The Question, What Is the True Relation Which the Problem as to the Nature of the Atonement Sustains to the Problem as to Its Design, Examined
Having thus presented an accurate and, as I hope, clear statement of the real question in debate, between the representatives of different schools of theology, upon the topic in hand, I now proceed to discuss briefly the true relation which this question as to the design of the Atonement necessarily sustains to the previous and more important question as to its nature. It is supposed by many that there is necessarily such a connection between the two that the views entertained as to the one must, in every case, determine those entertained as to the other. There is indeed a good deal of ground for this opinion, yet, in order that we may know exactly how the matter stands, we must examine in detail the bearing which each separate doctrine as to the mature of the Atonement has upon the question as to its design.
1. It is very obvious that upon the hypothesis that Christ’s work was designed to effect its end simply by exerting a moral influence upon men, it must have been designed for all men indiscriminately, at least for all indifferently, to whom it is presented. The whole effect of the Atonement, according to this view, is moral and subjective. And the question of its success, in every 31 ruprp given case, is determined by the spontaneoi s acquiescence, or the reverse, of the sinner himself.
2. Again, the matter is no less plain from thi» point of view entertained by the advocates of the Governmental Theory as to the nature of Christ’s work. If Christ died only as an example of punishment, if his sufferings were made a governmental expedient by means of which it is rendered consistent with the general interests of the divine government for God to remit the punishment of all those who either elect to believe or are by him sovereignly elected to believe, then it necessarily follows that this work can have no special reference to one man more than another. All that it can do for any it has done for all. It has removed legal obstacles out of the way of all, and hence has indifferently rendered possible the salvation of each.
3. If the view presented in a little work entitled “Gethsemane,” published in England, and republished in Philadelphia early in this century, is accepted as true — that is, if the vicarious work of Christ is conceived of strictly as a commercial transaction — then, of course, the doctrine that the Atonement is limited in the proper sense of that word necessarily follows. If the sufferings of Christ were in exact proportion to the number of his elect and to the amount of heinousness of their sins; if Christ would have suffered less had he expiated the sins of a smaller number, and if he would have needed to suffer more in order to atone for more,* then it is j lain enough that the Atonement is limited as to its very essence, just as in a commercial contract between men the purchasing power of a hundred dollars is limited to one
* Gethseraane, pp. 28, 29. hundred dollars’ worth. It has been very convenient for our opponents to charge this view upon the Reformed Churches. That this is altogether a false representation I have shown above by reference to chapter and section of the testimony of such representatives of Calvinism as Turretin, Witsius, John Owen and William Cunning ham.
4. The entire Lutheran Church agrees with the Reformed as to the nature of the Atonement. They hold that Christ by his active and passive obedience fully satisfied all the demands of law upon those in whose place he acted, and that he purchased for them the operations of the Holy Spirit, and all the fruits thereof;* and yet they hold that Christ died in this sense indiscriminately in behalf of all men. There is no doubt that the great mass of learned and able Lutheran theologians have explicitly held both of these views. This is certainly a practical proof that both sides of their doctrine may be intelligently held as true in the same ;nind at the same time. And yet it is no less plain that the several positions they adopt as to sin, human ability, divine grace, foreknowledge, predestination, redemption, &c., are obviously incapable of being reduced even to the appearance of logical consistency. They teach thai Christ purchased faith and repentance for all for whom he died. If any man repents and believes, they deny his co-operation with grace previous or in order to his regeneration, and they attribute the result solely to the grace of God given for Christ’s sake. If any man does not repent and believe, they deny that Christ has done any less for him, and attribute the result solely to his
* Formula Concordise, Part I., chap, ii., and Part II., chap. ii.
own sin. But the question must be answered, Who makes the difference? If both have from Adam the same absolute inability, and if both have as the purchase of Christ the same grace, what is the differentiating factor in the case? What determines the infidelity of the one and the faith of the other? The Arminian grants to all men sufficient ability to co-operate with grace, and hence consistently makes the free self-determination of the sinner’s own will the seat of difference between the believer and non-believer. The Calvinist, denying the ability to co-operate with grace alike to all men, consistently makes a sovereign discriminating grace the seat of the difference between them. The Lutheran holds that all men are alike impotent; that all men have alike the same grace; that the cause of faith, wherever it exists, is wholly to be attributed to grace, and the cause of unbelief to sin; yet, while there is such difference between faith and unbelief, there is no difference among men either as to sin or grace. But we answer, If it be grace alone that makes one believe, then the other has not the same grace or he also would believe. And if Christ purchased spiritual graces for all those for whom he died, he could net have died for those who fail to receive the grace.
5. The doctrine of the Reformed Church is that there is no limit whatsoever in the Redemption of the Lord Jesus except that which resides in the eternal purpose of God to save thereby the elect and none others. A divine person suffered the penalty due to human sin, and obeyed that law obedience to which was made the condition of man’s well-being. He did this because of his divinity exhaustively and without limit as to in-STATEMENT )F DOCTRINE. 3C9
trinsic sin-expiating and justice-satisfying sufficiency. If the work itself, therefore, be viewed separately from the intention with which it was undertaken, it plainly stands indifferently related to the case of each and every man that ever lived and sinned. It is not a pecuniary solution of debt, which, ipso facto, liberates upon the mere payment of the money. It is a vicarious / penal satisfaction, which can be admitted in any case I, only at the arbitrary discretion of the sovereign; and which may have a redemptive bearing upon the case of none, of few, of many, or of all; and upon the case of one and not of another, and upon that elect case at whatsoever time and upon whatsoever conditions are pre determined by the mutual understanding of the Sovereign and of the voluntary substitute. The relations of the Atonement as impersonal and general or as personal and definite do not spring from considerations of the degree, duration or kind of suffering or acts of vicarious obedience which Christ rendered, but solely from the purpose he had in rendering them.
The Arminian holds consistently that the purpose of Christ was to satisfy divine justice in behalf of all men for the violation of the rule of righteousness embodied in the old Covenant of Works, and so enable God to introduce a new covenant, offering salvation upon the lowered terms of faith and evangelical obedience — conditions to be provided by men themselves with the assistance of that common grace furnished indifferently unto all. This is a perfectly self-consistent scheme. Christ designed to secure the salvation of all men indifferently. It is the free will of each man alone that makes the difference.
Calvinists, on the other hand, believe that an absolute Sovereign, in that eternity which is without beginning, end or succession, foreordains whatsoever comes to pass. They acknowledge that if the decrees of God are eternal, they must be one, single, changeless, all-comprehending intention. They profess to believe that as of his mere good pleasure God has chosen out of the great mass of men, equally guilty, some men to eternal salvation, “so hath he foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed in Christ, &c.”* Redemption must be in order to accomplish the purpose of predestination, because, as a matter of fact, it does precisely accomplish that purpose. On the contrary, a sovereign election of some cannot be in order to accomplish the purpose of the general redemption of all, because, as a matter of fact, it does not at all accomplish it. If, then, redemption be in order to accomplish the purpose of the sovereign election of some, then it is certain that Christ died in order to secure the salvation of the elect, and not in order to make the salvation of all men possible. St. Augustine and all consistent Augustinians, Calvin and all the Reformed Churches, held that REDEMPTION is IN ORDER
TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF ELECTION.
* Westminster Confession, chap, iii., I 6.