| Section 1 | Section 2 | Section 3 | Section 4 | Section 5 | Section 6 | Section 7 |
| Section 8 | Section 9 | Section 10 | Section 11 | Section 12 | Section 13 | Section 14 |
Treatise on Atonement Chapter 5
There are some of Saint Paul's writings to the Romans, which have been used by divines, to prove the partial plan of salvation true of which, we think it will be proper to take notice, in this place Romans 9:21, 22, has been made great use of, in order to prove, that God made some vessels of eternal dishonor, and other vessels of eternal glory. The words read as follows: "Hath not the potter power over the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." Again, Romans 11:7 through the chapter, "What then? Israel hath not obtained
that which he seeketh for, but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (according as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that should not hear unto this day. And David saith, Let their tables be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumbling block, and a recompense unto them; let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway."
On these passages, and others like them, is built the doctrine of limited salvation, by Jesus Christ according to the foreknowledge and predestination of the Almighty. It is argued that those who are here called the elect, are those for whom Christ died, and those alone who will finally obtain salvation by him. But why any person would make such a mistake in reading this chapter, we are at loss to know. The salvation of the elect is not argued, in this chapter, but the certainty of salvation of those who were blinded and the propriety of believing it, occupies the greatest part of it. Observe the words next to those we have quoted above, verse 11, and 12 "I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid; but rather through their fall salvation is come to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy. Now, if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them, the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fullness? Again, verse 15. For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" Again in his argument to the Romans, he endeavors to show them, by the similitude of the branches of the olive trees, that they ought to believe that those blinded ones, though broken off through unbelief, would be grafted in again. See verse 24; "For, if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches be grafted into their own olive tree?" The apostle seems to be desirous to instruct the Roman Church, and argues the point fervently; see verse 25,26, "For I would not brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits), that blindness in part is happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, and so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written. There shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob." Compare the last verse which we have quoted, with Lev. 26:44, 45. "And yet for all that, when they be in the land of their enemies, I will not cast them away, neither will I abhor them to destroy them utterly, and to break my covenant with them: for I am the Lord their God. But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt, in the sight of the heathen that I might be their God: I am the Lord." And Isaiah 14:25, "In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory." Many like passages might be quoted from various parts of the scripture; but, perhaps the above will suffice for this particular purpose, more of the like nature, will be noticed in the sequel of this work.
The scriptures have been as much violated, to maintain the doctrine which we are examining as good reason is by supposing God to be so infinitely partial, as he must be, in the eyes of reason, in order to be what the doctrine represents him.
We shall now invite the attention of the reader to another system of atonement, which was undoubtedly formed, with a view to shun the absurdities in the former, and to get rid of some of the consequences that were naturally deducible from that idea of the suffering of Christ. This system supposes, that the atonement by Christ was not intended for the salvation of any part of the human race; that its main end, and sole object, was the glory of the supreme being, as manifested in his holy and righteous law. In support of this plan, it is argued, that it is inconsistent, for infinite wisdom and goodness to prefer an inferior object to a supreme one; that all creation, when compared with the Creator, sinks into nothing, bearing no possible proportion to the infinite Jehovah; of course, that god always has his own glory in view, as his supreme object in all he does. This plan agrees with the former, in supposing sin to be of infinite magnitude, and deserving of endless punishment; that as the law of God is infinite, like himself, finite man in infinitely to blame for not fulfilling all its requirements; and that the penalty of the law is endless misery, which misery Christ sustained; not with a view of acquitting the sinner, nor in room and stead of the transgressor, as is supposed in the other plan; but for the honor of divine justice and the glory of his Father. It is further argued, that by Christ's suffering the penalty of the law, justice is as fully satisfied, as if all mankind had been made miserable for eternity. And this being the case, it is now just and right for God to acquit as many of the sinful race of Adam , as is consistent with his grand object, which is himself; yet by no means rendering it unjust for God to punish, through all eternity, as many as is necessary, in order for the satisfying of the same grand object.
We must inquire into the property of the argument on which this plan of atonement seems to be founded, which is, that God always acts for his own infinite and incomprehensible glory; never stooping so low, as to act with an intention for the good of his creatures.
