Part 40
_Answ._ To this it may be replied, that it is not necessary, nor reasonable, to suppose, that these terms of opposition have any respect to the universal extent of condemnation and justification; for the apostle’s design is not to compare the number of those who shall be justified, with that of those who were condemned by the fall of Adam; but to compare the two heads together, Adam and Christ, and to shew, that as we are liable to condemnation by the one, so we obtain the gift of righteousness by the other; which is plainly the apostle’s method of reasoning, agreeable to the whole scope of the chapter, as may easily be observed, by those who compare these words with several foregoing verses.
5. There is another scripture brought to prove universal redemption, in 2 Cor. v. 14, 15. _The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead_; by which it is supposed, that the apostle is here proving that all mankind are dead in sin, and that the medium by which he proves it, is Christ’s dying for all men; so that the remedy is as extensive as the disease, and therefore that this is an undeniable proof of universal redemption.
But this is not a true representation of the apostle’s method of reasoning; for he designs not to prove that all were dead in sin, but to it. That this may appear, let us consider the connexion of this text with what goes before. The apostle speaks of them, in the foregoing verses, as having assurance of their future salvation, and as _groaning to be clothed upon with their house, which is from heaven_; and as having the _first fruits of the Spirit_, and says that the apostles were made manifest in their consciences, that is, they had something in their own consciences that evinced the success of their ministry to them, upon which account they had occasion to glory on their behalf; all which expressions denote them to have been in a converted state. And the apostle adds, in ver. 13. _Whether we be beside ourselves, or whether we be sober_, that is, whether we have a greater or less degree of fervency in preaching the gospel, it is for God, that is for his glory, and for your sakes; for the love of Christ, that is, either his love to us, or our love to him, constraineth us hereunto; because we thus judge, that if one, namely, Christ, died for all, that is, for you all, then were all dead, or you all are dead, that is, not dead in sin, but you are made partakers of that communion which believers have with Christ in his death, whereby they are said to be dead unto sin, and unto the world; and the result hereof is, that they are obliged to live not to themselves but to Christ. This seems more agreeable to the design of the apostle, than to suppose that he intends only to prove the fall of man, from his being recovered by Christ, since there is no appearance of any argument to the like purpose, in any other part of the apostle’s writings; whereas our being dead to sin, as the consequence of Christ’s death, is what he often mentions, and, indeed, it seems to be one of his peculiar phrases: thus he speaks of believers, as _being dead to sin_, Rom. vi. 2. and _dead with Christ_, ver. 8. and elsewhere he says, _You are dead_, Col. iii. 3. that is, you have communion with Christ, in his death, or are dead unto sin; and the apostle speaks of _their being dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world_, chap. ii. 20. that is, if you have communion with Christ, in his death, you are obliged not to observe the ceremonial law, which is called the rudiments of the world; and, in several other places, he speaks of believers being crucified, dead, buried, and risen, from the dead, as having communion with Christ therein, or being made partakers of those benefits which he procured thereby. If, therefore, this be the apostle’s frequent method of speaking, why may not we suppose, that in this verse, under our present consideration, he argues, that because _Christ died for them all_, therefore _they were_, or _they are all dead_;[185] And, being thus dead, they are obliged, as he observes in the following verse, _not to live to themselves, but to Christ that died for them_, and thereby procured this privilege, which they are made partakers of. If this sense of the text be but allowed to be equally probable with the other, it will so far weaken the force thereof, as that it will not appear, from this scripture, that Christ died for all men.
6. Universal redemption is attempted to be proved, from John iii. 16. _God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life_: But, if we understand _the world_, as taken for the Gentiles, as it is oftentimes in scripture, then the sense of the text seems to be this, which is not inconsistent with special redemption, namely, that the love of God, which was expressed in sending his Son to die for those whom he designed hereby to redeem, is of a much larger extent, as to the objects thereof, than it was in former ages; for it includes in it not only those who believe among the Jews, but whosoever believes in him, throughout the world; not that their believing in him is the foundation, or cause, but the effect of his love, and is to be considered as the character of the persons, who are the objects thereof. In this sense, we are also to understand another scripture, in John i. 29. _Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world_, that is, of all those whose sins are expiated hereby, throughout the whole world.
