08.03.02. Chapter 2
Chapter 2: The Sufficiency of the Atonement for all that believe—Its adaptation to the want and desire of the awakend soul
IT may be necessary to recapitulate some of the points brought out in the former paper; and, accordingly, the following propositions may be taken as embodying the substance of the statements then made, respecting the bearing of Christ’s work, or rather of the publication of it, on the world at large. For it is to be observed that, let the design and efficacy of the work itself be ever so definite, the publication of it, being confessedly indefinite, cannot but affect materially the condition of all to whom it is made, as regards both their present duty and their ultimate responsibility. To say, as some do, that the atonement, if held to have been undertaken for a certain number, cannot be a demonstration of love to all, is to confound the secret with the revealed will of God. Were the parties, whether few or many, for whom it is undertaken, named in the proclamation of it, it could not be a demonstration of good-will to mankind generally, or to sinners indiscriminately, as such. But, since what is revealed is simply the way of acceptance, or the principle on which God acts in justifying the ungodly, it seems plain, that to whomsoever such a revelation comes, with names and numbers suppressed, it is, in its very nature, a revelation of love. Let it be granted that Christ’s work, like Christ himself, is set forth “for judgment,” for “the fall and rising again of many in Israel,” for “a savour of life or of death;” and let it be granted, also, that the names and numbers of those to whom it is to be the one or the other respectively, are fixed, in the very undertaking and accomplishment of the work; still, to each individual to whom it is presented, with the alternative announcement that it will certainly be to him either life or death, and with that alone, it necessarily must be a manifestation of grace. Any question that may be raised as to the divine rectitude and faithfulness in such a procedure, is really no other than the great and insoluble question, as to the combination of the divine will with the human, or the divine agency with that of man, in any work whatsoever. This difficulty remains on any supposition; and certainly, on the hypothesis of a general and universal design or intention in the atonement itself, coupled with a limited and special design in the application of it, or in the work of the Spirit making it effectual, the difficulty is not less than on the most rigid Calvinistic theory. No system but that of universal pardon, or universal salvation, cuts the knot; and no system admitting special grace, even approaches a solution of it. The truth is, we attempt what is presumptuous and vain, when we seek to vindicate the consistency and sincerity of God in the gospel call, by going beyond the assurance, that whosoever will put him to the proof, will find him faithful. But, to return to the propositions in which the substance of the former paper may be embodied, they are these:—
1. The present dispensation of long-suffering patience towards the world at large, seems to stand connected with the work of Christ. That dispensation of forbearance is subservient to the dispensation of grace, and preparatory to the dispensation of judgment; and it is the fruit of Christ’s mediation.
2. To all alike, the work of Christ is a manifestation of the divine character, as well as of the divine manner of dealing with sinners of mankind.
3. To all alike, it is a proof and pledge of the desire, if we may so speak, subsisting in the divine heart—a desire involved in the very nature of God, as originating such a plan of salvation at all, whatever, on grounds and reasons unknown to us, his decree, as to its actual issue or result, may be—to see every sinner return to himself, and to welcome every one so returning.
4. To every individual it brings home the divine claim of sovereign and supreme authority. It is an appeal to conscience. Whether the sinner is to be satisfied, on all points, or not, before believing, the gospel proceeds on the principle that God has a right to demand submission and allegiance to himself; and that conscience must recognise that right.
5. To every one who hears the gospel, assurance is given of the full and infinite sufficiency of Christ’s work for any, and for all, who will come unto him. The dignity of his person, the merit of his obedience, and the value of his death, as a propitiation, secure this.
6. Saving faith—not being the mere belief of any definite propositions, far less of any that are indefinite, but union with a person, and reliance on a person, even Christ—requires nothing beforehand as the ground and warrant of its exercise, beyond the apprehension of these two precise and unequivocal truths:—1. That God is entitled to command the sinner’s return to himself; and, 2. That the sinner, returning, is sure of a sufficient salvation. No additional information is necessary; nor would it be of any use.
