Page images


These, we believe, are all the passages in which the phrases in question occur, in connexion with the death of Christ. Or, if there are any others, they are to be explained on the same principles. The sources of explanation are chiefly two:-that universal terms are not to be extended beyond the subject in reference to which they are used—and, that 'all,' with special reference to the greater extension of new testament blessings, means all WITHOUT DISTINCTION, and not all WITHOUT EXCEPTION. These canons kept in view and applied, will serve to explain every difficulty which may be supposed to arise from the use of universal terms, in speaking of the subjects of Christ's death.

5. There remains but one other objection, that, namely, which rests on those passages of scripture which seem to imply a possibility of some perishing for whom Christ died.

If such a thing could be shown to be fact, or even proved to be possible, then would the doctrine of a definite atonement be overthrown, and the theory of universality would possess a high degree of proba

bility. But the passages referred to, when closely examined, give support to no such idea. Let us give our attention for a little to these passages.

"Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition: that the scripture might be fulfilled.' Here, it is supposed that one of those who were given to Christ to be


55 John xvii. 12.

redeemed by his blood is said to be lost. The explanation of this passage depends on the view taken of the phrase, 'those that thou gavest me.' If this refers officially to the giving to Christ of certain persons to be his apostles, then there is nothing which impugns our doctrine in what is expressed, namely, that Judas, one of the apostles, had apostatised and fallen from his apostleship. But we apprehend that by those given to Christ, we are to understand the elect of God, the redeemed from among men, who in the context are said to have 'kept his word,' and to have 'believed in him.' To this number, Judas, who was always a hypocrite, never belonged. The particle but (si p) is thus not exceptive but adversative; it does not suppose the son of perdition to be included in the number of those given to Christ, but to be contrasted with such; the language is elliptical, and the ellipsis requires but to be supplied, to render the passage one of the strongest in the bible in our favour:-'those that thou hast given me I have kept, and none of them is lost. But the son of perdition is lost, that the scripture might be fulfilled.' Such is the force of the particle in many other passages, which may serve to illustrate and confirm this explanation:-'No man knoweth the Son, but the Father (si no Пarng, i. e. but the Father knoweth the Son); neither knoweth any man the Father, but the Son,'" (si un ó Tiòs, i. e. but the Son knoweth the Father.) Many widows were in Israel in the days of


56 Matt. xi. 27.

Elias-but unto none of them was Elias sent, save unto Sarepta (ei μn eis Zúgeπтα), a city of Sidon, unto a woman that was a widow.'" That the particle is here adversative, not exceptive, is plain from the circumstance that Sarepta was not in Judea, and of course the widow who abode there was not a widow in Israel; the manner in which God treated this widow, by sending to her his prophet, is contrasted with his treatment of the many widows in Israel, to whom he sent him not. Thus, also, in the passage which immediately follows:-Many lepers were in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet; and none of them was cleansed, saving (in) Naaman the Syrian.' Naaman the Syrian was not a leper in Israel; the force of the passage lies in the implied contrast ;-'none of THEM was cleansed. But NAAMAN THE SYRIAN was cleansed.' Take two other examples of the adversative force of the particle:'And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only (si pǹ) those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads,' i. e. only those men shall they hurt. And there shall in no wise enter into it, any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie; but (ɛi uǹ) they which are written in the Lamb's book of life:' i. e. they shall enter into it." Surely, after these passages are considered, no candid person will insist that Judas, the son of perdition, was in


57 Luke iv. 25, 26.

58 Luke iv. 27.

59 Rev. ix. 4. xxi. 27.

[ocr errors]

cluded among those who were given to Christ to be redeemed by his blood; for, on the same principle might it be maintained, that the Father was a man, that Sarepta was a city of Judea, that Naaman the Syrian was a leper in Israel, that the men who had not the seal of God in their foreheads were grass or trees, and that those who are written in the Lamb's book of life were persons who are defiled, and work abomination, and make a lie. That a mere English reader might be led, by the passage under consideration, to adopt the idea, that those for whom Christ died may possibly perish, would not be wonderful, although the texts in which a parallel phraseology occurs might have prevented even such from error; but that persons conversant with the original language should take such a view of it, is utterly inexcusable, inasmuch as the very opposite is what the original terms import.

'But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.' Similar to this is a passage in another epistle of the same writer, which must be explained on the same principles:-'And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died ?' These texts seem at first sight to be formidable; but they are capable of being satisfactorily explained. It occurs to remark, at the outset, that, if they actually imply that those who are redeemed by the blood of Christ may finally


[blocks in formation]

fall away and perish, then do they directly contradict other passages of scripture, which as expressly teach us the contrary of all this; such as the following:— 'All that the Father hath given me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. This is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing. I give unto them eternal life, and they shall NEVER PERISH, neither shall any pluck them out of my hand.Who shall also CONFIRM you unto the end, that ye may be blameless unto the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.-The Lord is faithful who shall STABLISH you and keep you from evil.-Who are kept by the power of God, through faith unto salvation.' Such as maintain the possibility of any for whom Christ died perishing, will find it difficult to explain these passages in consistency with this opinion; but they are as much bound to reconcile the passages on which they found the sentiment in question with those we have now adduced, as are the advocates of a definite atonement to reconcile the same passages with the sentiment they have espoused. Nay, we greatly mistake if the latter be not a much more easy task than the former.


There are several ways in which these passages may be fully explained. The brother for whom Christ died,' may be taken in its popular sense to denote one who professes or seems to be such, although he may not be so in reality. It is in this

62 John vi. 37, 39. x. 28; 1 Cor. i. 8; 2 Thess. iii. 3; 1 Pet. i. 5.

« PreviousContinue »