6. There is another argument on this subject generally pre- sented, which ought not to be overlooked. The unity of the priestly office rendered the functions of the priesthood inseparable. The hiijh-priest interceded for all those for whom he offered sacri- fice. The one service did not extend beyond the other. He bore uj)on his breast the names of the twelve tribes. He rejjresented them in drawing near to God. He offered sacrifices for their sins on the great day of atonement, and for them he interceded, and for no others. The sacrifice and the intercession went together. What was true of the Aaronic priests, is true of Christ. The for- mer, we are told, were the types of the latter. Christ's functions as priest are in like manner united. He intercedes for all for wliom He offered Himself as a sacrifice. He himself, however, says expressly, *' I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me." (John xvii. 9.) Him the Father heai'etli always, and, therefore. He cannot be assumed to intercede for those whc do not actually receive the benefits of his redemption.
The Church Doctrine embraces all the Facts of the Case.
7. The final test of any theory is its agreeing or disagreeing with the facts to be explained. The difficulty with all tlie Anti- Augustinian views as to the design of Christ's death, is that while they are consistent with more or less of the Scriptural facts connected with the subject, they are utterly irreconcilable with others not less clearly revealed and equally important. They are consistent, for example, with the fact that the work of Christ lays the foundation for the offer of the gospel to all men, with the fact that men are justly condemned for the rejection of that offer ; and with the fact that the Scri])tures frequently assert that the work of Christ had reference to all men. All these facts can be accounted for on the assumption, that the great design of Christ's deatii was to make the salvation of all men possible, and that it had equal reference to every member of our race. But there are other facts which this theory leaves out of view, and with which it cannot be reconciled. On the other hand it is claimed that the Augustinian doctrine recognizes all the Scriptural assertions connected with the subject, and reconciles them all. If this be so, it must b3 the doctrine of the Bible. The facts vhich are clearly revealed concerning the death or work of Christ are, —
(1.) That God from eternity gave a people to his Son.
(2.) That the peculiar and infinite love of God to his people is declared to be the motive for the gift of his Son ; and their salva- tion the design of his mission.
564 PART m. Ch. vm. — for whom did christ die?
(3.) That it was as their representative, head, and substitute. He came into tlie world, assumed our nature, fulfilled all righteous- ness, and bore the curse of the law.
(4.) That the salvation of all given to Him by the Father, is thus rendered absolutely certain.
That the Augustinian scheme agrees with these great Scriptural facts, is readily admitted, but it is denied that it accounts for the fact that on the ground of the work of Christ, salvation may be offered to every human being ; and that all who hear and reject the gospel, are justly condemned for their unbelief. That these are Scriptural facts cannot be denied, and if the Augustinian doc- trine does not provide for them, it must be false or defective. There are different grounds on which it is assumed that the Au- gustinian doctrine does not provide for the universal offer of the gospel. One is, the false assumption that Augustinians teach that the satisfaction of Christ was in all respects analogous to the pay- ment of a debt, a satisfaction to commutative or commercial jus- tice. Hence it is inferred that Christ suffered so much for so many ; He paid so much for one soul, and so much for another, and of course He would have been called upon to pay more if more were to have been saved. If this be so, then it is clear that the work of Christ can justify the offer of salvation to those only whose debts He has actually cancelled. To this view of the case it may be remarked, —
1. That this doctrine was never held by any historical church ; and the ascription of it to Augustinians can only be accounted for on the ground of ignorance.
2. It involves the greatest confusion of ideas. It confounds the obligations which arise among men as owners of property, with the obligations of rational creatures to an infinitely holy God. A debtor is one owner, and a creditor is another. Commutative jus- tice requires that they should settle their mutual claims equitably. But God is not one owner and the sinner another. They do not stand in relation to each other as two proprietors. The obligation which binds a debtor to pay a creditor, and the principle which impels a just God to punish sin, are entirely distinct. God is the absolute owner of all things. We own nothing. We cannot sus- tain to Him, in this respect, the relation of a debtor to his creditor. The objection in question, tiierefore, is founded on an entire mistake or misrepresentation of the attribute of justice, to which, according to Augustinians, the satisfaction of Christ is rendered. Because tlie sin of Adam was the ground of the condemnation of his race, does