirectly—mediately or immediately—for their own sakes or the elect’s—the fact, after all, is the same—and it is important and significant—that the forbearance granted to every sinner, and the favour shown in such a way as should lead him to repentance, must be ascribed to the interposition position of Christ, and his sacrifice on the cross. May not this consideration, of itself, go far to explain not only the strong and touching appeals made generally to sinners, as forsaking their own mercies (Jonah 2:8), but even such awful denunciations as that uttered by the Apostle Peter respecting apostates bringing in damnable heresies, that they deny the Lord that bought them? (Second Epistle, 2 Peter 2:1)—not to speak of a still more terrible sense in which even the reprobate may be truly said to be bought by Christ, inasmuch as, for his obedience unto death, he has received the right, and power, and commission to dispose of them, and deal with them, as it may seem meet, for the honour of his Father’s name, and the salvation of his people. (Psalms 2:1; John 17:2)

It may be observed, in passing, that there is a double sense in which we may speak of Christ’s purchase; first, Strictly and properly, when we regard him as purchasing men; and, secondly, More improperly, when we consider him as purchasing benefits for men. This last view, as we have hinted, is rather figurative and metaphorical than real and literal; for the idea of his purchasing benefits from the Father for mankind, must ever be understood in consistency with the Father’s sovereignty, and his pre-existing love to the children of men. The Father is not induced or persuaded to bestow benefits on men by a price paid to him; but being antecedently full of compassion to all, and having a purpose to save some, he appoints and ordains—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 showing forbearance and kindness to the world, as well as in ultimately and gloriously saving his own elect. In this view, as it would seem, it may he said, with equal fitness, and equal truth, that Christ purchased the benefits implied in the long-suffering of God for all, and that he purchased the blessings of actual salvation for his elect; inasmuch as, so far as appears from Scripture, his death is no less indispensable a condition of any being spared for a season, than it is of some being everlastingly saved. In regard, again, to the other light in which Christ’s purchase may be viewed, as a purchase, 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, therefore, may be said to be bought by him, inasmuch as, by his humiliation, obedience, and death, he has obtained, as by purchase, a right over all—he has got all under his power. 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 ransom 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 retributive righteousness of God in their condemnation; aggravated, as that condemnation must be, by their rejection of himself. This is no propitiation, in any sense at all—no offering of himself to bear their sins—no bringing in of a perfect righteousness on their account; but an office or function which he has obtained for himself by the same work—or has had intrusted 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 representative and head—an office or function, moreover, which he undertakes solely on his people’s behalf, and which he executes faithfully for their good, as well as for his Father’s glory.

II. In addition to this general benefit, in point of fact, resulting to mankind at large from the interposition of Christ, or rather, perhaps, as included in it, may be mentioned the manifestation which the death of Christ is fitted to give to all men, universally, and to every individual alike, of the divine character and the divine plan of salvation. In this view, Christ is the light which, coming into the world, lighteth every man. Lifted up upon the cross, Jesus reveals the Father, and the Father’s provision for reconciling the exercise of mercy towards the guilty with the maintenance of law and justice; and this service is rendered, not to the elect specially, but to men generally and universally.

III. Nor, lastly, is it to be omitted that the cross of Christ is the proof and measure of that infinite compassion which dwells in the bosom of God towards each and all of the lost race of Adam, and his infinite willingness, or rather longing and yearning desire, to receive each and all of them again into his favour. Even the cross itself would almost seem to—of what is in his heart; of the feeling, so to speak, to which he gives utterance by an oath, when he swears, “As I live, saith the LORD, I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth;” and of the deep, ineffable sincerity of his assurance, that he would rather—how much rather!—that the sinner should turn unto him and live.

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 beneplaciti)—between what his mind, on a consideration of all interests, actually determines, and what his heart, from its very nature, if we may venture the expression, must prefer and wish. The types, or expressions, of these two wills respectively, are to be found in the two texts commonly quoted to illustrate them;—the first, Romans 9:19 : “Who hath resisted his will?” the second, Matthew 23:37 : “How often would I have gathered you, and ye would not!” (See also Psalms 81:13-16, and various other passages.) This latter, as distinguished from the former, denotes the pure complacency with which God approves of a certain result as just and holy in itself, and delights in it, and therefore wills to enjoin it on the creature, as his most bounden duty; and, in enjoining it, cannot but add the assurance of his willing acceptance of it, whensoever, wheresoever, and howsoever realized.

Even in a human agent, some such distinction must be recognised. Knowing his character and his hearty you at once can specify what would be most agreeable and welcome to him, as the scene or spectacle which he would most delight to contemplate. But you must know a great deal more respecting his opinions, and the circumstances with which these come into contact—or, in a word, respecting 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 understand the whole of his procedure. Still, if he were a straightforward man, you would act without hesitation, in any case in which your personal interest was concerned, on what you knew of his heart, although you might have much perplexity in discerning all the views which, in certain difficult cases, entered into the making up of his mind. Thus, to take a familiar instance, 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 pauperism, which involve his conduct in some degree of mystery to the uninitiated, and might give rise to various questions in regard to some parts of his procedure. 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 proceed upon my acquaintance with his acknowledged goodness, and, on the faith of his own express invitations, appeal at once to his generosity and truth for what is needed to meet my case? Evidently, in such a state of matters, I would practically draw the distinction. Knowing my friend’s character, and frankly interpreting his frank assurances to me, and all situated like me—without reference to any inquiries that might he raised respecting his actual treatment of particular cases not, as yet, fully explained to me—I would venture confidently to make my appeal to him, and feel no anxiety as to the issue. So is it with God; his will, as determining what, in every case, is to be the actual result, is an act of his omniscient mind, which he need not explain to us; but his will, as defining what, in every case, would be the result most agreeable and welcome to him, is an inherent part of his nature, and, as it were, a feature of his heart. In the one view, his will is consistent with many being impenitent and lost; in the other, it would have all men everywhere to repent and be saved.

