08.03.11. Note A—Page 2

Note A—Page 2

Extract from Bicentenary Address—Consistency of Creeds—Difference Between such as Preceded and such as Followed the Reformation. THE following is the passage in the Bicentenary Address which gave occasion, in the manner now explained, to these papers. I insert it with some satisfaction, inasmuch as, on reviewing it, after an interval, and upon a fuller consideration of the subject, I am not disposed to recognise any such serious error or defect of statement, as could fairly warrant the use said to be made of it, in support of the notion of a general or universal atonement. I still think that an inadequate view of the nature of saving faith lies at the root of much of the crude heresy that has been vented in regard to this department of theology. The naked intellectual view of faith, as I have endeavoured to explain in one of the chapters of this work, may possibly be held, isolated from what seem to be its legitimate consequences; and may seem to simplify the plan of salvation. I believe it may have been thus held by such men as the late Dr Stewart of the Canongate. (See his Treatise on Faith, republished by Dr John Brown.) But I have a strong impression that it was this theory of faith, ingeniously defended, that led, first, To the devising of a sense in which Christ might be regarded as having died for all, while, really, he died as the substitute of the elect only; secondly, To the idea of his death being, in its own nature, equally for all, though limited, in its application, by the purpose of God, and the necessity of the work of the Spirit; and, thirdly, To the notion of its being designed for all; and of its depending on the free will of man, under the common influence of the Spirit, to render it effectual. The only points on which, in reprinting this extract, I would now wish to guard myself, are these two:—first, As to the use of such phraseology as, “a certain reference to all men universally,”—I would now be more cautious, knowing more than I did then of its current value in recent controversy; and, secondly, I would explain more fully than I did then, as I have attempted to do in these papers, the sense in which this “reference” can be said to “lay the foundation for the universal offer of the gospel.” I am disposed to rest the universal offer on the mere command of God; connecting it with the atonement in no other way than as the atonement manifests the good-will of God to men generally, and is a pledge to every man, individually, of his being saved, in Christ, if he will but believe.

I have prolonged the extract, for the sake of a view contained in it, which I would delight to have an opportunity and the means of expanding and illustrating—that of the contrast between the creeds that preceded, and the confessions that followed, the Reformation:—

“The usual objection made to the use of human standards, creeds, and confessions, in connection with the unity of the Church, is, that creeds and confessions embrace so wide a field, and contain so many minute statements of doctrine, that it is impossible to expect a hearty and unanimous concurrence in these various points on the part of all true believers. Now, suffice it to say, in the first place, in answer to these objections, that as these standards are intended to shut out error, so it must be borne in mind that, in proportion to the consistency and harmony of the truth of God, is the all-pervading subtlety of the errors of Satan. The truth of God is perfectly harmonious, and is one complete whole. All the parts of it fit into one another, and are mutually dependent upon each other; and as this edifice, so reared by God, is complete and compact in all its parts, so the subtle influence of Satan is often applied to the undermining of one part of the building, in the knowledge that if he should succeed, he can scarcely fail to effect the destruction of all the rest. We might illustrate this by showing how error, in what at first sight may appear an unimportant point, ruins the whole system, and essentially affects the whole doctrines of the gospel. It may seem, for instance, that the dispute regarding the precise nature of saving faith is a comparatively unimportant point, and one on which Christian men may afford to differ; and yet an error on this point might easily be shown to affect the doctrines of God’s sovereignty, of human depravity, the extent and nature of the atonement, and justification by faith alone. We might show, for example, that those who make justification by faith to consist in the belief of the fact that they are pardoned—who maintain that a man must believe that Christ died personally for him as an individual—are compelled necessarily to adopt a mode of statement in regard to the bearing of Christ’s death upon all men indiscriminately, and particularly upon the lost, which strikes at the root of the doctrine of personal substitution altogether, and makes it difficult, if not impossible, to believe that Christ actually suffered in the very room and stead of guilty sinners themselves. According to the admirable definition of faith in the Shorter Catechism, in which it is described as “a saving grace, whereby we receive and rest upon Jesus Christ alone for salvation,” it is unnecessary to define the precise relation which the death of Christ has to mankind universally, and its precise bearing on the condition of the finally impenitent and the lost; for that the death of Christ has a certain reference to all men universally—that it has a certain bearing even upon the lost—we must hold and maintain; because we maintain that it lays the foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men universally, and lays the foundation for that offer being perfectly honest and free on the part of God. This could not be without some sort of relation existing between the death of Christ, and every impenitent and unbelieving man who is called to receive the gospel. What may be the nature of that relation—what may be the precise bearing of Christ’s death on every individual of the lost, we presume not to define. And we say that it is unnecessary to define it; for we do not ask the sinner to believe in the precise definition of that relation respecting himself. We say that even if the sinner could put into articulate language his theory of the precise bearing of the death of Christ on himself, and his belief in it, he would still be an unreconciled sinner, unless lie closed with the offer of the gift of God. This relieves and exempts us from the necessity of prying too curiously into the relation between Christ’s death and impenitent and unbelieving sinners, to whom God has made a free, and unconditional, and honest offer of the blessings of reconciliation. According to the view of faith laid down in the Shorter Catechism—which makes faith virtually to consist in closing with God’s gift—we are exempted from the necessity of stating, in the form of a proposition, what is the precise relation between the death of Christ and all mankind; and so we are left free to maintain that while, in a certain sense, unknown to us, but the effect of which is well known to us, namely, that it constitutes the foundation for a free offer of the gospel—while, in a certain sense, Christ’s death has a bearing on the condition of the lost and impenitent, yet, in a strict sense, he was really, truly, and personally, a substitute in the room of the elect, and in the room of the elect only. On the other hand, if I hold the doctrine that faith is the belief of a certain fact, concerning Christ’s death and my interest in it—that it is mere belief of a certain definite proposition, such as that Christ died for me—I am compelled to make out a proposition concerning Christ’s death, which shall hold true equally of believers and unbelievers, the reprobate and the saved; which proposition I am to believe, simply as a matter of fact, necessarily true, whether I believe it or not. But how is this to be done? I am to believe that Christ died for me, and I must believe this in a sense which shall be true independently of my belief—winch shall be equally true of me whether I am saved or lost. Does not this compel me to make Christ’s dying for me, though I should be one of the chosen, amount really to nothing more than what is implied in his dying for the finally reprobate? Accordingly, it is to be observed, that those who take this view of saving faith carefully avoid the use of any language respecting the atonement which would involve the notion of personal substitution. They do not like to speak of Christ being put actually in the room of sinners, considered as personally liable to wrath. They use a variety of abstract and impersonal phrases—such as, Christ’s dying for sin—his death being a scheme for removing obstacles to pardon—manifesting God’s character—and other expressions, all studiously general and indefinite, and evading the distinct and articulate statement of Christ’s death as a substitute in the very room and stead of guilty sinners themselves. We might extend our illustrations, and show how the scheme of the sovereign mercy of God—the entire, total, helpless corruption of man—the utter impotency of man’s will—the perfection of God’s righteousness—the freeness of God’s grace—the simplicity and child-like nature of faith—how all these things are intimately associated together, so that unsoundness in one runs through all; and, indeed, we may say of every error, that, if traced to its ultimate source, it will be found to take its rise in a denial of the doctrine which is the leading characteristic of the Westminster Standards—the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God.