7. The doctrine of universal redemption is farther maintained, from our Saviour’s words, in John vi. 33. _The bread of God is he that cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world_; which is explained in ver. 51. _I am the living bread, which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world_: But it does not appear, that Christ hereby intends that his death was a price of redemption paid for all mankind; for he speaks of the application of redemption, which is expressed by his giving life, and not barely of his procuring a possibility of its being attained; and they, to whom he gives this privilege, are described as applying it to themselves, by faith, which is doubtless, the meaning of that metaphorical expression, whereby persons are said to _eat of this bread_, or _his flesh_; so that the meaning of this scripture is, that the death of Christ is appointed, as the great means whereby all men, throughout the whole world, who apply it by faith, should attain eternal life: But this cannot be said of all, without exemption; and therefore it does not from hence appear, that Christ’s death was designed to procure life for the world.
8. There is another scripture, brought to the same purpose, in Matt. xviii. 11. _The Son of man is come to save that which is lost_, that is, as they suppose, all that were lost; and consequently, since the whole world was brought into a lost state by the fall, Christ came to save them. The whole stress of this argument is laid on the sense that they give of the Greek word[186], which we render, _that which was lost_, whereby they understand every one that was lost; whereas it only denotes, that salvation supposes them, that have an interest in it, to have been in a lost state. And, indeed, the text does not seem immediately to respect the purchase of redemption, or salvation, by Christ’s shedding his blood, as a Priest, but the application thereof, in effectually calling, and thereby saving lost sinners. This is illustrated by the parable of _the lost sheep_, (in the following words,) which the shepherd brings back to the fold, upon which occasion he says, that _it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish_. And this farther appears, from our Saviour’s using the same mode of speaking, with this addition, that _he came to seek_, as well as to _save_, Luke xix. 9, 10. them, upon the occasion of his converting Zaccheus, and telling him, that _salvation was come to his house_. And this agrees well with that prediction relating to Christ’s executing his Prophetical office, in the salvation of his people, as being their Shepherd; in which he is represented, as saying, _I will seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and will strengthen that which was sick_, Ezek. xxxiv. 16. Moreover, the parable of the _lost sheep_, which Christ recovered, appears by its connexion with the foregoing verses, to have a particular respect to those _little_, or humble _ones_, that believe in him, who went astray, by reason of some offences that were cast in their way; and therefore, when he had denounced a threatening against those who should offend any of them, and cautioned the world that they should not do this, by despising them, Matt, xviii. 6, 10. he supposes this treatment would cause some of them to go astray; upon which he says, that one of his ends of coming into the world, was to seek, to save, and to recover them.
9. Universal redemption is farther argued, from the universality of divine grace; and accordingly that text is often referred to, in Tit. ii. 11. _The grace of God that bringeth salvation, hath appeared to all men_: But this seems very remote from the sense of the Holy Ghost, in these words; for by _the grace of God_ is meant the gospel, that brings the glad tidings of salvation; and its _appearing to all men_, signifies being preached to the Gentiles: or suppose, by _the grace of God_, we understand the display of his grace in the work of redemption, it is not said, that it was designed for, or applied to all men, but only that the publication thereof is more general than it had formerly been. And when the apostle, in ver. 14. speaks more particularly concerning redemption, he alters his mode of expression, and considers it, with its just limitation, with respect to the objects thereof, _viz._ that _he gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works_. We shall add but one scripture more, which is brought in defence of universal redemption, _viz._
10. That in which the apostle speaks of God, in 1 Tim. iv. 10. as _the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe_; wherein universal redemption is not asserted in the same sense in which they maintain it, _viz._ that God hath brought all men into a salvable state, so that they may be saved if they will: But the meaning of this scripture is, that _God is the Saviour of all men_, that is, his common bounty extends itself to all, as the Psalmist observes, _The Lord is good to all, and his tender mercies are over all his works_, Psal. cxlv. 9. but he is _more especially the Saviour of them that believe_, inasmuch as they are interested in the special benefits purchased by his redemption, who are said to be _saved in the Lord with an everlasting salvation_, Isa. xlv. 17.
There are several other scriptures brought to prove universal redemption, as when it is said, that _God will have all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth_, 1 Tim. ii. 4. and, _The Lord is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance_, 2 Pet. iii. 9. which have been before considered[187]; and therefore we pass them over at present, and some other scriptures, from whence it is argued, that Christ died for all, because he died for some that shall perish, as when the apostle speaks of some _false teachers, who deny the Lord that bought them_, 2 Pet. ii. 1. and another, _Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died_, Rom. xiv. 15. and that in which the apostle speaks of a person _who counted the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing_, Heb. x. 29. and some other scriptures to the like purpose, the consideration whereof I shall refer to a following answer[188], in which the doctrine of the saints’ perseverance is defended.[189]
Thus concerning the first branch of Christ’s Priestly office, consisting in his offering himself a sacrifice, without spot, to God, and the persons for whom this was done. We should now proceed to consider the second branch thereof, consisting in his making continual intercession for them, for whom he offered up himself: But, this being particularly insisted on in a following answer[190], we shall pass it over at present, and proceed to consider the execution of his Kingly office.