First we ask, is God as infinitely glorious as he can be, or not? If it be answered that he is, then if his object in all he does, is to augment his own glory, he never has, nor will ever accomplish his intentions. If it be argued that it is not to augment his own glory, but to secure it, and maintain it in its proper splendor, it argues it to be of a perishable nature, and that it would decay, were it not for the continual vigilance of the Almighty, in preserving it. If it be argued, that neither of these objects are right, but that it is the manifestation of his glory to intelligent beings, which is the grand design or object of God, in all his acts, without any reference to the effect which this manifestation has on those to whom it is made, we say, the object has now dwindled into annihilation; there is not the smallest imaginable atom of it left. To suppose, that any rational being can wish, or desire, to accomplish any piece of labor, without having any reference to the consequence, is too glaringly absurd, to need refutation. Now the nature of the proposition, which we are examining, confines the motive of Deity within himself, and himself from his creation. In order therefore, to look at the Almighty as he is by this doctrine represented, we must look at him as destitute of a creation, and view him abstractly from all his creatures. But may we ask, what title to give that being of whom we speak? The name Jehovah truly has reference to his self-existence, and to his character as giver of existence, also. The name God, implies a being who is worshipped. Lord signifies a possessor. I am that I am, has reference to an unchangeable being, but does not determine a being of goodness. I ask again, What do we know of an Almighty, only by his works? If his existence can be determined, by any other means, we are ignorant of the way. What do we know but by our senses? Have we any sense of good and evil, that does not concern created beings? We may say, if we please, that God acts from his own essential good, abstractly from his creation; but what do we mean by it? An action, for the good of any being presupposes that being in want; and if in want, then not infinitely happy. If God be not infinitely happy he never can be. We inquire further, by what data, can we determine that God is a good being? Can we determine it by any other criterion than by the effects of what he does, as it concerns his creatures? The truth undoubtedly is, that just as far as we can look into creation, providence, and redemption, and see the harmony and beauty of them, and see that all were calculated for the good of created intelligence, whom these things concern, we are satisfied, that he, who conducts the whole, is a good being. And if we say he is good, without this understanding, we acknowledge a proposition for which we are unable to offer the smallest reason.
Again, is it not wrong to make a separation where the Al- mighty does not? Is he not perfectly joined to his creation? Do we not live, move, and have our being in God? Are we not created of his fullness? Had Deity anything to create beings, but his own eternal nature? We know that it has been said, that God created all things out of nothing, but such an idea never will be imbibed by us, until we can form, in imagination at least, a notion, of how much nothing does it take to make the least imaginable something. If all things were created of the infinite Jehovah, as great a part of his creation as we take from him, so great a proportion we take from his fullness. God never could be more than infinite, in his fullness, then to take the smallest creature from him, which he created of that infinite fullness, you have left something less than infinite. Now, if it be argued, that God acts for the good of himself, considering his creatures to belong to his fullness, we are perfectly agreed; but to say, that the Almighty has, or ever could have a motive, in action, that did not embrace every consequence that could ever arise from what he did, would be limiting his omnisciency; or to say, that he did not intend good, to all whom his acts concern, would be limiting his goodness, and an impeachment of his justice.
We have before, in this work, contended, that all the attributes, which we ascribe to God, we call good, on account of the advantage which we derive from such principles. We are told of a God who acts for his own benefit, abstractly from his creation; and that in millions of cases, he finds it most for his glory to make rational, hoping, wanting creatures endlessly miserable; and this is called goodness. We are likewise told of a devil, who acts for his own gratification and delights in making God's creatures miserable, and this is called badness. But, for our part, according to such statements, as the difference between goodness and badness, is so small we can hardly distinguish it. It is profane, in our opinion, to attribute a disposition to the Almighty which we can justly condemn in ourselves. A man, who should act from such a selfish principle as is attributed to God, would render himself wholly unworthy of the protection of common law. And shall we thus represent our kind and merciful Father, from whom ten thousand streams of goodness continually flow to his wanting and needy creatures? No; let every vibration of senses within us acknowledge his bountiful hand, which is never closed.
We have already labored, in this work, to show, that sin is finite, and not committed against an infinite law, we shall, however, now call into examination a subject something like it, which is, that of penalty; as it is contended, that the penalty of God's law is endless punishment.
We first inquire, why does a legislature affix penalties to laws which it makes? Answer, the first reason is, the strength and security of government. Second, that the punishment may serve to reclaim the delinquent. Third, that the punishment of a criminal may serve to deter others from the commission of like crimes. Fourth, in many cases, to keep the delinquent, by confinement or death, from doing any more mischief. Now let us look into the government of an Almighty Being, and see how the matter of penalty will operate there. Observe the penalty is endless misery. We ask, is this necessary to secure the government of an Almighty Being? Would his government be in danger, if the penalty were not enacted to his law? Supposing a legislator of men had the power in their hands, of causing all the community on whom its laws were binding, to love their laws, in every requirement, and with vigilance to attend to the faithful discharge of their duties in all things, would it be necessary for them to enact penalties to their laws? Allowing the legislature to have such powers, who, in the world, would say, it is not best to exercise it; that it is better to have penal laws, and let the people have their wicked obdurate hearts, so that now and then we may have a poor criminal to execute? We can hardly believe that any will contend, that penalty is necessary in the law of God to secure his government. Is there any scruple respecting God's power to turn the hearts of his creatures as he pleases? If there be not, then there is no need of penalty in his law, in order for the security of his government. Second: is his penalty necessary, in order to reclaim the delinquent? Answer, that is impossible. The penalty being endless punishment, it can have no object in reclaiming the punished. The execution of such a penalty on any of God's creatures, would prove the contradictionness of his goodness, as no possible good could be communicated to a victim of such punishment. Divine truth says, God is good unto all, and his tender mercies are over all his works. To say, God is good to a creature of his, whom he irrevocably dooms to endless torments is a violation of our senses; and no person, in a moment of sobriety, will believe it. It is then evident, that such a penalty would not be necessary to reclaim the sinner.