“There is another remark which it occurs to me to make on this point, and it is one peculiarly referring to the composition of the Westminster Standards. It is this, that we may be reconciled to the minute and systematic form of the Westminster Confession, if we observe the marked distinction that exists between the composition of the Protestant Standards and those articles of faith that were framed before the Reformation. One mark of distinction may be mentioned in a single phrase—that the creeds before the Reformation were framed when the Church was on her way to the cell of the monk, while the creeds since the Reformation were framed when the Church was on her way out of the monk’s cell. The creeds and confessions of the Church before the Reformation were framed in the spirit of a Church which was making rapid progress towards this as the highest possible attainment—the asceticism of the monkish state—a morbid, laborious, and painful system of self-righteousness; whereas, on the other hand, the glory of the Reformation, and the leading excellence of the creeds of the Reformation, was, that all were framed in the spirit of a Church taking a start, as it were, from the dark cell of that deep spiritual distress and sore conflict of soul through which the disenthralled spirit of Luther was enabled to escape from the trammels of self-righteousness, and to lay hold of the righteousness of God. In the creeds before the Reformation, such as the Apostles’, the Nicene, and the Athanasian creeds, we find the Church drawn to frame articles respecting abstruse, difficult, and sacred mysteries, and the incomprehensible doctrine of the divine nature, at a time when she was losing hold of the practical doctrine of the sinner being accepted as righteous before God, through no works of his own, but only through his faith in the work of God; and we might say in reference to this, as our Lord said to Nicodemus: “If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?” (John 3:12) They pried into the secrets of heaven; they attempted to penetrate into the mysterious being of the unsearchable God; at the very time when they were setting their hearts upon a righteousness of their own, in open defiance of the righteousness of God, in the matter of their own personal justification, which might and should have been within the cognizance of their personal experience on earth. This will probably explain the abstract, mystical, cold and unimpressive character of the creeds that were drawn up before the Reformation. On the other hand, Luther, making his escape from the deep experience of a soul convinced of its own utter impotency before God—Luther making his escape from his experience of legal convictions of sin—Luther rejoicing in the light of God’s reconciled countenance—Luther rejoicing in the righteousness of God his Saviour—carried this spirit of life, and love, and liberty, into all the confessions that were subsequently framed; and all these confessions, accordingly, however minute and detailed, will be found to be no technical and scholastic exercise in abstract and abstruse, theories of theology, but the consistent unfolding of the one practical and experimental scheme of the sinner’s acceptance, by sovereign grace in perfect righteousness, through a simple and saving faith.

“These remarks may be regarded as suggesting a reason for, and reconciling us to, the minuteness and complication of character of the confessions of Protestant Churches, and especially of the Westminster Standards. But we have one answer to make of a practical character, and it is to this effect—that amidst all the varieties of mind and opinion of the Westminster Assembly, there was an entire unanimity as to the system of doctrine; thus affording the strongest of all proofs that it is quite possible for Christian men, by prayer and consultation together, to come to an agreement, not only on the broad general principles, but even on the details of the Christian system, so that they may be of one mind and heart, not only on certain general propositions, but on the whole tenor of their confessions.”