08.03.03. Chapter 3

Chapter 3: The faithfulness of God, in the universal call of the Gospel—Its adapation to the want and desire of the awakened soul 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 explain and establish the consistency of God in the universal call of the gospel; and, on the other, an extreme anxiety to facilitate the sinner’s compliance with that call. The design is, in so far, worthy of commendation, and the motive good—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 altogether be a becoming or safe point of view from which to contemplate the plan of saving mercy; since it almost inevitably leads to our regarding it 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 or truth which is its subject—the fact and truth of redemption. The Bible is not careful to vindicate the ways of God to man, or to make them all so smooth and plain that there shall be no stumbling-block in them for those who will stumble. It represents these ways, indeed, as such, that the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err in them; but it represents them also as such, that they who turn aside may think themselves 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 due to him. It stands much on God’s high prerogative—his irresistible power and unquestionable sovereignty; and though it does leave men really without excuse before God, it does not leave them without excuses to themselves. This, indeed, is one chief evidence of the divine authority of the Bible, as well as of the 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 Him—it maintains so lofty and uncompromising a tone of loyalty and allegiance to God, and shows so much more anxiety to silence and subdue man, than (at least beforehand) 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 he 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.” The whole strain of the divine Word, and especially of the glorious gospel of our Lord Jesus, is to this effect. “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 Corinthians 1:18-24)

It were well if, in this respect, the disciple did not seek to be above his Master. Let the ambassadors and messengers of the King leave it to himself to vindicate his own ways to all to whom he cares to vindicate them (Matthew 12:25); and let them take to themselves the humbler function of handing over inquirers to Him for satisfaction, instead of offering to make all that concerns him plain to them—even before they are in the attitude of Mary, sitting at his feet, and hearing his word. This humiliation on the part of his ministers is their best credential; 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 relaxation, which some propose, of the strict and stern Calvinism of our evangelical divines. The first relates to God, and the supposed necessity of vindicating his sincerity and good faith, in connection with the universality of the gospel offer. Now, without dwelling on the obvious consideration that this whole matter might be left to God himself; inasmuch as we may most emphatically and unequivocally assure all sinners, without exception, that none ever put him to the proof, by accepting, or desiring to accept, his offer, and found him fail—and none ever will;—let it be asked, What is the actual import of the expedient proposed for this end?

It is obvious, in the first place, that it merely shifts the difficulty. In fact, of all theories the most inconsistent is that of a universal atonement, or an atonement with a “general reference” to all mankind, 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 salvation 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, until the doctrine even of a special purpose and special grace in the application of the remedy is abandoned, as well as that of a limited design in the work itself. Nay, rightly followed out, it 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, of universal pardon, or the universal salvation of all mankind. Certainly, the middle stage, or intermediate 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 extensive 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 easy to explain the universal offer of salvation on the footing of a general atonement, with a particular purpose of application—than the universal offer of salvation as connected with an atonement, from its very nature and efficacy restricted indeed, but, on that very account, and by that very restriction, securing the salvation offered, and rendering it certain, to all who are made willing to receive it? For the real question here 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 perplexity, to be introduced between the work of Christ purchasing redemption, and the work of the Spirit applying it? With all deference, this seems the worst of all niches in which to hide it; for thus situated, it dishonours either the Spirit’s work or Christ’s—the Spirit’s, if we ask, Why should not that blessed agent give more wide and universal effect to the general atonement of Christ?—or Christ’s, 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, for all, the needful supplement of the gift of the Spirit? The truth is, there are but two consistent landing-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 these works; the other at a point subsequent and posterior to both. Or, in other words, the reason of this limitation must be sought, either in the purpose of God’s will, going before both the work of Christ 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 restricting what God has left general. This is the real alternative; and this is the danger to be apprehended from any attempt to shift the difficulty from the former position, that it almost infallibly leads, sooner or later, to an adoption of the latter. Then we have a general love of the Father, a general work of the Son, and a general influence 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 Father, as the source, alike, and the limit, of the whole plan; and to make both the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit commensurate with that will, which they exactly fulfil? 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 good 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? (See Appendix F.)

