The Design or Intended Application of the Atonement: Introductory

Did Christ die with the design of making satisfaction to divine justice in behalf of all men, indiscriminately, or in behalf of his elect seed personally and definitely?

We consider this a question whose interest is less essential and intrinsic than derived from its relation to principles which are intrinsically important, and fundamental to the system of faith known as evangelical. I claim to have established, on its own independent evidence, the great question concerning the Nature of the Atonement, which is the real interest for the sake of which this book is written. There, and not under the present head, lie the principles which are the true cause of debate between us and our present opponents. I take ip this question as to the design and personal reference of the atoning work of Christ only as it is subsidiary to the former, and for the purpose chiefly of analyzing the question and defining its real elements, and of showing the necessary relations which they sustain to the other elements of the system of faith; as, for instance, to the nature of the Atonement, and to the sovereignty of the divine decrees.

It is evident that the opinion that the Atonement is general and indefinite must be held and defended by the Calvinistic Universalist under conditions very different from those under which it is comprehended and vindicated by the far more consistent Arminians. I propose, therefore, in order to clear the way for the accurate understanding of the elements involved in this question in all their bearings, to consider for a moment the design of the Atonement; (a) as it is involved in our controversy with the Arminians; and (6) as it is involved in our controversies with the abettors of the various modifications of Calvinism.

1. As far, then, as this question is involved in the Arminian controversy, we are ready to admit the reality of the great importance which they attribute to it. If they could prove that the love which prompted God to give his Son to die, as a sin-oifering, on the cross, hnd for its objects all men indiscriminately, and that Christ actually sacrificed his life with the purpose of saving all indifferently on the condition of faith, then it appears that their inference is irresistible that the central principle of Arminianism is true; that is, the principle which makes the destiny of the individual to depend upon his own use of divine grace, and not upon the sovereign good pleasure of God. It is at this point, very wisely as we think, the Arminian erects his main citadel. We freely admit that just here the advocates of that system are able to present a greater number and variety of texts which appear tt favour the distinguishing principles of their system than they are able to gather in vindication of any other of their main positions. On the topics of divine decrees, of unconditional election of certain persons to faith, and through faith to eternal salvation, and of efficacious as distinguished from common grace, the Scriptures are so obviously as well as overwhelmingly Calvinistic, that our opponents are reduced to the defensive, and are able to do little else than appeal to reason and human conceptions of justice, and attempt in detail to show that the passages of Scripture to which we appeal may possibly mean something less than they appear to say. Thus along a greater portion of his line of defences the necessary tactics of the Arminian are as negative, as purely defensive, and as much confined to a skirmish in detail, as is the enforced policy of the Socinian along his line when the Scriptures are appealed to as the medium of proof; while the Calvinist carries on an aggressive war upon both. At this point, however, supposing this to be the weakest point of the Calvinistic defences, with their unwonted accession of scriptural texts, they turn the tables upon us, and force us to the defence of showing, in our turn, why the phrases “all” or “world” in their several proof-texts may not or cannot be intended by the Holy Spirit to include all and every man indiscriminately. Then gathering together their scriptural evidence for the general and indefinite design of the Atonement, they proceed with great appearance of force to argue inferentially against the out-flanked Calvinistic positions of unconditional election and efficacious grace. In this manner Richard Watson in effect puts the strain of his entire argument upon this one position. He starts from the demonstration of the indefinite universality of the Atonement, and builds up subsequently from that foundation; thus practically resting the weight of his whole system upon it. We, on the other hand, claim that it is one evidence of the superior biblical character of our system that we are able to bring positive and direct proof in evidence of every doctrine separately, without resting the weight of one upon its logical bearings on others. The true doctrine as to the design of Christ in dying is perfectly consistent with the true doctrines as to election and grace, and every other theory as to the former will be found to be logically inconsistent with the true doctrine as to the latter; and these consistent doctrines must, in virtue of that very consistency, yield mutual support to one another. Nevertheless, the doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ, both as to its nature and design, is a perfect whole in itself, and is abundantly established by direct scriptural evidence, independent of any relation it may sustain to any other doctrine. At present, however, it is no part of

the task I have assumed to show the truth of the Calvinistic or the falsity of the Arminian systems, except in so far as the fate of these systems may be involved in the establishment of the true doctrine as to the nature and design of the Atonement. I have the unquestionable right, as far as the present discussion is concerned, to assume the truth of those great scriptural principles which are characteristic of the Calvinistic system as a whole.