Now, it is into this latter will—this will of the DIVINE HEART—and not into the former, the will of the DIVINE MIND—it is into what God, from his very nature, must and does desire, in reference to lost sinners, and not into what God, for ends and on principles as yet unknown, has decreed—that the cross, as such, considered merely objectively, as presented to the eye, and not subjectively, as experienced and realized in the heart, gives mankind at large, and every individual, if he will but look, a clear, unequivocal, and most satisfying insight. To every individual, believer or not, elect or not, it is a proof and pledge of the Father’s bowels of compassion 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 believes, is it, or can it be, anything more; to none dries it beforehand impart any further insight into the mind and will of God, as a warrant or encouragement to believe. Nor is more needed; for, on the subject of the universality of the gospel offer or call, and its sincerity and good faith on the part of God, as well as its sufficiency as regards men, let the following observations be considered:—

1. To vindicate God in this procedure, and satisfy men, it is enough that these two things be acknowledged and established—first, His right to require and command the sinner’s return to himself; 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 as to the extent or sufficiency of the atonement. It is enough that it is sufficient for all who will avail themselves of it, and through it, 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 permission, but authoritatively, 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, and 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 of the extent or of the sufficiency of the atonement, beyond the assurance that it will suffice for him, if he will make use of it. To raise a question as to what may be its aspect or bearing towards him, while he is yet rejecting it, and to insist on his having this question answered or settled, as a 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 an earnest soul, and really, therefore, 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 it—is but fostering the presumption, and flattering the folly, of unbelief. Let the sovereign authority of God in the gospel call be asserted, and let the sinner 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—and what more has he a right to ask? “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him, and he will show them his covenant.” To believers, accordingly, more insight may be given into the mind and purpose of God. But to let unbelievers imagine that they, while yet in an attitude of rebellion, are entitled to have all things made plain; or that it is 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 unconverted man starts, while continuing in a state of sin, and which would vanish on the instant of his being converted, and so ceasing to sin—is really to bring down the sovereign Jehovah to the rank of a mere petitioner for man’s favour, and the gospel to the level of a kind of bargaining and trafficking with presumptuous offenders. It is, in fact, to place salvation at the mere discretion of sinners—who may condescend 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 trumpet has sometimes, in this respect, given forth too feeble and hesitating a sound, when a higher tone might have been more constraining in its influence on the heart, as well as more cogent and commanding in its appeal to the conscience.

3. But, further, it might be shown, that even if men had more information on the point in question, 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 particular; but it is “the receiving and resting upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation, as he is freely offered in the gospel.” Thus, 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 knowledge or belief of a 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 precise categorical proposition, the exact relation or connection between the death of Christ and men at large, including the non-elect—since, after all, the knowledge of that fact, and the belief of that proposition, would not advance me, by a single footstep, towards that faith which is neither mere knowledge nor bare belief, but a hearty acquiescence in God’s proposals, and acceptance of God’s gift, and reliance on his faithful promises, for all the benefits of salvation, unto everlasting life.

If any deem it worth while to look into the address delivered at the close of the bicentenary meeting, and the portion of it bearing upon this subject, they will see that this is substantially the view there indicated. The object, on that occasion, was, to illustrate the harmony of truth, and to show, in reference to all the complex doctrines of our Confession—how an error, however trivial, in one part of the system, vitiates the whole. The instance selected was Faith, and the view held by those who make faith a simple act of the understanding—the intellectual apprehension and belief of the truth. Now, it was then observed, right or wrong, as a consequence of that view of faith, that it forces us to express in the shape of a definite and exact proposition the relation of Christ’s death to those who are called to believe (i.e., 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 required to believe that Christ died for him; a sense, however, after all, falling far short of that in which the believer does actually, upon his believing, come to apprehend and appropriate Christ. And it was argued, that the more simple view of faith, which seems to be sanctioned by our standards, supersedes the necessity of any such definition, since it makes faith consist, not in the belief of any definite (See Appendix, D.) proposition at all, but in the committing of the soul, and the soul’s interests for eternity, to a divine person. For such a faith, 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 unbelieving, not only has Holy Scripture withheld such information, but even if it were granted, it would avail nothing to understand and admit it. The real belief of the truth is independent of it altogether; and, in fact, for any practical purposes connected with the sinner’s actual return to God, it would be alike impertinent were he to ask, and useless were he to receive it. The reasons of this opinion have now been briefly stated.

Having been reluctantly compelled to enter upon the subject, we almost regret being obliged to leave it, without some further observations, especially with a view to trace the connection between erroneous or imperfect views on the subject of the atonement, and inadequate apprehensions of the divine sovereignty—human depravity and impotency—the work of the Spirit—the origin and nature of saving faith—the perseverance of the saints—their assurance of salvation, and other kindred doctrines. But, for the present, we must abstain. TO THE EDITOR OF “THE FREE CHURCH MAGAZINE”

Edinburgh, January 9, 1845 MY DEAR SIR,—While I cannot think of using your periodical as the vehicle for carrying on any controversy personal to myself, I believe you expect me to furnish one or two papers on some of the topics indicated at the close of my article in your last Number. I would be understood as attempting to discuss, not so much the extent of the atonement, as its nature, fulness, and perfection; together with the sufficiency and certainty of the salvation which is inseparably and infallibly connected with it.—I am yours very truly, ROB. S. CANDLISH