But, secondly, this is not all. For, in our anxiety to avoid a supposed appearance of insincerity, on the part of God, in one direction, there is danger of incurring 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 and surety, in fulfilling all their obligations, and undertaking and meeting all their liabilities, under the law?—such a substitution as insures that, in consequence of it, they, by a legal right, and in terms of the law which he, being constituted their covenant head, magnified and made honourable, are now free from blame, and being justified, are invested with a title to life, and everlastingly saved? This is what was presented to them, and pressed on their acceptance, before they believed. It was for this that they believed; and it was this which, on believing, they obtained—Christ, namely, not as standing in a vague and undefined relation to all men, but Christ, as standing in a special relation to them, as their substitute, who took their place under the law, and so was made sin for them, that their condemnation thereafter would have been, and would be, unrighteous and impossible. Let the passages of Scripture be fairly weighed which describe what Christ is to his people (such passages as these: Ephesians 1:7; Romans 8:1; Colossians 2:10; Galatians 3:13; 2 Corinthians 5:21, and innumerable other texts of the same general class), and then, let it be asked, In what character is he set forth and offered to sinners of mankind generally and universally, and 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—the character of a real and actual substitute in their room and stead? Is this an honest offer—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 proposal, 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 a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, even the chief”—to save them, by the actual substitution of himself in their stead, 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. In regard, again, to the second reason which weighs with some who object to any limitation or restriction of the plan of saving mercy, or at least, to such limitation and restriction as is implied in the doctrine, that the whole work of Christ was undertaken and accomplished for those actually and ultimately saved, and for them alone—the supposed necessity of 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 some practical considerations which may serve to show the danger of such an experiment. There is one, however, in particular, on which it appears important to enlarge. It is this—that the train of thought, or habit of mind which this objection either indicates or fosters, seems to have an important bearing on the whole question of what it is that makes man accountable, and renders his condemnation just. In fact, it is very apt to derange or vitiate very seriously that most delicate of all the parts of our moral and spiritual frame—the sense or feeling of responsibility; and to countenance the impression which sinners are prone enough otherwise to take up, that, except upon a certain understanding, and certain conditions fitted to meet their own views, they ought not to be held, and cannot fairly be held, accountable before God at all. This impression operates in various forms and degrees among men. In its worst extreme, it becomes the plea of Infidelity itself, leading to a denial of all accountability, properly so called, and all retributive justice or penal judgment. “I am so framed, and so situated,” says the Infidel, “that I have no fair chance, or fair play, in this mighty moral warfare, 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 contending with any hope 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 his own consciousness and his own conscience?—his consciousness, as testifying that he sins wilfully—his conscience, as registering, even in spite of all his sophistry, the just sentence of condemnation. The same tendency is seen among many, who, stopping short of absolute Infidelity, have, nevertheless, but very vague and inadequate apprehensions of the principles and sanctions of the divine government. They take, as they say, a rational and moderate view of human nature and human life, and look with an indulgent eye, as they allege the great Creator himself must do, on a race of frail and fallible mortals, who could scarcely be expected to be much better than they are, and who may, in all good sense and good feeling, claim a certain measure of forbearance. They regard the sins, and follies, and crimes of men as misfortunes, rather than faults, and look on offenders as deserving rather to be pitied than to be blamed.