Third, Is it necessary to inflict such a penalty on the transgressor, in order to deter others from the commission of sin? Answer, No. For according to the doctrine which we are examining, the first transgression committed, involved the whole human race, in the delinquency; and an execution of such a penalty, would be the endless misery of the whole family of man; there would not have been one left to be deterred from sinning, or even tell the news!
Fourth. Is the penalty necessary to keep the sinner from sinning any more? So far from that, this penalty would fix the delinquent in a situation in which they could do nothing but sin, to an endless eternity. No moral being can be miserable as suffering conscious guilt without sin; therefore, in order for endless misery to be inflicted, endlessly transgression is necessary.
Look, kind reader, and see what an absurdity lies here. Because a being has sinned once the law which he violated requires that he should continue in transgression! Well, he complies, will the law justify him? But, says the reader, I do not understand you. Why, the matter is plain; if a moral being cannot be miserable, without sin, he must continue in sin in order to be miserable. Then if God's law requires endless misery, it requires endless transgression! But, it is argued, That a law cannot exist without a penalty. This undoubtedly is an error. The largest signification of the word law, is governing power. See Romans 7:23, "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity unto the law of sin which is in my members." This law of sin in the members, which brings the man into captivity, is undoubtedly the power of the flesh, which lusteth against the Spirit, that we cannot do the things we would. Now, we ask, is there any penalty to this law? Does this law administer any condemnation to those who do not obey it? Most surely it does not. Then pass to the 8th chapter, and third verse; For the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death." This law is undoubtedly the governing power of the new man, which overcomes the carnal mind, and delivers the soul from the bondage of sin. We ask again, is there any penalty to this law? Is there a dispensation of condemnation administered by the law of life? Truth says, the wages of sin is death. Does this death flow from the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus? Surely not, "To be carnally minded is death." If carnal mindedness be that death, which is the wages of sin, surely it does not flow from the Spirit of life. "To be spiritually minded is life and peace." God's moral law is like himself, love; "God is love and he who loveth dwelleth in God, and God in him."
It requires all moral beings to love God and each other; and the reason why it commands this is, it is love itself. True, that soul is miserable that does not love God, and the reasons are, love is life and happiness of the soul, and hatred is its death and misery.
Although me think we have given unanswerable reasons, why we do not admit such a penalty as we have examined, we will, for the sake of the argument, still further allow it, and inquire into Christ's suffering it.
To say that Christ has suffered such a penalty is a contradiction in terms, because endless duration has not yet, expired. To say, that this penalty will ever be suffered by Christ, or any other being, is another contradiction in words; for an endless duration will never expire. Then to say, that such a penalty has been, or ever will be suffered, is erroneous.
If it be argued that Christ be a infinite person, and, therefore, could suffer an endless punishment in a few moments; we answer, it is not shunning the contradiction? If the position be moved, and the argument is, that he being infinite, could suffer as much in a few moments, as all mankind would to a endless duration, we ask, are there more infinite beings than one? All answers, No. We ask again, Is it possible for that infinite being to suffer? Even from our opponent, that an infinite being did not suffer; but that it was the finite nature which suffered, and raised from the dead, by the infinite; that it was the human nature which was made a sin offering; and that the divine nature gave victory to the human by raising it into an immortal life. Well then, the sufferings were finite, and could by no means answer the requirements of an infinite penalty.
The particular difference between this plan and the former, is in the intentions of the suffering of Christ. The former supposes that Christ suffered in room and stead of the sinner, so as to acquit all those from condemnation, for whom he died. This argues that the intentions of the sufferings of Christ was not the salvation of the sinners; but as we have before observed, the glory of the Supreme Being. But, that by the sufferings of Christ, the law is perfectly magnified, and honored; and that it is just, for God to acquit as many of the sinful race of Adam, as is consistent with his glory; but does not render it unjust, for him to punish, endlessly, as many as is necessary for the same grand object.
