Henry:

IV. He charges them with a high contempt of his authority as their lawgiver and his grace and favour as their benefactor, v. 11. He had done much for them, and designed to do more; but all in vain: “My people would not hearken to my voice, but turned a deaf ear to all I said.” Two things he complains of:—1. Their disobedience to his commands. They did hear his voice, so as never any people did; but they would not hearken to it, they would not be ruled by it, neither by the law nor by the reason of it. 2. Their dislike of his covenant-relation to them: They would none of me. They acquiesced not in my word (so the Chaldee); God was willing to be to them a God, but they were not willing to be to him a people; they did not like his terms. “I would have gathered them, but they would not.” They had none of him; and why had they not? It was not because they might not; they were fairly invited into covenant with God. It was not because they could not; for the word was nigh them, even in their mouth and in their heart. But it was purely because they would not. God calls them hi people, for they were bought by him, bound to him, his by a thousand ties, and yet even they had not hearkened, had not obeyed. “Israel, the seed of Jacob my friend, set me at nought, and would have none of me.” Note, All the wickedness of the wicked world is owing to the wilfulness of the wicked will. The reason why people are not religious is because they will not be so.

V. He justifies himself with this in the spiritual judgments he had brought upon them (v. 12): So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lusts, which would be more dangerous enemies and more mischievous oppressors to them than any of the neighbouring nations ever were. God withdrew his Spirit from them, took off the bridle of restraining grace, left them to themselves, and justly; they will do as they will, and therefore let them do as they will. Ephraim is joined to idols; let him alone. It is a righteous thing with God to give those up to their own hearts’ lusts that indulge them, and give up themselves to be led by them; for why should his Spirit always strive? His grace is his own, and he is debtor to no man, and yet, as he never gave his grace to any that could say they deserved it, so he never took it away from any but such as had first forfeited it: They would none of me, so I gave them up; let them take their course. And see what follows: They walked in their own counsels, in the way of their heart and in the sight of their eye, both in their worships and in their conversations. “I left them to do as they would, and then they did all that was ill;” they walked in their own counsels, and not according to the counsels of God and his advice. God therefore was not the author of their sin; he left them to the lusts of their own hearts and the counsels of their own heads; if they do not well, the blame must lie upon their own hearts and the blood upon their own heads.

VI. He testifies his good-will to them in wishing they had done well for themselves. He saw how sad their case was, and how sure their ruin, when they were delivered up to their own lusts; that is worse than being given up to Satan, which may be in order to reformation (1 Tim. i. 20) and to salvation (1 Cor. v. 5); but to be delivered up to their own hearts’ lusts is to be sealed under condemnation. He that is filthy, let him be filthy still. What fatal precipices will not these hurry a man to! Now here God looks upon them with pity, and shows that it was with reluctance that he thus abandoned them to their folly and fate. How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? Hos. xi. 8, 9. So here, O that my people had hearkened! See Isa. xlviii. 18. Thus Christ lamented the obstinacy of Jerusalem. If thou hadst known, Luke xix. 42. The expressions here are very affecting (v. 13-16), designed to show how unwilling God is that any should perish and desirous that all should come to repentance (he delights not in the ruin of sinful persons or nations), and also what enemies sinners are to themselves and what an aggravation it will be of their misery that they might have been happy upon such easy terms. Observe here,

Read the rest of this entry »

The following is a short essay on the sufficiency of the atonement while setting out the proper distinctions between pecuniary and penal categories.

Robertson:

Annan:

We insert here the following Extract from a Draft of an Overture pared and published by a Committee of the Associate Reformed Synod, America, for the purpose of illustrating and defending the Doctrine of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The Committee were, Rev. Dr John Mason, Messrs Robert Annan and John Smith. The writer appears to be Mr R. Annan, Philadelphia. 1787.