We request the readers of this paper to peruse again, along with the above summary, the whole of our former article. And now, leaving, in the meantime, the view of the subject which has been first forced upon us, we shall endeavour to present it in a somewhat different light.
It may be useful, in such a case, to apply a kind of practical and experimental test, of which this question seems very particularly to admit. For, we are deeply and solemnly persuaded, that the instant we begin to conceive of Christ’s work, as undertaken and accomplished for any but those actually saved, under whatever vague phraseology of a general reference, or general relations, this may be done, we altogether change the nature and character of that work, so that it ceases to be a work of substitution, properly so called, at all—we subvert the whole doctrine of imputation, whether of the individual sinner’s guilt to Christ, or of Christ’s righteousness to him—we materially modify the principle on which faith is held to justify and save us, making it not the instrument of vital union to Christ, but a work, or condition, supplementary to his work—we insensibly incline to an inadequate feeling of the utter impotency, and just condemnation of the sinner; and, above all, we sadly detract from the completeness and certainty of the salvation that is in Christ. It is chiefly on this last aspect of the subject that our observations are at present to be made.
And, in this view, we remark, that the practical value or importance of this doctrine, respecting the work of Christ, as undertaken for those only, in regard to whom it is finally and savingly effectual, may be illustrated by tracing the progress of an awakened soul towards assurance; from the first feeling of desiderium, or the apprehension which such a soul has of what it really needs—through the successive stages of its “first love,” or fresh and childlike simplicity of faith—its subsequent trials and difficulties, even verging on despair—and its matured and experimental confidence—onwards and upwards to that infallible certainty of hope which maketh not ashamed. This progress, accordingly, it may be interesting to attempt to trace, at least in its commencing stage.
Let it be considered, then, what it is that the awakened soul really needs, and feels itself to need—what is its desiderium? And here, without hesitation, we reply, that what such a soul desiderates, is not a general or universal redemption, which must necessarily be contingent and doubtful—but one that is particular, and therefore certain. On this point we appeal to the experience, not only of those who are converted, but of all who have ever been conscious; or who now are conscious, of any inward movements at all, tending in the direction of conversion. Were you ever aware of any spiritual awakening in your consciences and hearts, without the instinctive conviction, that, as regarded both the end to be attained and the method of attaining it, what you needed—what alone you cared for, and could no longer do without—was not an interest in some kind of general deliverance, or some bare chance and opportunity of deliverance, common to all, but an interest in a real and actual salvation, such as, you feel, must be peculiar to God’s own people? “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance.” (Psalms 106:4-5) The very anxieties and perplexities of an awakened soul turn upon this particular sense of need. In fact, there are but two ways in which, otherwise, the sinner’s case, when at all realized, can be met—the one leaning to the Popish, the other to the Pelagian, error—yet both of them proceeding on the same idea of the divine work of redemption being left to be supplemented, whether as to its accomplishment or as to its application, by a priestly ministry, in the hands of the Church, or by some effort of spontaneous will, or some attainment of righteousness, on the part of the individual. For both of these systems agree in this, that they make the plan of salvation contingent and conditional; they would have it to be a sort of panacea, or universal medicine, to be in the possession, under the control, and at the disposal, either of the Church and priesthood, as dispensers of it, or of all and sundry, as qualified to administer it to themselves. The balm that is in Gilead is thus to be taken and used, apart from the Physician that is there. The remedy proposed being, in itself, of general, nay, of universal, applicability, inasmuch as it is fitted for every form and every measure of disease, is to be distributed and rendered actually effectual, either on the principle of a close spiritual corporation and ecclesiastical monopoly, the Church being recognised as having the sole key of this divine