Footnote 143:
_Vid. Ephiph. Hær. Page 67. § 7._
Footnote 144:
_Among the latter, is the learned Dr. Lightfoot. See his Works, Vol. I. Page 12. and Vol. II. Page 327._
Footnote 145:
_We have no account of the year when this battle was fought; but it is evident that it was before Isaac was born, and consequently before Abraham had lived 25 years in the land of Canaan. And that Shem was then living, appears from hence, that from the flood to Abraham’s coming into the land of Canaan, was 427 years, as appears by considering the sum total of the years of the lives of the patriarchs, mentioned in_ Gen. xi. 10. _& seq. and also that Terah was 130 years old when Abraham was born, as appears, by comparing_ Gen. xi. 32. _with_ Acts vii. 4. _and_ Gen. xii. 4. _and by considering Abraham as 75 years old, as it is there said he was, when he left Haran. Now Shem was born 98 or 100 years before the flood, as appears by comparing_ Gen. v. 32. _with_ chap. xi. 10. _and_ vii. 11. _Therefore, when Abraham went out of his country into the land of Canaan, Shem was 525 or 527 years old; and, when Shem died, he was 600 years old_, Gen. xi. 10, 11. _therefore Shem lived more than half a hundred years after this battle was fought_.
Footnote 146:
_See Jurieu’s critical history_, vol. I. chap. 11.
Footnote 147:
As yet there was no church.
Footnote 148:
_See critical history_, vol. I. page 110.
Footnote 149:
_This opinion is maintained by Cunæus, [Vid. ejusd. Repub. Hebr. Lib. III. cap. 3.] and some others after him._
Footnote 150:
“Some insist that he is none other than the _Son of God_ himself, who, assuming the _appearance_, or _reality_, of humanity, exhibited to Abraham an early picture of his future priesthood.
“This is all over contemptible.—1. Because every high priest is taken from among men; the _appearance_ of humanity is not enough.—2. Because if he was at that time a priest, and discharged the duties of his office, he must have ‘suffered often,’ (twice) ‘from the beginning of the world;’ and not ‘by the once offering up of himself have for ever perfected them who are sanctified:’ then, moreover, Abraham would have received the promised blessing, contrary to the scriptures: and, in fine, the appearance of the Son of God, as the Son of Mary, was superfluous. If, to avoid those absurdities, it be alleged that though he appeared as a priest, he did not discharge the duties of his office: then, in the first place, he is degraded into a mere pageant, an officer without functions: and, in the second place, he is stripped of all typical character: for the priest who neither _sacrifices_, nor _intercedes_, can never be a type of one who does _both_.—3. Because, if Melchisedec was the Son of God, whether in real humanity, or only in its appearance, _he_ must have been a type of _himself_; the ideas of _identity_ and _similarity_ are confounded; and Paul instead of saying, αφωμοιωμενος τω υιω του Θεου, that he was ‘made like to the Son of God,’ should have said, ων ο υιος του Θεου, that he was the Son of God.—4. Because it would be unworthy the manly sense of Paul, to say nothing of _inspiration_, to labour through a long dissertation to prove a mere truism, which it would disgrace an ideot to utter, and insult a child to offer for information; namely, that Messiah’s priesthood was very like itself.—5. Because it would be extremely irreverent to suppose, that the adorable God lifted up his hand and swore, that his Son’s priesthood, should be like his Son’s priesthood. An identical proposition does not require such a solemn confirmation.”
GRAY ON PRIESTHOOD.
Footnote 151:
_He liveth_ for any thing to the contrary shewn in his history.
Footnote 152:
“That _death_ is a punishment for sin, and that all mankind are by death offered as a _sacrifice_ for sin, is not only a doctrine of revealed Religion, but the plain dictate of Reason. For, though it is Revelation alone that can teach us, how God threatened death as the punishment of a particular sin, yet Reason must be obliged to acknowledge, that men die, because they are sinners. But if men die, because they are sinners, and Reason itself must receive this, as the most justifiable cause of Death; then Reason must allow, that the death of all mankind is appointed by the true God, as a _sacrifice_ for sin. But, if Reason must acknowledge the death of all mankind as a sacrifice for sin, then it can have no just objection against the sacrifice of Christ, _because_ it was _human_.