That there is a sufficiency in the atonement of Jesus Christ for all men, is undoubtedly a great and glorious truth. But the sufficiency of his death, and extent of it, must be considered in a twofold light; first, either with relation to the nature of sin; or, secondly, the number of sinners pardoned and saved. That the necessity of Christ’s infinite atonement does not arise from the number, but the nature of sin,–or that the very nature of sin itself requires an infinite atonement in order to its honorable remission, cannot be denied by men of sound understandings. Such an atonement is indispensably necessary to the pardon of one act of sin, and the salvation of one sinner, consistently with the glory of the Supreme Lawgiver, the obligation of his law, and sustentation of his government; and the end thereof may be completely gained in the salvation of one. Sin, though distinguished into various acts, is in itself one thing,–one corrupt principle–one vicious habit; it is enmity against God,–it is spiritual darkness, spiritual death, spiritual bondage. Therefore the infinite sufficiency of Christ’s death is necessary to the pardon of one sin, and the salvation of one sinner; and, indeed, if this were not the case, it would not be necessary to the pardon of any supposed number, because numbers do not vary nature, nor degrees alter species or kind.

The dispute about the extent of the death of Christ, therefore, can take place only on the second question, to wit, the number of sinners to be saved by it. That it is sufficient for the salivation of all men is not denied by any; and doubtless all men would be saved by it, if it were accepted by them. The sacred writings clearly teach this; and on this ground the revelation and offer of it to all men must rest.

When we speak of the sufficiency of the death and satisfaction of Christ in this last sense, perhaps we err in regulating our ideas on this great subject by the idea of commutation or commercial justice among men. As a thousand pounds in specie, by whomsoever paid, whether by the surety or debtor, is sufficient to cancel a bond or discharge a debt of that amount. But it is manifest no such ideas, strictly taken, ought to be admitted here. Let us say it with reverence, God is not a merchant. Transferable property is out of the question. The rectoral justice of the Supreme Governor of the universe is the subject to which we must fix our attention. And the only proper idea we can form of the sufficiency of the atonement of Christ is this–Is it a sufficient display of the glory of the Divine character,–of his holiness, justice, hatred of sin, and goodness as a moral Governor? Is it sufficient to maintain the authority and obligation of his lav, sustain the moral system, and give energy to his government over rational and free agents, while he pardons sin and receives the rebel into favour? After forming this idea of it, which is certainly the true and just one, there arises another question: In the room of what creatures is it morally fit and proper to admit this atonement? In answer to the question, let it be observed, that as all men were comprehended in Adam, in a double sense, both as the natural root from which they all proceed, and as their representative in the. first covenant,–as they are all originally under one law or covenant, as sin is one and the same thing in them all, and as one and the same penalty is due to them all; and furthermore, as the Son of God assumed the common nature of them all–was made under the very same law which they had all broken, and not only fulfilled the obedience required by the precepts, but also endured the penalty of that very law which they had violated, and to which penalty they had by transgression exposed themselves,–there is doubtless a sufficiency in his death for them all, that is, it would comport with the glory of the Divine character, the sustentation of his government, the obligation and honor of his law, and the good of the rational and moral system, to save them all, provided they all accepted of Christ’s atonement, yielded submission to him, and returned to God by him. In the sense it may be said, ” Christ tasted death for every man–is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole world  and God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” And this lays a sufficient foundation for that injunction, “Go, preach the gospel to every creature: he that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned. Go, speak to the people all the words of this life.” Every legal bar and obstruction in the way of the salvation of all men is removed; let them only accept and submit to Jesus Christ as their Prophet, Priest, and King. All things are ready, and all are made welcome to the marriage and the marriage supper.

Read the rest of this entry »

Candlish:

1) If it be asked, secondly, Has the death of Christ any relation at all to mankind at large, whether elect or not?–we reply, that the condition of those at least to whom the knowledge of it comes, as regards their present obligation and ultimate responsibility, is most materially affected by the event or fact in question, or rather, by the publication of it. Assuredly the guilt and condemnation of those who have had the gospel among them, and have rejected it, cannot be put upon a level with the criminality of such as have never heard the joyful sound; and, in so far as God, in his providence, gives any information to the heathen, respecting his long-suffering patience and love, as connected with a mediatorial provision of grace, they are left the more without excuse.

The third inquiry, having reference to the precise bearing of Christ’s death upon the world at large, including the unbelieving portion of it, is the very question which we declined, and must still decline, to answer, or, at least, to answer categorically, or so as to exhaust the inquiry; it being our opinion that Holy 8cripture has not given materials for any very explicit deliverance upon that point. At the same time, there are some particulars, under this head, which may be ascertained.