dispensary; or on the principle, or the hap-hazard, of absolute free trade, every man being left to be his own mediciner. Thus, it is but one great gigantic error, at bottom, which raises itself against the truth of God; whether it be the priesthood, with its mystical and sacramental charms—or the individual will of fallen man, with its supposed freedom, power, and ability of choice—that is regarded as dealing with the divinely ordained and divinely accomplished salvation, so as to affect, or to determine, or in any way to regulate, its particular application. It is the grand question, Whether I am to possess God’s salvation, or God’s salvation is to possess me? whether I am to have God in my power and at my disposal, or God is to have me? whether the Creator is to place himself under the control of the creature, or the creature is to submit to the Creator? whether man is to make use of God, or God is to reign over man?—(Galatians 4:9) For to this it must ultimately come; as every awakened sinner feels, whether he may be able to put his feeling into any definite expression or not. For, as the process of earnest thought and deep exercise of soul in the things of God goes on, the systems and forms of religion, which once appeared sufficient, whether more or less ecclesiastical, or more or less rationalistic, become wholly unsatisfactory and distasteful. Once, it might not be difficult for the sinner to content himself with a Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian notion of his being at liberty, and having power, to use the promises of the gospel as a remedy for the disorders of his nature and the ills of life, and to mould his character according to its precepts. Or, he might graft on this notion some Popish, or semi-Popish confidence in the Church’s ritual and observances. And so he might have a fair-weather religion, with not a little apparent fervour, and with not a little fruit, which looked well enough, and served his purpose well enough, while his sky was clear and his heart was whole. But when experience of another kind comes—when he sees the wind boisterous, and is afraid, and begins to sink—ah! then, it is not his laying hold of Christ, with his own withered arm, or through the Church’s treacherous mediation, that will save him; but his being powerfully caught and laid hold of by Christ himself; and he feels this when he cries, “Lord, save me, I perish;” and immediately Jesus stretches forth his hand to catch him, saying, “O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?”—(See also Php 3:12.)
Now, a sinner thus apprehended, does not find his case at all met, or the desideratum or felt want of his soul supplied, or its desiderium or longing desire satisfied, by either of the two contrivances, which they, who would be wiser than God, and would have a simpler gospel than that of Christ, are apt to propose; as either—first, By any extension of the plan of salvation, so as to make it comprehend and embrace others besides the individuals actually saved; or, secondly, By an exaggeration of the power and ability of individual sinners, at their own discretion, to avail themselves of the remedy provided. For these are the two expedients, the Arminian and the Pelagian, invented by human wisdom, to meet this case.
For, as to the first—with which, in this inquiry, we are chiefly concerned—tell such a one of a universal redemption—an atonement or propitiation made for all—a pardon or life purchased for all—and ask him, Is it this that you want? is it this that you feel yourself urgently and indispensably and immediately to need? It is true that, in a certain stage of his experience, this doctrine of an unlimited atonement may seem to remove a difficulty, as to the earnest cordiality of the call or invitation on the part of God, and the warrant for compliance with it on the part of the sinner; and thus, it may contribute, in his apprehension, to facilitate the decisive step, or, as it were, the leap, not indeed in the dark, but yet at a venture, and in faith, by which he is to pass over the great gulf, and effect his clear and unequivocal transition from a state of nature to a state of grace. Such is the purpose which this notion seems to serve, in the system of those, who, being better preachers, as we are apt to think, than theologians—(and what can he higher praise, as applicable to a Church like that of the Wesleyan Methodists, forced into existence and energy by a universal deadness, and having time for nothing but instant and reviving action?)—unite with the doctrine of a universal atonement or general redemption, those other doctrines, of particular personal election, on the one hand, and individual regeneration, in order to faith, and in believing, on the other.