What Is The Demands Of Justice?
Now, admitting the penalty of the law to be endless, and that Christ suffered it in full, the law cannot now require the destruction of the offenders. How then, can we reasonably argue that it is for the glory of God to punish when justice does not require it? If justice does require it now, of any, it does of all. If it be argued, that divine justice does not require the endless happiness or misery of man, we say it is not a law which concerns mankind; and if we say, God's will, in the misery of man extends farther than the requirements of his justice, it is setting the Almighty against himself. Again, admitting such provisions be made, as render it consistent with justice, that all sinners should be emancipated from death and misery, does eternal love and mercy require less?
Supposing that five hundred Americans are in slavery at Algires; Our consul demands the price of their redemption, per man; he is answered, the price of the one is the price of the whole; and the price of the whole is the price of the one; the sum is five hundred dollars. This, the Dey says, is not of consideration for the slaves, but to show America, or the United States, his power, and the dignity of his government. Our consul obtains the money and pays it. Now, reader, do you think he would confine the benefit of his ransom money, to a part of those unfortunate Americans; and out of five hundred send fifty home to their wives, children, country and friends; and tell the remaining four hundred and fifty that the money was his own, and that he had the right to extend or not extend its benefits, as he pleased; and that it was his pleasure that they should all wear out a miserable life in slavery, where they might dream of liberty, but never enjoy it? The smallest degree of humanity would argue better things.
We have now examined the foundation of this plan of atonement, and it has removed out of our sight; we have sought carefully after the penalty of the law, and cannot find it; we have sought for the satisfaction of such penal requirements, admitting they did exist and find them not; we have admitted, for the sake of the query, that such satisfaction did take place, and we have sought for the consequences which are argued, and find them inconsistent with such promises.
Taking our leave of this plan of atonement, we shall introduce a third one, from which we shall dissent, and give our reasons for so doing. The plan agrees with the former, in respect to the law, its penalty and of the personage of him who makes the atonement, but it differs, in respect to the intentions of God, in the atonement, as far as the first transgression concerned mankind, it is believed that the atonement by Christ is fully efficacious; and that no man will, and can be miserable forever, on account of what is called original sin. And that, by virtue of the suffering of Christ, Adam and all his posterity were immediately placed in a state of trial, or probation, after the fall, such as Adam was in, before, but with this difference, viz. man now knows good and evil, and is possessed with strong appetite to sin; but has also, a portion of the divine spirit which is given to every man, for his profit to assist him in opposing these appetites, and subduing them.
Those who believe in this plan believe that it was in the power of Adam, as a moral agent, to have stood in a state of holiness and innocency; and that it is now in the power of every man, as a moral agent, to obtain the paradise which Adam lost. They do not admit, that Christ died for our actual transgressions, after we come to years of discretion; but of these we must repent, and beg for mercy, and God will forgive, on our humble and sincere application. The sum of this plan of atonement, made salvation possible to all, but certain to none. It argues, that it is the will of God, that all men should be saved, and come into the knowledge of the truth; that all should repent of their sins and receive the Redeemer on the reasonable terms upon which he is offering to us.
Those who believe in this plan, believe it possible for men to neglect those privileges, slight those merciful offers, and turn a deaf ear to all the warnings of the Spirit, until the day of their probation is ended. Whereby all that the Saviour has done is made of no effect unto them. And the thousands will be thus neglectful and be miserable as long as God exist, not however for the sin which Adam committed, but for their own personal transgression.
Before we put the foregoing system of atonement under examination, we will take notice of the character of the mediator, as believed in, by all those who belong to several systems of which we have taken notice, as we have not examined that particular, in our inquires on the systems preceding the one under consideration. They all contend that the Mediator is really God; that the Godhead consist of three distinct persons, viz. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that these distinct persons are equal in power and glory, and eternally and essentially one.
The reader will observe our usual mode of reasoning, which is to admit, as truth, what we wish to oppose; and to oppose it, with the consequences which necessarily follows. For the sake of the argument, then, we admit the foregoing statement concerning Christ to be just; and then contend, that if he be the Son of God, he is the son of himself, and is his own Father; that he is no more the son of God than God is his son! To say, of two persons, exactly of the same age, that one of them is the real son of the other, is to confound good sense. If Jesus Christ were really God, it must be argued, that God really died! Again, if the Godhead consist of three distinct persons, and each of those three persons be infinite the whole Godhead amounts to the amazing sum of infinite multiplied by three! If it is said, that neither of these three persons alone is infinite, we say, the three together, with the addition of a million more such, would not make an infinite being. But supposing that we get over all those absurdities, and suppose that these three distinct persons formed the grand council in heaven, on the salvation of man, after the first transgression.