Thus:-
I. In point of fact, the death of Christ, or hie work of obedience and atonement, has procured’ for the world at large, and for every individual–the impenitent and unbelieving as well as the chosen, and called, and faithful–certain definite, tangible, and  ascertainable benefits (if we may use such words to designate their reality and their specific character), among which, in particular, may be noted these two: first, A season of forbearance-a respite of judgment–a period of grace (Rom. iii. 25);” and that, too, in subserviency, and with direct reference, to the plan of saving mercy (ibid., and Rom. ii. 4; and 2 Pet. iii. 15); and, secondly, A system of means and influences fitted to lead men to God, and sufficient to leave them without excuse. (Acts xiv. 15-17, and xvii. 2241; Rom. I. 18, and ii. 15.) This, since the promulgation of the gospel, includes all the ordinances of God’s Word and worship, with the accompanying common operation of the Spirit in them [See Appendix C.].

Read the rest of this entry »

John Brown:

1) After Dr Balmer had concluded, Dr Brown rose to give his sentiments. Premising his concurrence in what had been advanced by his professorial colleague, and referring to the published statement of his opinions, he proceeded to remark:–That he was equally persuaded, that, by divine appointment, the death of Jesus Christ removes the legal bars in the way of the salvation, and opens the door of mercy to all mankind, making if, consistent with the perfections of the divine character, and the principles of the divine government, to make a free offer of salvation to every human being, through the faith of the truth, and that, by the divine appointment, the death of Jesus Christ secures the actual salvation of those whom God,in sovereign mercy, from all eternity, elected to everlasting life–that the order in which these two, equally true propositions should stand, seemed to him in a great measure, a matter of indifference–that he did not interfere with the Christian liberty of his brethren, in forming or expressing their sentiments as to the ordering the divine decrees respecting the atonement and its objects, so long as they did not throw doubt on one or other of these propositions, both of which seemed to him clearly stated in the Scriptures, and also in our subordinate Standards, but that he felt that ”such knowledge wee too wonderful for him, it was high, he could not attain to it:”–that the proposition Christ died for men,” had been held in three senses. In the sense of the Universalist, that Christ died so as to secure salvation, he held that he died only for the elect. In the sense of the Arminian, that Christ died to purchase easier terms of salvation, and common grace to enable men to comply with these terms, he held that he died for no man. In the sense of the great body of Calvinists, that Christ died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation, by making a perfect satisfaction for sin, he held that he died for all men–and whether in thus dying for all men, he expiated the sins of all men, or made atonement for all, depends on the sense you give to the terms expiation and atonement. In one sense he did not–in another sense he did. That he firmly held the great doctrines respecting the purposes of grace, and the plan of salvation, usually taught under the head “of the covenant of grace.” That he believed Jesus Christ stood in peculiar relations to the elect when he suffered and died, as their representative and substitute, though at the same time, as suffering those evils which were the expression of the divine judicial displeasure against the sins of mankind, by suffering which the door of mercy has been set open to all, he might so far be viewed as the substitute of the race-the just one standing in the place of the unjust. Andrew Robertson, History of the Atonement Controversy, in Connexion with The Succession Church, From its Origin to the Present Time (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Sons, 1846), 179-181.

2) (Dr Brown’s Synod Statement, p. 69.)–“The proposition ‘Christ died for men,’ has been employed in three different senses. In the sense that he did with the intention and to the effect of securing salvation, I hold that he died only for the elect. In the sense that he died to secure easier terms of salvation, and grace to enable men to comply with these terms, I hold that he died for no man. In the sense that he died to remove legal obstacles in the way of human salvation, and open a door of mercy, I hold that he died for all men; and whether, in thus dying for all, he expiated the sins of all, or made atonement for all, depends on the senses you affix to these expression. In one sense he did; in another sense he did not. I dislike all extreme statement–all startling expressions on this subject, and would equally shrink from saying that the death of Christ was intended to express no benignant regard, to produce no merciful results, except to the elect; and that it was intended to express no regard, to produce no results to the elect, but what it was intended to express and produce to all mankind. Neither of these modes of speaking seems to me to be words which become sound doctrine,’– ‘speech which cannot be condemned!”   Andrew Robertson, History of the Atonement Controversy, in Connexion with The Secession Church, From its Origin to the Present Time (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Sons, 1846), 252.