“Revelation, therefore, teaches nothing more hard to be believed on this point, than Reason teaches. For, if it be just and fit in God, to _appoint_ and _devote_ all men to death, as the proper _punishment_ of their sins; how can it be proved to be unjust and unfit in God, to receive the death of Jesus Christ, for the same ends?”
HUMAN REASON.
Footnote 153:
All the reasons upon which pardons are granted in human governments fail in the Divine.
Footnote 154:
“The scripture insists on full atonement, and yet every where holds up the deliverance of sinners as an act of pure grace. This is a gordian knot in divinity. Let us not by violence cut it asunder, but attempt fairly to untie it.
Before we proceed, it may not be improper to observe, that the greatest difficulty with which this part of the subject is embarrassed, appears to have originated in the want of an accurate definition of justice and grace. Theologians have said much about these, yet few have defined them with sufficient accuracy to render them intelligible, or make them appear consistent. I shall therefore,
_First_, explain the meaning of the word grace.
_Secondly_, the meaning of the word justice.
_Thirdly_, apply these explanations to this part of the subject, with a view to solve the difficulty with which it is embarrassed.
_First._ What are we to understand by the word grace?
We are to understand by it the exercise of favour, and consequently the bestowment of good where evil is deserved, and may in justice be inflicted. Where there is no exposure to evil, there is no room for the exercise of grace. He who is not guilty is not a subject of pardon. He who does not deserve punishment cannot be said to be freed from it by an act of favour. Grace therefore always implies, that the subject of it is unworthy, and would have no reason to complain, if all the evil to which he is exposed were inflicted on him. Grace will appear great according to the view which the sinner has of his own ill desert, and the consciousness he possesses of the punishment or evil from which he is delivered. Grace and justice are opposite in their nature. Grace gives; justice demands. Their provinces are entirely separate. Though they are united, yet they are not blended in man’s salvation. Hence that remarkable passage in Rom. xi. 6: ‘If by grace, then it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace, otherwise work is no more work.’
_Secondly._ What are we to understand by the word justice? It assumes three denominations—commutative, distributive, and public.
1. Commutative justice respects property only.[155] ‘It consists in an equal exchange of benefits,’ or in restoring to every man his own.
2. Distributive justice respects the moral character of men. It respects them as accountable creatures, obedient or disobedient. It consists in ascertaining their virtue and sin, and in bestowing just rewards, or inflicting just punishments.
3. Public or general justice, respects what is fit or right, as to the character of God, and the good of the universe. In this sense, justice comprises all moral goodness, and properly means the righteousness or rectitude of God, by which all his actions are guided, with a supreme regard to the greatest good. Justice, considered in this view, forbids that any thing should take place in the great plan of God, which would tarnish his glory, or subvert the authority of his law.
_Thirdly._ Let us now apply these explanations to the solution of the difficulty under consideration.
1. Did Christ satisfy commutative justice? Certainly not. Commutative justice had no concern in his sufferings. Men had taken no property from God, and consequently were under no obligation to restore any. But do not the scriptures represent Christ as giving himself a ransom, and as buying his people with a price? They do. They also represent men, while under the influence of sin, as prisoners, slaves, captives. These expressions are all figurative, borrowed from sensible to express moral or spiritual things, and therefore are not to be explained as if literally true. If we say that Christ hath redeemed us, that he has bought us, that he has paid the debt and discharged us—if we have any consistent meaning, it must be this: That in consequence of what Christ has done, we are delivered from sin, in as great a consistency with justice, as a debtor is delivered from his obligation, or the demands of law, when his debt is paid. That is, God extends pardon in such a way, through Christ, that he does not injure the authority of his law, but supports it as effectually as if he inflicted punishment.
2. Did Christ satisfy distributive justice? Certainly not. Distributive justice respects personal character only. It condemns men because they are sinners, and rewards them because they are righteous. Their good or ill desert are the only ground on which distributive or moral justice respects them. But good and ill desert are personal. They imply consciousness of praise or blame, and cannot be transferred or altered so as to render the subjects of them more or less worthy. What Christ did, therefore, did not take ill desert from men, nor did it place them in such a situation that God would act unjustly to punish them according to their deeds. If a man has sinned, it will always remain a truth that he has sinned, and that according to distributive justice he deserves punishment. In this sense justice admits the condemnation of Paul as much as it does of Judas. The salvation of the former is secured, and his condemnation rendered impossible by another consideration.