Now, we cannot help thinking that there is something of a similar tendency in the idea which we are 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 application to them, and so to 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 responsibility must be intelligent as well as conscientious; but 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 reasonable; or, in other words, that there is no reason against, but every reason for it. These preliminaries being settled, the understanding inquires no further, but at once hands the affair over to the department of the conscience, and lays the imperative and indispensable obligation upon 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, that is, either regarding the purpose of God’s will, or regarding the power of man’s. Leave the burden of responsibility here, and all is safe. But it is most dangerous to give the slightest countenance 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 element or condition into this vital principle, or great fact, of accountability; or 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 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 awakened sinner’s conscience, by the insight given him into the excellency and spirituality 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 experimental conviction, that he is himself so carnal, and so sold tinder sin, that he cannot do the things which he would—unless, indeed, it be, that its bitterness is not alleviated, but aggravated, by the melancholy discovery. (See Romans 7:7-25) And so, also, in dealing with the gospel, the condemnation of unbelief, as a sin, rests altogether on the right which God has to demand the sinner’s return to himself, and the reasonableness of that demand, arising out of the full and sufficient warrant with which he has furnished the sinner, and the evidence and assurance which he has given of his gracious willingness to receive him. And conviction of this sin of unbelief is wrought by the Holy Ghost, simply by his manifesting to the conscience the enormous impiety, infatuation, and ingratitude, which, in its very nature, unbelief involves, apart altogether from every other consideration, either as to the design of God in the gospel which it rejects, or as to the utter helplessness and impotency of man’s will in rejecting it. On this subject a very confident appeal may be made to the experience of every deeply exercised soul. When the Spirit has been convincing you at any time of sin, because you believed not in Jesus (or believed not Jesus, for it is the same thing—John 16:9), 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 will; or was it not rather wholly concerned with the just authority of his government, as asserted in the gospel you had been disbelieving, and the infinite perfection of his character, as there so gloriously and attractively displayed? Or did you raise any question as to your own power of will to believe, or your possession 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 impression, moreover, that so far from being due to you, all help from above may be most justly withheld—only increases your distress; and that, not in the way of transferring this inability to believe, out of the category of a sin, to be condemned, into that of a misfortune, to be complained of and deplored, but in the way of fastening down upon you, with even a deeper acknowledgment than ever of God’s perfect equity, and your own inexcusable demerit and guilt, the sentence of judgment for the 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 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 operation 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 the constitution of man, is fitted to make. For the danger is, lest you thus substitute responsibility, for continuing, under certain circumstances, in the state of unbelief, instead of responsibility for the sin of unbelief itself, and so, in point of fact, change the character of the responsibility altogether. For you almost inevitably lead the sinner to think, that but for the information which he obtains respecting God’s grace, in the work of Christ, embracing all, and being common to all, himself among the number, he would be scarcely, or, at any rate, far less to be blamed, for not submitting and returning to God. And the next step is, that he considers himself entitled to insist on a knowledge of the purpose of God’s will, and a removal of the impotency of his own, as necessary conditions of his accountability; which, in fact, 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 consequence of this supposed universal and unlimited grace. Now, the universality of the gospel offer, is an aggravation of the sin of unbelief, which it is important to take into account; or, rather, not properly an aggravation, but an essential ingredient in its criminality; for it is that which establishes the perfect reasonableness of what is required of the sinner, and so 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 so conduce to a state of mind the most difficult, perhaps, of all its morbid experiences to be dealt with—the state, namely, 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 complaining, in doleful accents, that he cannot believe, 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 explanations, and to wish even that the obnoxious dogma were got rid of altogether. But alas! however far 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 promise of the Spirit, he cannot believe. But let him cease to be a patient—to be soothed and sympathized with, and be viewed as a criminal—to be placed at the bar of that great God whose word of truth he is belying, whose authority he is defying, whose love he is refusing; then, in the Spirit’s hands, he begins to feel what true responsibility is, and to be convinced of sin, because he believes not on Jesus. And then, as 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, according 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 inexcusable guilt, fastens and rivets it more firmly in his inmost soul. In such an attitude, the Word of God, in the proclamation of the gospel, finds him little disposed to ask questions or raise difficulties, but rather ready, with all the simplicity of the early converts to Christianity—with whom this whole doctrine of sovereign and free grace was less an affair of the head, and more of the heart, than with us—to receive the Father’s testimony concerning his Son, and, led by the Spirit, to return through the Son to the Father.

Other observations occur, bearing on this subject, and leading again into that train of reasoning, which was left unfinished in the former article. But this apparent digression has so swelled out, that both the time and the space at present available are exhausted. One remark, only, in closing, may be allowed; and it is this: that what seems chiefly to be deprecated in some of the views we are opposing, is their tendency to affect the doctrine of conversion or regeneration, and to convey the impression, that the understanding and belief of the truth of God, is an act to which a natural man is altogether, or at least partially, competent. This, however, would require fuller illustration than can now be given; and it may afterwards occur to be considered.