Put it to such a sinner, whose conscience within him being thus quickened, and undergoing the pangs of the new birth, is scarcely pacified, and with difficulty made to rest. Do you look to Jesus, and believe on him, or long to believe on him, for no more special and specific blessings than what are common to all for whom you imagine that he died? Is it for nothing more sure and certain—more complete and full—in the way of salvation, that you seek an interest in Christ, and venture timidly and fearfully to hope that you have obtained, at least, as it were, a first instalment, or infeftment and investiture in it? Ah, no! he will reply. For such a redemption, common to me with the lost and damned, it were little worth my while to believe in Jesus. If I am to believe in him at all, it must be for a great deal more than this. Nor will it be of any avail here to introduce the scheme of a double sense, as if the belief that Christ died for me, in some sense in which he equally died for the traitor Judas, could at all help me to believe in him, as dying to make such propitiation for sin, and purchase such a salvation, as must, confessedly, be restricted to them that are “chosen, and called, and faithful.” Universal redemption, universal atonement, universal pardon, are ideas or words that may seem to make the sinner’s appropriation of Christ to himself, and his use of Christ for all the purposes of his own spiritual life, a very easy and simple thing. But if you exclude universal salvation, this apparent facility becomes merely imaginary and delusive; for still, what is needed is the appropriation of Christ, not as standing in a relation, and doing a work, common to all, the lost as well as the saved, but as standing in a relation, and doing a work, peculiar to them that believe. The really awakened and enlightened soul will scarcely be manœuvred into peace by any such ambidextrous juggle or ambiguity as this. Ask such a one what he needs, what he wants, what he now feels that he cannot dispense with, or do without? He will tell you that it is not a redemption consistent with his being after all cast into hell, but a redemption real and actual, full, finished, and perfect, infallibly certain, and irrevocably secure. Nay, but you say to him, this redemption with which you have to do, is, in one view, common to all, and, in another, peculiar to those actually saved; and it is the former general aspect of it that you are first to take in, with a view to your apprehending the other, which is more special. But what is it that makes the difference, I ask—that translates me from the position of one generally interested, according to some vague and undefined sense, along with mankind at large, in the redemption purchased by Christ, to that of one specially and actually redeemed? My acceptance of the redemption, you reply. But of what redemption? It cannot be my acceptance of real and complete redemption; for what is presented to me as the object of my faith—as that which I am to believe—is the fact of a general redemption, common to me with Judas. It must be, therefore, my acceptance of something which, as it is presented to my acceptance, is very far short of complete redemption, and is made up to what is needed by my act in accepting it. Ah! then, after all, it is a salvation by works, at least in part—a salvation only partially accomplished by Christ, to be supplemented by those to whom it is offered; conditional, therefore, and contingent on something on the part of the sinner, call it faith or what you will, that is to be not merely the hand laying hold of a finished work, but an additional stroke needed to finish it.—(Galatians 2:1-21) Nor does it help the matter to tell me that this also is the work of God—this faith being wrought in me by the Holy Ghost. Still it is a different work from that of Christ, and must be associated with it, not in the way of appropriating, but in the way of supplementing, it. For, in this view, the work of the Spirit must become necessarily objective, along with the work of Christ, instead of being merely subjective; and the Spirit must speak of himself, as well as testify of Christ. He must reveal to me, as the ground and warrant of my confidence, not merely the work of Christ, but his own work in addition. For as, on this supposition, the work of Christ purchases nothing more than salvability for all, and it is the work of the Spirit which turns that common salvability into actual salvation, what I am to believe in for salvation is not the work of Christ alone, but, conjointly, Christ’s work for sinners generally, and the Spirit’s work in me individually. Hence a looking to inward signs, and leaning on inward experience; a walking, in short, by sense, rather than by faith. For this is the worst effect of the notion of which we are speaking, namely, that of the atonement being general and universal, connected with a strict view of regeneration, or of faith being the gift and work of the Holy Ghost. It almost necessarily leads those who hold it to place the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit on the same footing, as making up between them the ground, and warrant, and foundation of confidence; so that the sinner is to look to, and rest on, not Christ’s work alone, but his and the Spirit’s together. But it is a great scriptural truth that, in the exercise of saving faith, Christ’s work alone is objective, and the Spirit’s wholly subjective; or, in other words, that while the Spirit is the author of faith, Christ is its only object. And if so, it must be Christ, as securing, by his death, a full, finished, complete, and everlasting salvation.
