As to the warrant for the ministerial offer of salvation to all, it must be found alone in the great commission with which every minister is sent out by the authority of the Master himself. No matter what may be the nature or the design of the Atonement, no servant has any right to go back of his commission, and insist upon understanding his Master’s secret purposes or aims. No matter what else is true or not true, the command to ‘‘go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature” is the entire and all-sufficient warrant for the ministerial offer. Even if the Atonement can be de- monstrated to be universal, our right to offer it to all men cannot rest upon that demonstration, but, as said before, upon the plain terms of that commission which we already have.
As to the warrant of personal faith upon the part of men who can know nothing as to their election, the case is precisely similar. The warrant rests sufficiently and exclusively in the indiscriminate invitations, commands, and promises of the gospel. If we were all assured of the absolute universality of redemption, or if we could read plainly every name recorded in the Lamb's book of life, the case would be no plainer and no more certain than it now is. The absolutely righteous, the infinitely wise and powerful God, solemnly declares that “ whoso-
ever will may take of the water of life freely,” and that
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 387
“whosoever comes he will in no wise cast out.” Any other warrant than this is inconsistent with the nature of faith. To demand any other warrant is sheer ration- alism and rebellion.
With respect to the warrant for God’s acting as he does in the case, we might surely content ourselves with referring to the infinite pertfections and absolute sove-
reignty of God upon the one hand, and to the entire
ignorance of man upon the other. But in order that we may locate the difficulty, which every one vaguely feels, at the precise point to which it belongs, observe that the definite and personal design of the Atonement, and the ~ unconditional and personal election of .some men _ to eternal life, are identically one and the same in their bearing upon the indiscriminate offers of the gospel. Viewing the matter from the Arminian stand-povit, we challenge our opponents to show why the sovereign election of some men, and the sovereign leaving of others to the natural consequences of their own sins, are any more inconsistent with the good faith of God in the in- discriminate offers of salvation to all than is that divine infallible foreknowledge which the Arminians admit. If God certainly foreknows that to the vast mass of those to whom the offer of salvation is brought it will be only a savour of death unto death, awfully aggravat- ing their doom, how is it consistent with his supposed desire and labour to save all men alike that he should thus knowingly aggravate the condemnation of the majority of those he professes to desire to save ?
Besides this, the declaration of purpose which God makes in the universal offers of the gospel is all literally true, election or no election. It is even man’s duty and interest to repent and believe whether he will or not. It is God’s purpose to receive and save all that believe on his Son, elect or not. It is every word true. Neither
CHAPTER < VADs
CHAPTER Vii.
388 THE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
does the salvation of the elect make the case of the non-elect any worse. Nor is the indiscriminate offer of salvation to all, including the non-elect, a wanton or improper mockery of their case, because (a) the offer is real and sincere ; (b) the only reason they do not benefit by it is their own wilful rejection of it; (c) it is, there- fore, an admirable test of their character, displaying the inveteracy of their sin, and justifying the righteous judg- ments of God (Ps. li. 4; John iii, 19); (d) it is an essential and admirably efficient part of God’s plan to gather his elect into the fold.