“2. This will necessarily confine the discussion to that form which the question assumes when brought in debate between those who hold that Christ died to secure the salvation of the elect personally, and those who, while maintaining tnal the design of his death was general and impersonal, nevertheless more or less fully adhere to the other characteristic positions of Calvinism. These last again fall into two classes, whose distinguishing characteristics materially modify their relations to us in the matter at present in hand, (a.) Those, who like Amyraldus of Saumur, in the sixteenth century, and Wardlaw,* Balmer, and John Brown, James Richardsf of Auburn Theological Seminary, of the age just past, hold the true doctrine as to the nature of the Atonement with great accuracy, and whose divergence from the theology of the Reformed Churches is confined to the single point of the pretended general reference of the Atonement. (6.) Those, who like Jenkyn, Taylor, Fiske, and others, in various degrees, yet materially, depart from the true faith as to the nature of the Atonement, and whose views as to its indefinite universality is a necessary corollary of their views as to its nature.

As far as the former of these parties is concerned, I think that their exceptional position as to the design or intended application of the Atonement is to be referred to a hardly conscious dissatisfaction with the peculiarities of Calvinism, giving rise to these first movements of an undeveloped and hence unconscious Arminianism; or, as I hope is true in a majority of cases, and as can be shown to be certainly true in some of them, their divergence -m this point is to be referred solely to an absence of ciear-

* “Systematic Theology,” by Kalph Ward! aw, D.D., vol. ii., chaptors xxiii.-xxvi.

f” Lectures on Mental Phi psophy and Theology,” by James Richards, D.D., Lecture xiii.

X>J’2 DESIGN OF THE ATONEMENT.

ness of thought, and consequent inaccuracy ir the use of terms. I believe it ought to be a recognized principle that when it is certain that men intelligently and honestly agree in maintaining all other peculiarities of Calvinism, and especially accurate views as to the nature of the Atonement, any question as to its design which can possibly arise among such men must bo regarded and should be treated as a mere dispute of words. The use of illegitimate language here may mark a tendency, but it cannot, under the conditions I suppose, mark an heretical opinion, for at this point and under such conditions there is no room for a possible thinkable peculiarity to come in. This, however, does not justify carelessness in defining either in thought or words our own position nor indifference to the confusion of others. This consideration should all the more enforce upon us the necessity of clear views, of exact use of language and of technical definitions upon a central point from which so many roads diverge, which, springing up in apparently unessential discriminations, instantly lead to irreconcilable conclusions.

As to the loiter of the two species of Calvinistic Universalists, with whom our argument in the preceding part of this volume has been chiefly concerned, we charge that their position as to the design of Christ in dying is only a necessary corollary, dependent upon and subordinate to their doctrine as to the nature of his work. The doctrine as to the design of the Atonement is as necessarily and as essentially subordinate to the doctrine as to its nature, with them as it is with us. The attempt which is often made to exalt the question as to its design into a distinct and independent hoad of doctrine, the various solutions of which distinguish o.ie school of Calvinistic theologians from another, indubitably proves the want either of candour or of competent knowlege as to the true state of the controversy. We without doubt intend to hold all those who in any way pervert or obscure the true doctrine as to the nature of Christ’s redeeming work to the real point at issue. This involves the very essence of salvation by Christ. All men can see that the differences which divide us here are of a vital interest. We insist, moreover, that honour requires that each champion shall define the cause in which he appears both exactly and openly. None can be allowed to bring in surreptitiously a defective view as to the nature of the Atonement, under pretence that he is bringing in only an unimportant distinction as to its general reference. At present we have nothing to do with the evidence establishing the true doctrine as to its nature. We assume that the strict theory of Satisfaction, as taught in the symbols of the Lutheran and Reformed Churches, has been proved in the preceding portion of this volume to be the doctrine taught in Scripture.

What I have to say on the present subject of the design of the Atonement will be grouped under the following heads: (1.) The exact statement of the real question in debate, excluding all irrelevant issues, and sharply defining the only point about which men can differ on this subject. (2.) A discussion of the true relation which the question as to the design of the Atonemer.t necessarily sustains to the previous and more important question as to its nature. (3.) A brief sketch in outline of the history of opinion on this subject, especially the different forms the controversy has assumed among Calvinists. (4.) An answer to the questions. What were the personal views of Calvin? What is Calvinism? What is the standard of that system of faith held by common consent by the Reformed Churches? and especially, What doctrine is solemnly professed by all those who adopt the Westminster Confession, exanimo, as the confession of their faith? (5.) An exhibition of the scriptural evidence relied upon to establish the doctrine of the Reformed CLurches as to the personal and definite design of the Atonement. (6.) An examination and solution of the several arguments presented by the advocates of general and indefinite redemption as refu tations of our doctrine and as evidences establishing the truth of theirs.