It is for this, and nothing short of this, that the awakened and enlightened sinner cares to believe in Christ at all. He longs to appropriate Christ. But it is Christ as not a possible, but an actual Saviour, that he does long to appropriate; Christ as having purchased a complete salvation; a salvation complete and sure, irrespective of his own act of appropriating it, or of the work of the Spirit by which he is persuaded and enabled to do so. True it is that he may experience difficulty in thus appropriating Christ and his salvation; he may have scruples, and doubts, and misgivings manifold, in bringing himself to realize anything like a personal interest in the love and the death of Jesus. But will it meet his case to widen to the very utmost the extent of Christ’s work, and to represent it as designed and intended, undertaken and accomplished, for all, even the lost? Do you not, in proportion as you thus widen its extent, limit and diminish its real efficacy, and in consequence, also, the actual amount of benefit implied in it? You say to the broken-hearted anxious inquirer, that he may appropriate this redemption as a redemption purchased for all. Ah I then, it becomes a redemption scarcely worth the appropriating. Nay, you rejoin, it is very precious; for, when accompanied by the work of the Holy Ghost, it becomes a great deal more than redemption common to all; it becomes redemption special and peculiar to the saved. Be it so. But do you not thus instantly set the inquiring sinner on putting the two works—that of Christ and that of the Holy Ghost—together, as constituting together the ground of his hope?—whereas the Spirit himself would not have his own work to be, in any degree or in any sense, either the object, or the ground, or reason, or warrant, of faith at all, but only and exclusively the finished work and sure word of Christ. The truth is, what is needed to meet such a case, is a complete salvation freely offered. The difficulty in question, so far as it is to be overcome by argument or reason at all, or by considerations addressed to the understanding, is to be got over by pressing the peremptory gospel call to believe, and the positive gospel assurance, of a cordial welcome to all that will believe. That call and that assurance are universal, unrestricted, unreserved. But the call must be a call to the sinner to submit himself to the righteousness of God, or the work of Christ, as by itself, alone, justifying the ungodly; and the assurance must be an assurance that an interest in Christ immediately and necessarily carries with it the full possession of all saving blessings; otherwise, if it be not the very nature of the atonement itself, or its exact design and inherent efficacy, that connects with it a sure and perfect salvation—but something super-added to, or supervening upon, the atonement, to qualify, as it were, or complete it—then, it is on that something, after all, whatever it may be, that the sinner is to fix his eye and rest his hope, and not really on the atonement, which, without it, is to him unmeaning and unprofitable. Some, for instance, (1.) say that, on the part of God, it is a covenant transaction alone that secures the actual salvation of any, in connection with the atonement; which, in itself, does no more than make the salvation of any, and of all, possible. They represent the Son as undertaking his work, on the condition or stipulation of its being infallibly rendered effectual on behalf of a given number; and they seem to hold that it is this alone which imparts to that work any more special reference to that given number than it has to the world at large. It is plain that this view touches very deeply the nature of the work of Christ. We are accustomed to believe that in the covenant transaction between the Father and the Son, an elect people being given to Christ, he did, in their room, and as their surety, undertake and accomplish a work which, from its very nature, as a work of satisfaction and substitution, insured infallibly their complete salvation. But that other theory makes the whole peculiarity of Christ’s relation to his people turn, not on the essential nature of his work on their behalf, but on the terms which he made with the Father; so that, in fact, it comes to this, that Christ really has not done more for them than for others; although, by the divine arrangements regarding it, what he has done is to be rendered effectual for their salvation, and not for that of others. And hence, it follows, (2.) that, on the part of the sinner himself who is called to receive salvation, there must be a tendency to have his attention turned, not to Christ’s work, as, from its very nature, a sure and sufficient ground of hope, but to those arrangements which define and