Viewing the matter from the stand-point of the Cal- vimstic Universalists, we challenge our opponents to show us wherein there is any more inconsistency with the good faith of the indiscriminate offer of an interest in the redemption of Christ upon our view that it was designed only for the elect, than there is upon their view that — God foreknew and intended that the conditions upon which it is offered to all men should be impossible. Re- member that the question between them and us respects the single point as to the design of the Atonement. We believe as fully as they do (a) that the Atonement is sufficient for all, (b) exactly adapted to each ; and hence, (c) that all legal obstacles are removed out of the way of God’s saving whomsoever he pleases; and (d) that it is sincerely offered to all to whom the gospel is preached ; and hence, (e) in a purely objective sense, salvation is available to all if they believe. What, then, is the ob- jection if God, having prepared a feast for his friends, should—there being enough and to spare—if it pleased him, invite his foes to come, whether they will or not ? God can save whomsoever he pleases now ; but since his mind changes not, he pleases to save now precisely those whom he designed to save when he sacrificed his Son.
An indiscriminate offer of an interest in the Atone-
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 389
ment has been made for two thousand years since Christ omarrer died. But remember that the same indiscriminate offer was made for four thousand years before he died. The offer then was, that if men would believe upon a Christ to be sacrificed hereafter, they should be saved. Now, is it sense or nonsense to believe that at the end of those four thousand years Christ died for the purpose of saving those who had already rejected him, and who had con- sequently gone to their own place? Would it not have met the precise case of all who lived on earth before his advent if he had promised them that at the end of time he would die to save all those who had previously be- lieved? Would there have been any propriety in his promising to die also for those who had_ previously rejected his kind offers and been lost? As far as the design of the Atonement, the purpose to be attained by his death, is concerned, what conceivable difference does it make whether the sacrifice of Christ be offered at the beginning, the middle, or the end of human history ? If he had died at the end, he certainly could not die for those who had previously rejected his offers and perished therefor. And since he did die in the middle, why may not the gospel be offered on the same terms to all men, as well after as before his death? The only difficulty lies in the fact that finite creatures are utterly unable to comprehend the sovereign will and the unchangeable all-knowledge of God, which absolutely shuts out all contingency in relation to the hopes, the fears, the doubts, the responsibilities, the struggles of human _be- ings. Kvents are contingent in themselves; but there is no contingency in relation to the divine purpose. One event is conditioned upon another; but there are no conditions in the divine decree. God’s purpose, his design of redemption, like every other divine purpose, is timeless, What has been and what will be, who
CHAPTER Vit.
Reformed view in- consistent with pas- sages which de- clare that Christ suffered for all,” or ‘the world:” Answer.
390 | LYHE DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.
have believed and who will believe, are all the same to. him. To him the believers and the elect are identical.
His design in the Atonement may with absolute in-
difference be stated either as a design to save the elect,
or as a design to save all who had believed or who
would believe on his Son.*