determine its otherwise unlimited efficacy, in so far as these are made known. And here the great practical evil comes out. The death of Christ, or his work of atonement, is viewed very much as an expedient for getting over a difficulty that had occurred in the divine government, in reference to God’s negotiating a treaty of reconciliation with the guilty; it is a sort of coup-d’etat, a measure of high and heavenly policy, for upholding generally the authority of law and justice in the universe. But that purpose being served, it may now he put very much in the back-ground, excepting only in so far as it is a manifestation of the divine character, which it must always be right to admire; for, the hitch or crisis that demanded such an interposition being adjusted, the door is open for a negotiation of peace between God and his guilty creatures of mankind, in which reference may, indeed, be made to the atonement—but rather as if it made way for reconciliation, than as if it actually procured it. Is not this like what Paul calls “another gospel?” To preach, or proclaim salvation through Christ, is a different thing from proclaiming salvation IN Christ. I go to the crowd of criminals, shut up in prison, under sentence of death; and my message is, not that in consequence of Christ’s death I have now to offer to them all liberty to go out free; but that Christ himself is there, even at the door, in whom, if they will but apply to him, they will find one who can meet every accusation on their behalf, and enrich them with every blessing. I refer them and point them to Him alone; and whatever difficulties may remain as to obtaining an interest in Christ, I am bound to assure them that this is all they have to care for; even that they may win Christ, and be found in him. In a word, I present to them, not a general amnesty, or vague and indefinite deed of jail delivery, proceeding upon the transaction which Christ finished upon Calvary—but Christ himself, and him crucified, a present Saviour now, as then—of having in his hand a special pardon and special grace for every one who will resort to him—and nothing for any who will not. The Pelagian, or semi-Pelagian, expedient for meeting the sinner’s case, by exaggerating his natural ability to believe, will fall to be afterwards considered. In the meantime, it would appear that little is gained, in the way of facilitating his acceptance of Christ, by any extension of the design and efficacy of Christ’s work beyond those actually saved, or any idea of a general aspect or reference in his atonement. TO THE EDITOR OF “THE FREE CHURCH MAGAZINE”
Edinburgh, February 10, 1845 MY DEAR SIR,—I fear you and your readers may have cause to regret the letting in of what threatens to be somewhat too copious a stream of matter; for I have allowed myself to be led on greatly beyond my original intention, which was merely to explain a sentence or two in my bicentenary speech, of which I understood some use had been made, not exactly according to my mind. My apology is to be found, partly in the vast importance of the subject, especially in present circumstances, and partly in the manner in which I have endeavoured to treat it, without any of the personalities of controversy, as an abstract theological question—abstract, I mean, not in the sense of its being theoretical as opposed to practical—for I hold it to be most vitally practical—but in the sense of its being considered apart from the peculiarities of particular cases and individual disputants. My hope is, that the presenting of the subject in this manner may tend, by God’s blessing, to settle some minds, whose calm convictions may be in danger of being disturbed by the excitement of polemical warfare. In the present paper, I have wandered somewhat from the line indicated in my former article; but the digression, as I trust I may afterwards show, and, as an accurate thinker will himself perceive, is more apparent than real. The observations I make may seem also to some, to be too much of a general nature, and to savour too much of human reasoning and metaphysical discussion, instead of being exclusively scriptural. In explanation, I would say, first, That I by no means shrink from a minute and particular examination of Scripture texts and passages, which I admit, or rather maintain, to be the safe and legitimate mode of ascertaining what the Lord saith; but, secondly, That the interpretation of such texts and passages, and the settlement of the controversy by means of them, will, for the most part, be found ultimately to turn on certain general considerations, such as those which I have sought to bring forward. In the revival of these discussions, in our day, this seems to have been very generally felt and acknowledged.—I am, &c.
ROB. S. CANDLISH